Clinical application of a simple questionnaire for the differentiation of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AbstractBackground: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are highly prevalent chronic diseases characterized by airflow limitation. Both diseases have a distinct pathogenesis and require unique treatment approaches. Due to some common characteristic traits, asthma and COPD are often lumped together in clinical practice. We sought to develop a simple questionnaire for the distinction of asthma and COPD.Methods: Clinical discriminants of asthma and COPD were retrospectively identified by multiple logistic regression using files from 547 consecutive adult patients presenting to a pulmonary specialist practice with a diagnosis of asthma or COPD. With these features, we generated a simple quantitative questionnaire supporting a diagnosis of COPD with high scores and asthma with low scores (range 0–15 points). Questionnaire results were compared with physician's diagnosis based on GINA and GOLD guidelines including skin tests, spirometry and reversibility data.Results: 210 patients had COPD and 337 had asthma. Age of onset, smoking history, atopy status, and cough quality were significantly associated with a diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Questionnaire scores for COPD patients were higher than those for asthmatics (mean score 10.5±0.18 vs. 4±0.12, P<0.0001). Receiver operational characteristics (ROC) analysis revealed a cutoff score of 7 with the highest discriminant power (87.6% sensitivity, 87.2% specificity for COPD, 87.4% correctly classified, area under the ROC curve: 0.954). The overlap between asthma and COPD (score 6–8) comprised about 20% of the total population, these patients included a higher proportion of COPD patients with atopy, and smoking asthmatics.Conclusions: In patients with obstructive airway diseases, a simple questionnaire can support the differentiation of asthma and COPD in everyday clinical practice. Further prospective trials are necessary to confirm these initial observations

The lung function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol via Respimat® is superior to that of twice-daily salmeterol and fluticasone propionate via Accuhaler® (ENERGITO® study)

Background: Tiotropium + olodaterol has demonstrated improvements beyond lung function benefits in a large Phase III clinical program as a once-daily maintenance treatment for COPD and may be a potential option for the initiation of maintenance treatment in COPD. Despite guideline recommendations that combined long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids should only be used in individuals at high risk of exacerbation, there is substantial use in individuals at lower risk. This raises the question of the comparative effectiveness of this combination as maintenance treatment in this group compared to other combination regimens. Objective: The study aimed to assess the effect on lung function of once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol versus twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate in all participants with Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2 or 3 (moderate to severe) COPD. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-treatment, complete crossover study in which participants received once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol (5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g) via Respimat (R) and twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate (50/500 mu g and 50/250 mu g) via Accuhaler (R) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 hour to 12 hours (AUC(0-12)) relative to the baseline after 6 weeks. Results: Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC(0-12) compared to salmeterol + fluticasone propionate (improvements from baseline were 317 mL and 295 mL with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g, and 188 mL and 192 mL with salmeterol + fluticasone propionate 50/500 mu g and 50/250 mu g, respectively). Tiotropium + olodaterol was superior to salmeterol + fluticasone propionate in lung function secondary end points, including FEV1 area under the curve from 0 hour to 24 hours (AUC(0-24)). Conclusion: Once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD provided superior lung function improvements to twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate. Dual bronchodilation can be considered to optimize lung function in individuals requiring maintenance treatment for COPD

The 24-h lung-function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: This study investigated the effects on 24-h lung function and lung volume of a once-daily fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and the long-acting beta(2)-agonist olodaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial with an incomplete crossover design. Patients received four of the following six treatment options for 6 weeks each: placebo, olodaterol 5 mu g, tiotropium 2.5 mu g, tiotropium 5 mu g, tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 mu g and tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 5/5 mu g, all delivered via the Respimat (R) inhaler. The primary end point was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)) response after 6 weeks of treatment; key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC from 0 to 12 h and AUC from 12 to 24 h, and further end points included lung-volume parameters measured using body plethysmography (subset of patients), measures of peak and trough FEV1, and incidence of adverse events. Results: A significant improvement in FEV1 AUC(0-24) response was observed with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g versus placebo and monotherapies after 6 weeks of treatment; mean response with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g versus placebo was 0.280 L (p < 0.0001). Differences to monotherapies with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g were 0.115 L versus olodaterol 5 mu g, 0.127 L versus tiotropium 2.5 mu g and 0.110 L versus tiotropium 5 mu g (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Secondary end points supported these data. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in lung function over 24 h with an FDC of tiotropium + olodaterol over tiotropium or olodaterol alone, with no observed difference in tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01559116

Clinical trial design in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current perspectives and considerations with regard to blinding of tiotropium

Abstract Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating a pharmacological agent, as they minimise any potential bias. However, it is not always possible to perform double-blind trials, particularly for medications delivered via specific devices, e.g. inhalers. In such cases, open-label studies can be employed instead. Methods used to minimise any potential bias introduced by open-label study design include randomisation, crossover study design, and objective measurements of primary efficacy and safety variables. Concise reviews analysing the effect of blinding procedures of comparator drugs on outcomes in respiratory trials are limited. Here, we compare data from different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials with once-daily indacaterol versus a blinded or non-blinded comparator. The clinical trial programme for indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting β2-agonist, used tiotropium as a comparator either in an open-label or blinded fashion. Data from these studies showed that the effects of tiotropium were consistent for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, an objective measure, across blinded and non-blinded studies. The data were consistent with previous studies of double-blind tiotropium, suggesting that the open-label use of tiotropium did not introduce treatment bias. The effect of tiotropium on subjective measures (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; transition dyspnoea index) varied slightly across blinded and non-blinded studies, indicating that minimal bias was introduced by using open-label tiotropium. Importantly, the studies used randomised, open-label tiotropium patients to treatment allocation, a method shown to minimise bias to a greater degree than blinding. In conclusion, it is important when reporting a clinical trial to be transparent about who was blinded and how the blinding was performed; if the design is open-label, additional efforts must be made to minimise risk of bias. If these recommendations are followed, and the data are considered in the full knowledge of any potential sources of bias, results with tiotropium suggest that data from open-label studies can provide valuable and credible evidence of the effects of therapy

Clinical trial design in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current perspectives and considerations with regard to blinding of tiotropium

Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating a pharmacological agent, as they minimise any potential bias. However, it is not always possible to perform double-blind trials, particularly for medications delivered via specific devices, e.g. inhalers. In such cases, open-label studies can be employed instead. Methods used to minimise any potential bias introduced by open-label study design include randomisation, crossover study design, and objective measurements of primary efficacy and safety variables. Concise reviews analysing the effect of blinding procedures of comparator drugs on outcomes in respiratory trials are limited. Here, we compare data from different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials with once-daily indacaterol versus a blinded or non-blinded comparator. The clinical trial programme for indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting β2-agonist, used tiotropium as a comparator either in an open-label or blinded fashion. Data from these studies showed that the effects of tiotropium were consistent for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, an objective measure, across blinded and non-blinded studies. The data were consistent with previous studies of double-blind tiotropium, suggesting that the open-label use of tiotropium did not introduce treatment bias. The effect of tiotropium on subjective measures (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; transition dyspnoea index) varied slightly across blinded and non-blinded studies, indicating that minimal bias was introduced by using open-label tiotropium. Importantly, the studies used randomised, open-label tiotropium patients to treatment allocation, a method shown to minimise bias to a greater degree than blinding. In conclusion, it is important when reporting a clinical trial to be transparent about who was blinded and how the blinding was performed; if the design is open-label, additional efforts must be made to minimise risk of bias. If these recommendations are followed, and the data are considered in the full knowledge of any potential sources of bias, results with tiotropium suggest that data from open-label studies can provide valuable and credible evidence of the effects of therapy

Tiotropium Respimat® in asthma: a double-blind, randomised, dose-ranging study in adult patients with moderate asthma

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium, a once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator, when administered via Respimat® SoftMist™ inhaler (tiotropium Respimat®) significantly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations and improves lung function in patients with severe persistent asthma that is not fully controlled despite using inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β(2)-agonists. To further explore the dose–response curve in asthma, we investigated the efficacy and safety of three different doses of tiotropium Respimat® as add-on to ICS in symptomatic patients with moderate persistent asthma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study, patients were randomised to tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg or 1.25 μg or placebo Respimat®, once daily in the evening. Each treatment was administered for 4 weeks, without washout between treatment periods. Eligibility criteria included ≥60% and ≤90% of predicted normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire mean score of ≥1.5. Patients were required to continue maintenance treatment with stable medium-dose ICS for at least 4 weeks prior to and during the treatment period. Long-acting β(2)-agonists were not permitted during the treatment phase. The primary efficacy end point was peak FEV(1) measured within 3 hours after dosing (peak FEV(1(0-3h))) at the end of each 4-week period, analysed as a response (change from study baseline). RESULTS: In total, 149 patients were randomised and 141 completed the study. Statistically significant improvements in peak FEV(1(0-3h)) response were observed with each tiotropium Respimat® dose versus placebo (all P < 0.0001). The largest difference from placebo was with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (188 mL). Trough FEV(1) and FEV(1) area under the curve (AUC)((0-3h)) responses were greater with each tiotropium Respimat® dose than with placebo (all P < 0.0001), and both were greatest with 5 μg. Peak forced vital capacity (FVC)((0-3h)), trough FVC and FVC AUC((0-3h)) responses, versus placebo, were greatest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0012 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between placebo and all tiotropium Respimat® groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat® add-on to medium-dose ICS improves lung function in symptomatic patients with moderate asthma. Overall, improvements were largest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01233284

Study design considerations in a large COPD trial comparing effects of tiotropium with salmeterol on exacerbations

Currently available long-acting inhaled bronchodilators (tiotropium, salmeterol, formoterol) have demonstrated beneficial effects on exacerbations in placebo-controlled trials. However, there have been no direct comparisons of these drugs with exacerbations as the primary outcome and consequently COPD treatment guidelines do not indicate a preference for either bronchodilator. Therefore, an international, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group clinical trial has been designed to investigate the comparative efficacy of 2 long-acting bronchodilators tiotropium 18 μg daily and salmeterol 50 μg bid on exacerbations. The trial will include at least 6800 randomized patients with diagnosis of COPD, ≥ 10 pack-year history of smoking, post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤ 70% predicted, and a history of exacerbations in the previous year. The primary endpoint is time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary endpoints include number of exacerbations and time to premature discontinuation of trial medication. The trial has been designed to address several of the challenges in studying exacerbations in a controlled trial by a symptom and event-based definition of exacerbations, frequent follow-up contacts, selection of time to first event as the primary endpoint and using exposure adjusted analysis when examining number of events. Other challenges in designing exacerbation trials such as differential discontinuation and follow-up of discontinued patients are discussed

Pulmonary therapy podcast-COVID-19: Research and real-world experiences from the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board have prepared a podcast describing their experiences over the past year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Editorial Board describe how COVID-19 impacted their research and how the initial clinical response changed over the course of the year in terms of treatment, personal protective equipment (PPE), and policy changes. The podcast and transcript can be viewed below the abstract of the online version of the manuscript. Alternatively, the podcast and transcript can be downloaded here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1440229

INTREPID:single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice

INTRODUCTION: Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care. METHODS: INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: 3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV(1) was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26–73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT

A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study

Abstract Background Two once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) – tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium. Methods In this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily or tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: –50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment. Results 657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: –32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV1 at all time points from 0–4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV1 area under the curve from 0–4 h (AUC0–4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%). Conclusion In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 μg or tiotropium 18 μg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT0161332