Clinical Implications of Peak Inspiratory Flow in COPD: Post Hoc Analyses of the TRONARTO Study.

Background: In patients with COPD, inhalation ability should be assessed when considering inhaler choice. To evaluate whether the soft mist inhaler (SMI) is suitable for COPD patients irrespective of inhalation ability, the TRONARTO study investigated the efficacy of dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy delivered via the Respimat® SMI on lung function in patients with COPD stratified by inhalation ability. Tiotropium/olodaterol delivered via the SMI was effective both in patients with peak inspiratory flow (PIF) <60 L/min and PIF ≥60 L/min, measured against medium-low resistance. Methods: This congress compilation summarizes post hoc analyses from the TRONARTO study presented at the annual American Thoracic Society 2022 and European Respiratory Society 2022 meetings. These analyses evaluated PIF in over 200 patients, with PIF measurements taken daily at home for 4 weeks, and in the clinic at baseline, Weeks 2 and 4. Results: Overall, 57.9% of patients had a PIF range (difference between lowest and highest PIF measurements) <20 L/min (12.4% of patients had PIF range <10 L/min). At-home PIF range decreased over the study period, suggesting that inhaler training/repeated PIF measurements may help to make patients' inspiratory effort more consistent. Some patient characteristics correlated with lower PIF (female gender, shorter stature, more severe disease, worse airflow obstruction) and lower PIF range (more severe disease). PIF measurements differed between medium-low and high-resistance settings, highlighting the importance of measuring PIF at the resistance of a patient's inhaler. PIF correlated poorly with spirometry measurements. Conclusion: As indicated in COPD management guidelines, choice of inhaler is essential to optimize pharmacologic therapies for COPD. Poor inspiratory ability should be viewed as a treatable trait that can help to inform inhaler choice. Inhaler training and consideration of PIF (if patients use a dry powder inhaler) can reduce patient-to-inhaler mismatch, with potential consequences for health status and exacerbation risk.

Inhaled Corticosteroid Use Among COPD Patients in Primary Care in Spain.

PURPOSE: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outside the current recommendations. Our aim was to describe ICS use in COPD patients and to identify factors associated with ICS use among COPD patients treated within primary care in Spain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional and multicenter study of patients with COPD treated in primary care. Patient characteristics and exacerbations were described in terms of ICS use among the overall cohort, and among those with spirometry confirmed COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <70%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ICS use. RESULTS: A total of 901 patients were included, of which 47.9% (n = 432) were treated with ICS. A total of 240 patients (26.6%) experienced moderate/severe exacerbations in the prior year, while 309 (34.3%) during the previous two years. History of asthma totaled 11.6% (n = 105). The most frequent phenotype was non-exacerbator (51.6%), and the proportion of patient with moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly higher among ICS treated patients compared to non-treated: 37.5% versus 16.6% during the previous year (p < 0.001), and 46.8% versus 22.8% during the previous 2-years (p < 0.001), respectively. Patient characteristics were similar among spirometry confirmed patients and the overall population. Factors significantly associated with ICS use were a history of asthma (OR = 4.39, 95% CI: 2.67-7.26), the presence of moderate or severe exacerbations in the last year (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.81-3.49), followed by higher mMRC and higher CAT score. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of patients in primary care in Spain are treated with ICS, despite most of them being non-exacerbators. History of asthma, exacerbations, and worse dyspnea and CAT scores are associated with ICS use.

TRONARTO: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delivered via Soft Mist Inhaler in COPD Patients Stratified by Peak Inspiratory Flow.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled bronchodilator therapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Some inhalers require patients to achieve certain inhalation efforts either to activate the device or to deliver medication to the site of action. For dry powder inhalers, low peak inspiratory flow (PIF) can result in poor medication delivery but the clinical significance of this is not well understood. METHODS: TRONARTO was a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study which stratified patients with moderate-to-severe COPD according to their PIF against medium-low resistance at screening. Patients were randomized to receive tiotropium/olodaterol (5 µg/5 µg) or matched placebo delivered via the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler (SMI). After 4 weeks of treatment, we assessed change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve 0-3 hours (FEV1 AUC0-3h) and trough FEV1. RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients were randomized, of whom 106 received tiotropium/olodaterol (PIF <60 L/min, 55; PIF ≥60 L/min, 51) and 107 received placebo (PIF <60 L/min, 55; PIF ≥60 L/min, 52). For FEV1 AUC0-3h, the adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo was 336 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 246-425 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF <60 L/min group and 321 mL (95% CI 233-409 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF ≥60 L/min group. For trough FEV1, the adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo was 201 mL (95% CI 117-286 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF <60 L/min group and 217 mL (95% CI 135-299 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF ≥60 L/min group. CONCLUSION: In the TRONARTO study, which included patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and varying inspiratory flow abilities, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in significant lung function improvements versus placebo. This SMI can be used irrespective of the PIF that a patient can generate.

Health and functional status of tiotropium/olodaterol-treated patients with COPD: results from the AERIAL® non-interventional study.

Patients with COPD often have reduced physical activity, which can impair health status. Real-world data can provide valuable information on the health and functional status of patients with COPD treated with tiotropium/olodaterol. AERIAL® (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03165045) was a German, non-interventional study of patients with COPD receiving treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol under real-world conditions for ∼6 weeks. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients achieving a decrease of ≥0.4 points in Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) score. The CCQ-4 subdomain was used to assess functional status, and the Physician's Global Evaluation (PGE) scale was used to assess the patients' general condition. Safety was assessed, as well as patient satisfaction and willingness to continue treatment. Out of 1351 screened patients, 1322 were treated and 1140 comprised the full analysis set. The primary end-point was met: 66.3% of patients achieved a ≥0.4-point decrease in overall CCQ score (mean±sd decrease 0.78±0.95). Mean±sd decreases in CCQ symptoms and functional state subdomains were 0.84±1.06 and 0.75±1.05 points, respectively. PGE scores improved. One fatality (not treatment-related) and 23 drug-related adverse events were recorded, most commonly nausea and vertigo. >85% of patients were satisfied/very satisfied with tiotropium/olodaterol overall and with the Respimat® device, both in terms of inhalation and handling. Most patients (95.2%) expressed willingness to continue treatment. Patients with COPD treated with tiotropium/olodaterol via Respimat® in routine clinical practice had clinically relevant improvements in health and functional status compared with baseline.

Alcohol consumption and risk of lung cancer: a pooled analysis of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Although smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer, much is unknown about lung cancer etiology, including risk determinants for nonsmokers and modifying factors for smokers. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that alcohol consumption contributes to lung cancer risk. DESIGN: We conducted a pooled analysis using standardized exposure and covariate data from 7 prospective studies with 399,767 participants and 3137 lung cancer cases. Study-specific relative risks (RRs) and CIs were estimated and then combined to calculate pooled multivariate RRs by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We found a slightly greater risk for the consumption of > or = 30 g alcohol/d than for that of 0 g alcohol/d in men (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.61; P for trend = 0.03) and in women (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.43; P for trend = 0.03). In male never smokers, the RR for consumption of > or = 15 g alcohol/d rather than 0 g alcohol/d was 6.38 (95% CI: 2.74, 14.9; P for trend < 0.001). In women, there were few never-smoking cases and no evidence of greater risk (RR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.64, 2.87). Because of possible residual confounding by smoking, we performed sensitivity analyses by reclassifying the never smokers in the highest drinking category as former smokers. Resulting associations for alcohol consumption were somewhat attenuated, but P for trend = 0.05 for men, which was near the original P = 0.03. CONCLUSIONS: A slightly greater risk of lung cancer was associated with the consumption of > or = 30 g alcohol/d than with no alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption was strongly associated with greater risk in male never smokers. Residual confounding by smoking may explain part of the observed relation.

Alcohol intake and colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of 8 cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies have generally reported positive associations between alcohol consumption and risk for colorectal cancer. However, findings related to specific alcoholic beverages or different anatomic sites in the large bowel have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship of total alcohol intake and intake from specific beverages to the incidence of colorectal cancer and to evaluate whether other potential risk factors modify the association. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of primary data from 8 cohort studies in 5 countries. SETTING: North America and Europe. PARTICIPANTS: 489,979 women and men with no history of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer at baseline. MEASUREMENTS: Alcohol intake was assessed in each study at baseline by using a validated food-frequency questionnaire. RESULTS: During a maximum of 6 to 16 years of follow-up across the studies, 4687 cases of colorectal cancer were documented. In categorical analyses, increased risk for colorectal cancer was limited to persons with an alcohol intake of 30 g/d or greater (approximately > or =2 drinks/d), a consumption level reported by 4% of women and 13% of men. Compared with nondrinkers, the pooled multivariate relative risks were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.36) for persons who consumed 30 to less than 45 g/d and 1.41 (CI, 1.16 to 1.72) for those who consumed 45 g/d or greater. No significant heterogeneity by study or sex was observed. The association was evident for cancer of the proximal colon, distal colon, and rectum. No clear difference in relative risks was found among specific alcoholic beverages. LIMITATIONS: The study included only one measure of alcohol consumption at baseline and could not investigate lifetime alcohol consumption, alcohol consumption at younger ages, or changes in alcohol consumption during follow-up. It also could not examine drinking patterns or duration of alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: A single determination of alcohol intake correlated with a modest relative elevation in colorectal cancer rate, mainly at the highest levels of alcohol intake.

Antioxidant vitamins and coronary heart disease risk: a pooled analysis of 9 cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies have suggested a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) at higher intakes of fruit, vegetables, and whole grain. Whether this association is due to antioxidant vitamins or some other factors remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We studied the relation between the intake of antioxidant vitamins and CHD risk. DESIGN: A cohort study pooling 9 prospective studies that included information on intakes of vitamin E, carotenoids, and vitamin C and that met specific criteria was carried out. During a 10-y follow-up, 4647 major incident CHD events occurred in 293 172 subjects who were free of CHD at baseline. RESULTS: Dietary intake of antioxidant vitamins was only weakly related to a reduced CHD risk after adjustment for potential nondietary and dietary confounding factors. Compared with subjects in the lowest dietary intake quintiles for vitamins E and C, those in the highest intake quintiles had relative risks of CHD incidence of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.00; P=0.17) and 1.23 (1.04, 1.45; P=0.07), respectively, and the relative risks for subjects in the highest intake quintiles for the various carotenoids varied from 0.90 to 0.99. Subjects with higher supplemental vitamin C intake had a lower CHD incidence. Compared with subjects who did not take supplemental vitamin C, those who took >700 mg supplemental vitamin C/d had a relative risk of CHD incidence of 0.75 (0.60, 0.93; P for trend <0.001). Supplemental vitamin E intake was not significantly related to reduced CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a reduced incidence of major CHD events at high supplemental vitamin C intakes. The risk reductions at high vitamin E or carotenoid intakes appear small.

Dietary fat and risk of lung cancer in a pooled analysis of prospective studies.

Lung cancer rates are highest in countries with the greatest fat intakes. In several case-control studies, positive associations have been observed between lung cancer and intakes of total and saturated fat, particularly among nonsmokers. We analyzed the association between fat and cholesterol intakes and lung cancer risk in eight prospective cohort studies that met predefined criteria. Among the 280,419 female and 149,862 male participants who were followed for up to 6-16 years, 3,188 lung cancer cases were documented. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, we calculated study-specific relative risks that were adjusted for smoking history and other potential risk factors. Pooled relative risks were computed using a random effects model. Fat intake was not associated with lung cancer risk. For an increment of 5% of energy from fat, the pooled multivariate relative risks were 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.98-1.05] for total, 1.03 (95% CI, 0.96-1.11) for saturated, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.93-1.10) for monounsaturated, and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.90-1.10) for polyunsaturated fat. No associations were observed between intakes of total or specific types of fat and lung cancer risk among never, past, or current smokers. Dietary cholesterol was not associated with lung cancer incidence [for a 100-mg/day increment, the pooled multivariate relative risk was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.97-1.05)]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity among studies or by sex. These data do not support an important relation between fat or cholesterol intakes and lung cancer risk. The means to prevent this important disease remains avoidance of smoking.

Methods for pooling results of epidemiologic studies: the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer.

With the growing number of epidemiologic publications on the relation between dietary factors and cancer risk, pooled analyses that summarize results from multiple studies are becoming more common. Here, the authors describe the methods being used to summarize data on diet-cancer associations within the ongoing Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, begun in 1991. In the Pooling Project, the primary data from prospective cohort studies meeting prespecified inclusion criteria are analyzed using standardized criteria for modeling of exposure, confounding, and outcome variables. In addition to evaluating main exposure-disease associations, analyses are also conducted to evaluate whether exposure-disease associations are modified by other dietary and nondietary factors or vary among population subgroups or particular cancer subtypes. Study-specific relative risks are calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model and then pooled using a random- or mixed-effects model. The study-specific estimates are weighted by the inverse of their variances in forming summary estimates. Most of the methods used in the Pooling Project may be adapted for examining associations with dietary and nondietary factors in pooled analyses of case-control studies or case-control and cohort studies combined.