Monetary Policy, Regulation and Volatile Markets

Turmoil in financial markets causes reflection. Is monetary policy conducted in the most efficient way? Are regulatory and supervisory arrangements adequate when market volatility increases and financial institutions come under stress? In the present SUERF Study, we have collected the reflections by an outstanding group of top officials, researchers and observers. The editors are proud to be able to present their joint insights to SUERF readers. The papers were presented at the 27th SUERF Colloquium in Munich in June 2008: New trends in asset management: Exploring the implications.Financial markets, volatility, regulatory and supervisory arrangements, LATW, bubbles, monetary policy, asset prices, interest rate policy, LTCM, Basel II, MiFID, subprime, CDOs

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research? SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines

Comparison of resource use by COPD patients on inhaled therapies with long-acting bronchodilators: a database study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this analysis was to compare health care costs and utilization among COPD patients who had long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) OR long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA); LABA AND LAMA; or LABA, LAMA, AND inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) prescription claims.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a 12 month pre-post, retrospective analysis using COPD patients in a national administrative insurance database. Propensity score and exact matching were used to match patients 1:1:1 between the LABA or LAMA (formoterol, salmeterol, or tiotropium), LABA and LAMA (tiotropium/formoterol or tiotropium/salmeterol), and LABA, LAMA and ICS (bronchodilators plus steroid) groups. Post-period comparisons were evaluated with analysis of covariance. Costs were evaluated from a commercial payer perspective.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 523 patients were matched using 29 pre-period variables (e.g., demographics, medication exposure). Post-match assessments indicated balance among the cohorts. COPD-related costs differed among groups (LABA or LAMA $2,051 SE = 91; LABA and LAMA$2,823 SE = 62; LABA, LAMA and ICS $3,546 SE = 89; all p < .0001) with the differences driven by study medication costs. However, non-study COPD medication costs were higher for the LABA or LAMA therapy group ($911 SE = 91) compared to the LABA and LAMA therapy group ($668 SE = 58; p = 0.0238) and non-study respiratory medications were approximately$100 greater for the LABA or LAMA therapy group relative to both LABA and LAMA (p = .0018) and LABA, LAMA, and ICS (p = .0071) therapy groups. While there was no observed difference in outpatient costs, there was a slightly higher number of outpatient visits per patient in the LABA and LAMA (25.5 SE = 0.9, p = 0.0070) relative to the LABA or LAMA therapy group (22.3 SE = 0.8) and higher utilization (89.7% of patients) with COPD visits in the LABA and LAMA therapy group relative to both the LABA or LAMA (73.8%; p < .0001) and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapy groups (85.3; p = 0.0305).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Significant cost differences driven mainly by pharmaceuticals were observed among LABA or LAMA, LABA and LAMA and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapies. A COPD-related cost offset was observed from single bronchodilator to two bronchodilators. Addition of an ICS with two bronchodilators resulted in higher treatment costs without reduction in other COPD-related costs compared with two bronchodilators.</p

Effect of statins on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Much controversy persists regarding the place of statins in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the clinical efficacy of statin therapy in COPD. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and Pubmed for relevant clinical studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of statins to placebo in COPD populations were included. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was determined using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Ten trials with a total of 1471 patients were included. Statin treatment was associated with a larger improvement in exercise capacity, lung function, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score compared with placebo, but there were no statistically significant differences in inflammatory markers, all-cause mortality, and safety outcomes; however, subgroup analysis indicated that statins improved clinical outcomes in the subjects from trials enrolling patients with overt cardiovascular disease, elevated baseline C-reactive protein, or high level of cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this systematic review suggest a role for statins in COPD patients with coexisting cardiovascular disease, evidence of increased systemic inflammation, or hyperlipidemia, in terms of improving exercise tolerance and pulmonary function. These findings need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials specifically designed to test this hypothesis and identify appropriate patients for statin use

Non-emphysematous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with diabetes mellitus

Abstract Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been classically divided into blue bloaters and pink puffers. The utility of these clinical subtypes is unclear. However, the broader distinction between airway-predominant and emphysema-predominant COPD may be clinically relevant. The objective was to define clinical features of emphysema-predominant and non-emphysematous COPD patients. Methods Current and former smokers from the Genetic Epidemiology of COPD Study (COPDGene) had chest computed tomography (CT) scans with quantitative image analysis. Emphysema-predominant COPD was defined by low attenuation area at -950 Hounsfield Units (LAA-950) ≥10%. Non-emphysematous COPD was defined by airflow obstruction with minimal to no emphysema (LAA-950 < 5%). Results Out of 4197 COPD subjects, 1687 were classified as emphysema-predominant and 1817 as non-emphysematous; 693 had LAA-950 between 5–10% and were not categorized. Subjects with emphysema-predominant COPD were older (65.6 vs 60.6 years, p < 0.0001) with more severe COPD based on airflow obstruction (FEV1 44.5 vs 68.4%, p < 0.0001), greater exercise limitation (6-minute walk distance 1138 vs 1331 ft, p < 0.0001) and reduced quality of life (St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score 43 vs 31, p < 0.0001). Self-reported diabetes was more frequent in non-emphysematous COPD (OR 2.13, p < 0.001), which was also confirmed using a strict definition of diabetes based on medication use. The association between diabetes and non-emphysematous COPD was replicated in the ECLIPSE study. Conclusions Non-emphysematous COPD, defined by airflow obstruction with a paucity of emphysema on chest CT scan, is associated with an increased risk of diabetes. COPD patients without emphysema may warrant closer monitoring for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia and vice versa. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: COPDGene NCT00608764 , ECLIPSE NCT00292552 .http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109496/1/12890_2014_Article_599.pd

Genetic Association and Risk Scores in a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Meta-analysis of 16,707 Subjects

The heritability of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be fully explained by recognized genetic risk factors identified as achieving genome-wide significance. In addition, the combined contribution of genetic variation to COPD risk has not been fully explored. We sought to determine: (1) whether studies of variants from previous studies of COPD or lung function in a larger sample could identify additional associated variants, particularly for severe COPD; and (2) the impact of genetic risk scores on COPD. We genotyped 3,346 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 2,588 cases (1,803 severe COPD) and 1,782 control subjects from four cohorts, and performed association testing with COPD, combining these results with existing genotyping data from 6,633 cases (3,497 severe COPD) and 5,704 control subjects. In addition, we developed genetic risk scores from SNPs associated with lung function and COPD and tested their discriminatory power for COPD-related measures. We identified significant associations between SNPs near PPIC (P = 1.28 X 10-8) and PPP4R4/SERPINA1 (P = 1.0131028) and severe COPD; the latter association may be driven by recognized variants in SERPINA1. Genetic risk scores based on SNPs previously associated with COPD and lung function had a modest ability to discriminate COPD (area under the curve, ~0.6), and accounted for a mean 0.9–1.9% lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted for each additional risk allele. In a large genetic association analysis, we identified associations with severe COPD near PPIC and SERPINA1. A risk score based on combining genetic variants had modest, but significant, effects on risk of COPD and lung function

Metabolic Effects Associated with ICS in Patients with COPD and Comorbid Type 2 Diabetes: A Historical Matched Cohort Study

Background Management guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are prescribed to patients with the most severe symptoms. However, these guidelines have not been widely implemented by physicians, leading to widespread use of ICS in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Of particular concern is the potential risk of worsening diabetic control associated with ICS use. Here we investigate whether ICS therapy in patients with COPD and comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a negative impact on diabetic control, and whether these negative effects are dose-dependent. Methods and Findings This was a historical matched cohort study utilising primary care medical record data from two large UK databases. We selected patients aged >= 40 years with COPD and T2DM, prescribed ICS (n = 1360) or non-ICS therapy (n = 2642) between 2008 and 2012. The primary endpoint was change in HbA(1c) between the baseline and outcome periods. After 1:1 matching, each cohort consisted of 682 patients. Over the 12-18-month outcome period, patients prescribed ICS had significantly greater increases in HbA1c values compared with those prescribed non-ICS therapies; adjusted difference 0.16% (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.05-0.27%) in all COPD patients, and 0.25% (95% Cl: 0.10-0.40%) in mild-to-moderate COPD patients. Patients in the ICS cohort also had significantly more diabetes-related general practice visits per year and received more frequent glucose strip prescriptions, compared with those prescribed non-ICS therapies. Patients prescribed higher cumulative doses of ICS (> 250 mg) had greater odds of increased HbA(1c) and/or receiving additional antidiabetic medication, and increased odds of being above the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) target for HbA1c levels, compared with those prescribed lower cumulative doses ( Conclusion For patients with COPD and comorbid T2DM, ICS therapy may have a negative impact on diabetes control. Patients prescribed higher cumulative doses of ICS may be at greater risk of diabetes progression

Management and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations: a state of the art review

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are important events in the natural history of this prevalent and devastating condition. This review provides a concise, state of the art summary on prevention and management of exacerbations. Considerable new data underpins evidence in support of many preventative interventions, pharmacological and non-pharmacological, that are now available. Challenges remain in developing new approaches, and delivering those that already exist to the right patient at the right time. Management of an exacerbation remains stepwise according to clinical severity, but there is now additional focus on addressing comorbidities and taking the opportunity at acute events to optimise preventative strategies for the future. Ultimately, exacerbations are heterogeneous events in a heterogeneous disease, and an individualised approach is paramount