Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics. RESULTS: In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216). CONCLUSIONS: This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

Bronchial wall parameters on CT in healthy never-smoking, smoking, COPD, and asthma populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Research on computed tomography (CT) bronchial parameter measurements shows that there are conflicting results on the values for bronchial parameters in the never-smoking, smoking, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) populations. This review assesses the current CT methods for obtaining bronchial wall parameters and their comparison between populations. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase was conducted following PRISMA guidelines (last search date 25th October 2021). Methodology data was collected and summarised. Values of percentage wall area (WA%), wall thickness (WT), summary airway measure (Pi10), and luminal area (Ai) were pooled and compared between populations. RESULTS: A total of 169 articles were included for methodologic review; 66 of these were included for meta-analysis. Most measurements were obtained from multiplanar reconstructions of segmented airways (93 of 169 articles), using various tools and algorithms; third generation airways in the upper and lower lobes were most frequently studied. COPD (12,746) and smoking (15,092) populations were largest across studies and mostly consisted of men (median 64.4%, IQR 61.5 - 66.1%). There were significant differences between populations; the largest WA% was found in COPD (mean SD 62.93 ± 7.41%, n = 6,045), and the asthma population had the largest Pi10 (4.03 ± 0.27 mm, n = 442). Ai normalised to body surface area (Ai/BSA) (12.46 ± 4 mm2, n = 134) was largest in the never-smoking population. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on CT-derived bronchial parameter measurements are heterogenous in methodology and population, resulting in challenges to compare outcomes between studies. Significant differences between populations exist for several parameters, most notably in the wall area percentage; however, there is a large overlap in their ranges. KEY POINTS: • Diverse methodology in measuring airways contributes to overlap in ranges of bronchial parameters among the never-smoking, smoking, COPD, and asthma populations. • The combined number of never-smoking participants in studies is low, limiting insight into this population and the impact of participant characteristics on bronchial parameters. • Wall area percent of the right upper lobe apical segment is the most studied (87 articles) and differentiates all except smoking vs asthma populations.

Understanding the role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists in asthma treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have been used in the treatment of obstructive pulmonary diseases for years. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists were previously mainly used as bronchodilators in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but the use of LAMAs in the treatment of asthma has gained great interest. There is now ample evidence of the efficacy and safety of LAMAs as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations in patients with moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists have subsequently been included in asthma guidelines. This review summarizes the scientific evidence on the use of LAMAs in asthma and aims to provide a better understanding of the role of LAMAs in the asthma treatment care algorithm and the current gaps in our knowledge. DATA SOURCES: PubMed review using the following words: long-acting muscarinic antagonists, asthma, muscarinic receptors, tiotropium, glycopyrronium, umeclidinium. STUDY SELECTIONS: This review focused on the key trials that led to the inclusion of LAMAs in asthma guidelines. In addition, we highlighted a number of studies with other study designs and populations. RESULTS: We identified 6 major studies that led to inclusion in asthma guidelines and 3 studies with other study designs and populations. CONCLUSION: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists add-on therapy to ICS-LABA improves lung function, reduces exacerbations, and modestly improves asthma control in patients with moderate to severe asthma who are uncontrolled despite the use of ICS-LABA. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists are effective in all asthma phenotypes and endotypes.

Sex differences in asthma control, lung function and exacerbations: the ATLANTIS study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a prevalence and severity that differs between male and female patients. QUESTION: What are differences between male and female patients with asthma with regard to asthma control, lung function, inflammation and exacerbations? METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis in the ATLANTIS (Assessment of Small Airways Involvement in Asthma) study, an observational cohort study including patients with asthma from nine countries with a follow-up of 1 year during which patients were characterised with measures of large and small airway function, questionnaires, inflammation and imaging. We compared differences in baseline characteristics and longitudinal outcomes between male and female patients with asthma. RESULTS: 773 patients were enrolled; 450 (58%) of these were female. At baseline, female patients with asthma were in higher Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) steps (p=0.042), had higher Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 (F: 0.83; M: 0.66, p<0.001) and higher airway resistance as reflected by uncorrected impulse oscillometry outcomes (ie, R5-R20: F: 0.06; M: 0.04 kPa/L/s, p=0.002). Male patients with asthma had more severe airway obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity % predicted: F: 91.95; M: 88.33%, p<0.01) and more frequently had persistent airflow limitation (F: 27%; M: 39%, p<0.001). Blood neutrophils were significantly higher in female patients (p=0.014). With Cox regression analysis, female sex was an independent predictor for exacerbations. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate that female patients are in higher GINA steps, exhibit worse disease control, experience more exacerbations and demonstrate higher airway resistance compared with male patients. The higher exacerbation risk was independent of GINA step and blood eosinophil level. Male patients, in turn, have a higher prevalence of persistent airflow limitation and more severe airflow obstruction. These findings show sex can affect clinical phenotyping and outcomes in asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02123667.

Assessing small airways dysfunction in asthma, asthma remission and healthy controls using particles in exhaled air.

PExA mass can distinguish asthmatics from healthy individuals. Subjects with complete, but not clinical, asthma remission exhale more PExA mass compared to asthma. Higher PExA mass was associated with better function of both the small and large airways. http://bit.ly/2znHABg.