Gender does not influence the response to the combination of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate in COPD

AbstractThe prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in women is increasing worldwide. Women may have greater susceptibility to COPD progression than men, and differences in efficacy and safety of respiratory medications by gender are largely unexplored. We aimed to determine whether the response to treatment in women with COPD differed from men in a large, 1-year double-blind trial (‘TRISTAN’). In a sensitivity analysis, we compared 539 male and 180 female COPD patients, who were randomized to the salmeterol/fluticasone combination 50/500mcg bid or placebo for 12 months. Combination therapy improved pre-treatment FEV1 significantly more than placebo in women by 152ml (95% confidence interval 95–208) and in men by 127ml (94–159). Similarly, a reduction in COPD exacerbation rates of 31% in women (9–48%) and of 23% in men (8–35%) was observed. Combination therapy reduced COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids by 36% in women and by 41% in men. Finally, combination treatment produced a better improvement in health status than placebo with a decrease in the SGRQ scores in women by −2.3 (−4.6 – 0.1) and in men by −2.1 (−3.5 to −0.8). No gender interaction was found for any outcome. Treatments were well tolerated with no difference in the frequency of adverse events in women and men. In this trial, therapy with the salmeterol/fluticasone combination produced significant improvements compared to placebo on all main endpoints and the magnitude of these improvements was similar for both men and women

Efficacy and safety of AZD1981, a CRTH2 receptor antagonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD

SummaryObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the selective CRTh2 (DP2) receptor antagonist AZD1981 compared with placebo in patients with moderate to severe COPD.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase IIa study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00690482) patients with moderate to severe COPD received either AZD1981 1000 mg twice daily or matching placebo for 4 weeks. Inhaled terbutaline was used as-needed as reliever medication throughout. The co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to end of treatment in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] and the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). Additional endpoints included other lung function measures, 6-min walk test (6-MWT), COPD symptom score, reliever medication use and tolerability.Results118 patients were randomised to treatment (AZD1981 n = 61; placebo n = 57); 83% of patients were male and the mean age was 63 years (range 43–83). There were no significant differences in the mean difference in change from baseline to end of treatment between AZD1981 and placebo for the co-primary endpoints of pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (AZD1981–placebo: −0.015, 95% CI: −0.10 to 0.070; p = 0.72) and CCQ total score (difference: 0.042, 95% CI: −0.21 to 0.30; p = 0.75). Similarly, no differences were observed between treatments for the other outcomes of lung function, COPD symptom score, 6-MWT, BODE index, and use of reliever medication. AZD1981 was well tolerated.ConclusionThere was no beneficial clinical effect of AZD1981, at a dose of 1000 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, in patients with moderate to severe COPD. AZD1981 was well tolerated and no safety concerns were identified

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta -agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Review).

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear

Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro. MAIN RESULTS: We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings

Long-term survival for COPD patients receiving noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure

Implementation of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as an add-on treatment has been routinely used in a non-intensive care setting since 2004 for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute hypercapnic respiratory failure at a university hospital in Denmark. Although randomized controlled trials show lowered mortality rates in highly selected patients with acute exacerbation and respiratory failure, there are only few reports on long-term survival after receiving NIV. We present long-term all-cause mortality data from patients receiving NIV for the first time. METHOD: Data from medical records were retrospectively retrieved from all patients receiving NIV for the first time after being admitted acutely to an acute medical ward and further transfer to a respiratory ward with respiratory failure and a diagnosis of COPD in the period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007; patients were followed until January 2012. Demographic data collected included age, sex, diagnoses at discharge, and, when present, FEV(1); a “not-to-intubate” order was also registered when listed. RESULTS: In total, 253 patients (143 female, 110 male) received NIV for the first time. The median age was 72 years (range 46–91 years). The 30-day mortality rate was 29.3%. The 5-year survival rate was 23.7%. Women showed a trend towards better survival than men (25.7% vs 19.2%, P = 0.25), and the trend was even more pronounced for patients with COPD. CONCLUSION: The mortality rate of patients receiving NIV is high, as expected in a real-life setting, but with a 5-year survival rate of 23.7% with a trend towards more female than male long-term survivors

Observational studies assessing the pharmacological treatment of obstructive lung disease : strengths, challenges and considerations for study design

Acknowledgements: Editorial support under the direction of the authors was provided by Richard Knight, CMC Connect, McCann Health Medical Communications, and funded by AstraZeneca in accordance with Good Publication Practice guidelines. The first draft of the manuscript was written in three sections by J. Vestbo, C. Janson and D. Price. Editorial support specifically for D. Price was provided by Antony Hardjojo of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore. J. Vestbo is supported by the NIHR Manchester BRC.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol in severe COPD patients with history of exacerbations

The FORWARD study is a randomised, double-blind trial that compares the efficacy and safety of 48 weeks treatment with extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate (BDP/FOR), 100/6 μg pMDI, 2 inhalations BID, vs. FOR 12 μg pMDI, 1 inhalation BID, in severe COPD patients with a history of exacerbations. Co-primary endpoints were exacerbation rate over 48 weeks and pre-dose morning FEV1 at 12 weeks. The ITT population included 1186 patients (69% males, mean age 64 years) with severe airflow limitation (mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 42% predicted). Salbutamol as rescue therapy, theophylline and tiotropium (if stable regimen prior to screening) were allowed. Compared to FOR, BDP/FOR: (1) reduced the exacerbation rate (rate ratio: 0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.62–0.84], p < 0.001); (2) improved pre-dose morning FEV1 (mean difference: 0.069 L [0.043–0.095] p < 0.001); (3) prolonged the time to first exacerbation; (4) improved the SGRQ total score. The percentage of patients with adverse events was similar (52.1% with BDP/FOR and 49.2% with FOR). Pneumonia incidence was low, slightly higher with BDP/FOR (3.8%) than with FOR (1.8%). No difference for laboratory values, ECG or vital signs. Extrafine BDP/FOR significantly reduces the exacerbation rate and improves lung function of patients with severe COPD and history of exacerbations as compared to FOR alone