Triple Inhaled Therapy at Two Glucocorticoid Doses in Moderate-to-Very-Severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Triple fixed-dose regimens of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been studied at single dose levels of inhaled glucocorticoid, but studies at two dose levels are lacking. METHODS: In a 52-week, phase 3, randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy at two dose levels of inhaled glucocorticoid in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one exacerbation in the past year, we assigned patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive twice-daily inhaled doses of triple therapy (inhaled glucocorticoid [320 µg or 160 µg of budesonide], a LAMA [18 µg of glycopyrrolate], and a LABA [9.6 µg of formoterol]) or one of two dual therapies (18 µg of glycopyrrolate plus 9.6 µg of formoterol or 320 µg of budesonide plus 9.6 µg of formoterol). The primary end point was the annual rate (the estimated mean number per patient per year) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations, as analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat population with the use of on-treatment data only. RESULTS: The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 8509 patients. The annual rates of moderate or severe exacerbations were 1.08 in the 320-µg-budesonide triple-therapy group (2137 patients), 1.07 in the 160-µg-budesonide triple-therapy group (2121 patients), 1.42 in the glycopyrrolate-formoterol group (2120 patients), and 1.24 in the budesonide-formoterol group (2131 patients). The rate was significantly lower with 320-µg-budesonide triple therapy than with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (24% lower: rate ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.83; P<0.001) or budesonide-formoterol (13% lower: rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; P = 0.003). Similarly, the rate was significantly lower with 160-µg-budesonide triple therapy than with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (25% lower: rate ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.83; P<0.001) or budesonide-formoterol (14% lower: rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; P = 0.002). The incidence of any adverse event was similar across the treatment groups (range, 61.7 to 64.5%); the incidence of confirmed pneumonia ranged from 3.5 to 4.5% in the groups that included inhaled glucocorticoid use and was 2.3% in the glycopyrrolate-formoterol group. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with twice-daily budesonide (at either the 160-µg or 320-µg dose), glycopyrrolate, and formoterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than glycopyrrolate-formoterol or budesonide-formoterol. (Funded by AstraZeneca, ETHOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02465567.).

Targeted Retreatment of Incompletely Recovered Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations with Ciprofloxacin. A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter, Phase III Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are prone to nonrecovery, but there are no data about the effectiveness of retreatment for these prolonged events. We examined whether further therapy with ciprofloxacin for incompletely resolved COPD exacerbations prolonged the time until the next event.Objectives: To assess whether incompletely recovered COPD exacerbations benefit from additional treatment with ciprofloxacin, at Day 14.Methods: In a multicenter, randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, we studied retreatment with oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg or matched placebo twice daily for 7 days in patients with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage II-IV COPD and persistent symptoms and/or serum C-reactive protein ≥8 mg/L initiated 14 (±3) days after an index COPD exacerbation. The primary outcome was the time to the next exacerbation within a 90-day period.Measurements and Main Results: Among 826 patients screened at four centers, 144 eligible participants with incomplete recovery were randomized to receive ciprofloxacin (n = 72) or placebo (n = 72). Within 90 days of randomization, 57% of the patients in the ciprofloxacin group and 53% in the placebo group experienced one or more exacerbations. The median time to the next exacerbation was 32.5 days (interquartile range 13-50) in the placebo arm and 34 days (interquartile range 17-62) in the ciprofloxacin arm, which was not significantly different (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.68; P = 0.76). No significant differences were seen in quality-of-life scores or lung function between the treatment groups.Conclusions: In patients with persistent symptoms and/or raised C-reactive protein 14 days after a COPD exacerbation, an additional course of ciprofloxacin resulted in no additional benefit compared with placebo. This suggests that nonrecovered exacerbations are not driven by ongoing bacterial infection and may potentially be targeted with antiinflammatory therapy.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02300220).

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus tiotropium or glycopyrronium in long-acting bronchodilator-naïve COPD patients: A pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 µg once daily (q.d.) has demonstrated greater improvements in lung function, patient-reported outcomes and lower exacerbation rates versus mono long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. However, data are limited on initial treatment with IND/GLY 110/50 µg q.d. versus mono LAMA in COPD patients, not previously on maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators (LABD). METHODS: A pooled analysis of ARISE, SHINE and SPARK trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IND/GLY 110/50 µg q.d. versus open-label (OL) tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg q.d. and GLY 50 µg q.d. in COPD patients, not on maintenance treatment with LABD at study entry (LABD-naïve). Efficacy was assessed after 24/26 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: In total, 998 LABD-naïve patients were included (IND/GLY: 353; OL TIO: 328; GLY: 317). Patients treated with IND/GLY 110/50 µg q.d. experienced greater improvements in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) versus OL TIO 18 µg q.d. (least squares mean treatment difference (Δ): 0.086 L) and GLY 50 µg q.d. (Δ: 0.080 L) after 24/26 weeks. Improvements in electronic diary (eDiary) symptom scores, transition dyspnoea index (TDI) focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and rescue medication use were also greater with IND/GLY versus OL TIO and GLY. Greater proportion of patients achieved minimal clinically important difference in trough FEV1 , TDI and SGRQ with IND/GLY versus OL TIO and GLY. CONCLUSION: LABD-naïve patients treated with IND/GLY 110/50 µg q.d. achieved improvements in lung function, daily symptoms, dyspnoea, health-related quality of life and rescue medication use versus those who received single LAMA.

A phase III study of triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler 320/18/9.6 µg and 160/18/9.6 µg using co-suspension delivery technology in moderate-to-very severe COPD: The ETHOS study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Single inhaler triple therapies providing an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and a long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABAs) are an emerging treatment option for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the optimal patient population for triple therapy as well as the benefit:risk ratio of ICS treatment. METHODS: ETHOS is an ongoing, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, 52-week study in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and a history of exacerbation(s) in the previous year. Two doses of single inhaler triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg and 160/18/9.6 µg) will be compared to glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 µg and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 µg, all formulated using co-suspension delivery technology. Outcomes include the rate of moderate/severe (primary endpoint) and severe COPD exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life, and all-cause mortality. Sub-studies will assess lung function and cardiovascular safety. STUDY POPULATION: From June 2015-July 2018, 16,044 patients were screened and 8572 were randomized. Preliminary baseline demographics show that 55.9% of patients had experienced ≥2 moderate/severe exacerbations in the previous year, 79.1% were receiving an ICS-containing treatment at study entry, and 59.9% had blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/mm3. CONCLUSIONS: ETHOS will provide data on exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes, mortality, and safety in 8572 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving triple and dual fixed-dose combinations. For the first time, ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy with two different doses of ICS will be compared to dual ICS/LABA and LAMA/LABA therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02465567.

Triple Therapy in COPD: What We Know and What We Don't.

Triple inhaled therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) consists of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) taken in combination. Triple therapy is recommended by the Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for patients who experience recurrent exacerbations despite treatment with either a dual bronchodilator (preferred initial therapy) or LABA/ICS combination (alternative initial therapy). Although there is evidence for the greater efficacy of triple therapy compared with LABA/ICS and LAMA monotherapy with regards to improved lung function, health status, and exacerbation rate, the efficacy of triple therapy when compared with dual bronchodilation (LABA/LAMA) is as yet unknown. As ICS use is associated with an increased risk of developing pneumonia, it is important to assess the risk/benefit ratio of triple therapy on an individual basis, and identify patients most likely to benefit. The role of elevated blood eosinophils as a biomarker for the identification of candidates for ICS treatment is currently debated, and further prospective evidence is required. This review assesses evidence for the efficacy and safety of triple therapy and postulates on the prospective evidence from ongoing studies. The potential for treating patients who experience further exacerbations on dual bronchodilation according to phenotype is also considered, as well as withdrawal of ICS from triple therapy in patients who are unlikely to benefit.

Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) is commonly used to treat patients admitted to hospital with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of NIV applied in conjunction with usual care versus usual care involving no mechanical ventilation alone in adults with AHRF due to AECOPD. The aim of this review is to update the evidence base with the goals of supporting clinical practice and providing recommendations for future evaluation and research. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and PsycINFO, and through handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. This update to the original review incorporates the results of database searches up to January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials that compared usual care plus NIV (BiPAP) versus usual care alone in an acute hospital setting for patients with AECOPD due to AHRF were eligible for inclusion. AHRF was defined by a mean admission pH < 7.35 and mean partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) > 45 mmHg (6 kPa). Primary review outcomes were mortality during hospital admission and need for endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, treatment intolerance, complications, changes in symptoms, and changes in arterial blood gases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria to determine study eligibility, performed data extraction, and determined risk of bias in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. Review authors undertook meta-analysis for data that were both clinically and statistically homogenous, and analysed data as both one overall pooled sample and according to two predefined subgroups related to exacerbation severity (admission pH between 7.35 and 7.30 vs below 7.30) and NIV treatment setting (intensive care unit-based vs ward-based). We reported results for mortality, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital length of stay in a 'Summary of findings' table and rated their quality in accordance with GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included in the review 17 randomised controlled trials involving 1264 participants. Available data indicate that mean age at recruitment was 66.8 years (range 57.7 to 70.5 years) and that most participants (65%) were male. Most studies (12/17) were at risk of performance bias, and for most (14/17), the risk of detection bias was uncertain. These risks may have affected subjective patient-reported outcome measures (e.g. dyspnoea) and secondary review outcomes, respectively.Use of NIV decreased the risk of mortality by 46% (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.76; N = 12 studies; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 9 to 23) and decreased the risk of needing endotracheal intubation by 65% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.46; N = 17 studies; NNTB 5, 95% CI 5 to 6). We graded both outcomes as 'moderate' quality owing to uncertainty regarding risk of bias for several studies. Inspection of the funnel plot related to need for endotracheal intubation raised the possibility of some publication bias pertaining to this outcome. NIV use was also associated with reduced length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -3.39 days, 95% CI -5.93 to -0.85; N = 10 studies), reduced incidence of complications (unrelated to NIV) (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; N = 2 studies), and improvement in pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.07; N = 8 studies) and in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) (MD 7.47 mmHg, 95% CI 0.78 to 14.16 mmHg; N = 8 studies) at one hour. A trend towards improvement in PaCO2 was observed, but this finding was not statistically significant (MD -4.62 mmHg, 95% CI -11.05 to 1.80 mmHg; N = 8 studies). Post hoc analysis revealed that this lack of benefit was due to the fact that data from two studies at high risk of bias showed baseline imbalance for this outcome (worse in the NIV group than in the usual care group). Sensitivity analysis revealed that exclusion of these two studies resulted in a statistically significant positive effect of NIV on PaCO2. Treatment intolerance was significantly greater in the NIV group than in the usual care group (risk difference (RD) 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17; N = 6 studies). Results of analysis showed a non-significant trend towards reduction in dyspnoea with NIV compared with usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; N = 4 studies). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant between-group differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data from good quality randomised controlled trials show that NIV is beneficial as a first-line intervention in conjunction with usual care for reducing the likelihood of mortality and endotracheal intubation in patients admitted with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The magnitude of benefit for these outcomes appears similar for patients with acidosis of a mild (pH 7.30 to 7.35) versus a more severe nature (pH < 7.30), and when NIV is applied within the intensive care unit (ICU) or ward setting.

How Do Dual Long-Acting Bronchodilators Prevent Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

Decreasing the frequency and severity of exacerbations is one of the main goals of treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Several studies have documented that long-acting bronchodilators can reduce exacerbation rate and/or severity, and others have shown that combinations of long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide greater reductions in exacerbation frequency than either their monocomponents or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid combinations in patients at low and high risk for these events. In this review, small groups of experts critically evaluated mechanisms potentially responsible for the increased benefit of LABA/LAMA combinations over single long-acting bronchodilators or LABA/inhaled corticosteroids in decreasing exacerbation. These included effects on lung hyperinflation and mechanical stress, inflammation, excessive mucus production with impaired mucociliary clearance, and symptom severity. The data assembled and analyzed by each group were reviewed by all authors and combined into this manuscript. Available clinical results support the possibility that effects of LABA/LAMA combinations on hyperinflation, mucociliary clearance, and symptom severity may all contribute to decreasing exacerbations. Although preclinical studies suggest LABAs and LAMAs have antiinflammatory effects, such effects have not been demonstrated yet in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Indacaterol-Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol-Fluticasone for COPD.

BACKGROUND: Most guidelines recommend either a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) plus an inhaled glucocorticoid or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) as the first-choice treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have a high risk of exacerbations. The role of treatment with a LABA-LAMA regimen in these patients is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial. Patients who had COPD with a history of at least one exacerbation during the previous year were randomly assigned to receive, by inhalation, either the LABA indacaterol (110 µg) plus the LAMA glycopyrronium (50 µg) once daily or the LABA salmeterol (50 µg) plus the inhaled glucocorticoid fluticasone (500 µg) twice daily. The primary outcome was the annual rate of all COPD exacerbations. RESULTS: A total of 1680 patients were assigned to the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group, and 1682 to the salmeterol-fluticasone group. Indacaterol-glycopyrronium showed not only noninferiority but also superiority to salmeterol-fluticasone in reducing the annual rate of all COPD exacerbations; the rate was 11% lower in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (3.59 vs. 4.03; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.003). The indacaterol-glycopyrronium group had a longer time to the first exacerbation than did the salmeterol-fluticasone group (71 days [95% CI, 60 to 82] vs. 51 days [95% CI, 46 to 57]; hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.91], representing a 16% lower risk; P<0.001). The annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was lower in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (0.98 vs. 1.19; rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91; P<0.001), and the time to the first moderate or severe exacerbation was longer in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.86; P<0.001), as was the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.00; P=0.046). The effect of indacaterol-glycopyrronium versus salmeterol-fluticasone on the rate of COPD exacerbations was independent of the baseline blood eosinophil count. The incidence of adverse events and deaths was similar in the two groups. The incidence of pneumonia was 3.2% in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group and 4.8% in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was more effective than salmeterol-fluticasone in preventing COPD exacerbations in patients with a history of exacerbation during the previous year. (Funded by Novartis; FLAME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01782326.).

Effects of different antibiotic classes on airway bacteria in stable COPD using culture and molecular techniques: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term antibiotic therapy is used to prevent exacerbations of COPD but there is uncertainty over whether this reduces airway bacteria. The optimum antibiotic choice remains unknown. We conducted an exploratory trial in stable patients with COPD comparing three antibiotic regimens against placebo. METHODS: This was a single-centre, single-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Patients aged ≥45 years with COPD, FEV1<80% predicted and chronic productive cough were randomised to receive either moxifloxacin 400 mg daily for 5 days every 4 weeks, doxycycline 100 mg/day, azithromycin 250 mg 3 times a week or one placebo tablet daily for 13 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in total cultured bacterial load in sputum from baseline; secondary outcomes included bacterial load by 16S quantitative PCR (qPCR), sputum inflammation and antibiotic resistance. RESULTS: 99 patients were randomised; 86 completed follow-up, were able to expectorate sputum and were analysed. After adjustment, there was a non-significant reduction in bacterial load of 0.42 log10 cfu/mL (95% CI -0.08 to 0.91, p=0.10) with moxifloxacin, 0.11 (-0.33 to 0.55, p=0.62) with doxycycline and 0.08 (-0.38 to 0.54, p=0.73) with azithromycin from placebo, respectively. There were also no significant changes in bacterial load measured by 16S qPCR or in airway inflammation. More treatment-related adverse events occurred with moxifloxacin. Of note, mean inhibitory concentrations of cultured isolates increased by at least three times over placebo in all treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Total airway bacterial load did not decrease significantly after 3 months of antibiotic therapy. Large increases in antibiotic resistance were seen in all treatment groups and this has important implications for future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01398072).

Recent advances in COPD disease management with fixed-dose long-acting combination therapies.

Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators and long-acting bronchodilators with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended therapies in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three fixed-dose combination products have recently been approved for the treatment of COPD (the long-acting ß2-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LABA/LAMA] combinations glycopyrronium/indacaterol [QVA149] and umeclidinium/vilanterol, and the LABA/ICS fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), with others currently in late-stage development. LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS combination therapies demonstrate positive effects on both lung function and patient-reported outcomes, with significant improvements observed with LABA/LAMA combinations compared with placebo, each component alone and other comparators in current use. No new safety concerns have been observed with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators. Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators represent a new and convenient treatment option in COPD. This review summarizes published efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of both LABA/LAMA and novel LABA/ICS combinations in patients with COPD.