Cardiovascular Events According to Inhaler Therapy and Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Background: COPD coexists with many concurrent comorbidities. Cardiovascular complications are deemed to be major causes of death in COPD. Although inhaler therapy is the main therapeutic intervention in COPD, cardiovascular events accompanying inhaler therapy require further investigation. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate new development of cardiovascular events according to each inhaler therapy and comorbidities. Methods: This study analyzed COPD patients (age ≥ 40 years, N = 199,772) from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database in Korea. The development of cardiovascular events, from the index date to December 31, 2020, was investigated. The cohort was eventually divided into three arms: the LAMA/LABA group (N = 28,322), the ICS/LABA group (N = 11,812), and the triple group (LAMA/ICS/LABA therapy, N = 6174). Results: Multivariable Cox analyses demonstrated that, compared to ICS/LABA therapy, triple therapy was independently associated with the development of ischemic heart disease (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04-1.43), heart failure (HR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.14-1.84), arrhythmia (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.41-2.09), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (HR: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.64-3.25), whereas the LAMA/LABA therapy did not show a significant association. Furthermore, emergency room visit during covariate assessment window was independently associated with the development of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, and atrial fibrillation/flutter (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our data suggest that cardiovascular risk should be considered in COPD patients receiving triple therapy, despite the confounding bias resulting from disparities in each group.

The efficacy and safety of DW1601 in patients with acute bronchitis: a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, phase III clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: DW1601, an oral fixed dose combination syrup composed of DW16011 and Pelargonium sidoides, was developed to enhance the symptom relief effect in patients with acute bronchitis. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of DW1601 compared to DW16011 or P. sidoides for treatment of acute bronchitis using a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, multi-centre trial design. METHODS: A total of 204 patients with acute bronchitis was randomized 1:1:1 to receive DW1601 (n = 67), DW16011 (n = 70), or P. sidoides (n = 64) for 7 days. The primary outcome was efficacy of DW1601 compared to DW16011 or P. sidoides in reducing the total bronchitis severity score (BSS) at day 4 of treatment. Secondary endpoints were changes in total and symptomspecific BSS, response rate and patient satisfaction rate. Safety analysis was assessed at day 7. RESULTS: At 4 days after medication, decrease of total BSS from baseline was significantly greater in the DW1601 group than in the DW16011 group (-3.51 ± 0.18 vs. -2.65 ± 0.18, p = 0.001) or P. sidoides group (-3.56 ± 0.18 vs. -2.64 ± 0.19, p < 0.001). In addition, the BSS total score at day 7 and the BSS cough and sputum component scores at days 4 and 7 were significantly more improved with DW1601 treatment compared with the DW16011 group or P. sidoides group. Participants treated with DW1601 showed higher rates of response and satisfaction than control groups (response rate, DW1601, 100% vs. DW16011, 85.7% vs. P. sidoides, 85.9%; satisfaction rate, DW1601, 92.6% vs. DW16011, 82.9% vs. P. sidoides, 81.2%). Significant adverse events were not observed in the DW1601 group. CONCLUSION: DW1601 is superior to DW16011 or P. sidoides in improving symptoms of acute bronchitis.

Escalation Time to Open Triple Combination Therapy from the Initiation of LAMA versus ICS/LABA in COPD Management: Findings from Comparing the Incidence of Tiotropium and ICS/LABA in Real-World Use in South Korea (CITRUS) Study.

BACKGROUND: bronchodilators are the key treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), however, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs)/long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) are widely prescribed. We compared the escalation time to open triple combination therapy between long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA) and ICS/LABA in COPD management. METHODS: this retrospective study included COPD patients selected from the National Health Insurance Service of South Korea from January 2005 to April 2015. The primary outcome was the escalation time to triple therapy in patients who initially received LAMA or ICS/LABA. Other outcomes included risk factors predisposing escalation to triple combination therapy. RESULTS: a total of 2444 patients were assigned to the LAMA or ICS/LABA groups. The incidences of triple combination therapy in the LAMA and ICS/LABA groups were 81.0 and 139.8 per 1000 person-years, respectively (p < 0.001); the median times to triple therapy escalation were 281 and 207 days, respectively (p = 0.03). Treatment with ICS/LABA showed a higher risk of triple therapy escalation compared to LAMA (hazard ratio (HR), 1.601; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.402-1.829). The associated risk factor was male sex. (HR, 1.564; 95% CI, 1.352-1.809). CONCLUSIONS: the initiation of COPD treatment with LAMA is associated with a reduced escalation time to triple therapy compared with ICS/LABA.

Predicting treatable traits for long-acting bronchodilators in patients with stable COPD.

PURPOSE: There is currently no measure to predict a treatability of long-acting ß-2 agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to build prediction models for the treatment response to these bronchodilators, in order to determine the most responsive medication for patients with COPD. METHODS: We performed a prospective open-label crossover study, in which each long-acting bronchodilator was given in a random order to 65 patients with stable COPD for 4 weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between. We analyzed 14 baseline clinical traits, expression profiles of 31,426 gene transcripts, and damaged-gene scores of 6,464 genes acquired from leukocytes. The gene expression profiles were measured by RNA microarray and the damaged-gene scores were obtained after DNA exome sequencing. Linear regression analyses were performed to build prediction models after using factor and correlation analyses. RESULTS: Using a prediction model for a LABA, traits found associated with the treatment response were post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second, bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) to salbutamol, expression of three genes (CLN8, PCSK5, and SKP2), and damage scores of four genes (EPG5, FNBP4, SCN10A, and SPTBN5) (R2=0.512, p<0.001). Traits associated with the treatment response to a LAMA were COPD assessment test score, BDR, expression of four genes (C1orf115, KIAA1618, PRKX, and RHOQ) and damage scores of three genes (FBN3, FDFT1, and ZBED6) (R2=0.575, p<0.001). The prediction models consisting only of clinical traits appeared too weak to predict the treatment response, with R2=0.231 for the LABA model and R2=0.121 for the LAMA model. CONCLUSION: Adding the expressions of genes and damaged-gene scores to the clinical traits may improve the predictability of treatment response to long-acting bronchodilators.

Choice between Levofloxacin and Moxifloxacin and Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes.

RATIONALE: We previously showed that the choice of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin for the treatment of patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) did not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare final treatment outcomes between patients with MDR-TB randomized to levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. METHODS: A total of 151 participants with MDR-TB who were included for the final analysis in our previous trial were followed through the end of treatment. Treatment outcomes were compared between 77 patients in the levofloxacin group and 74 in the moxifloxacin group, based on the 2008 World Health Organization definitions as well as 2013 revised definitions of treatment outcomes. In addition, the time to culture conversion was compared between the two groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Treatment outcomes were not different between the two groups, based on 2008 World Health Organization definitions as well as 2013 definitions. With 2008 definitions, cure was achieved in 54 patients (70.1%) in the levofloxacin group and 54 (73.0%) in the moxifloxacin group (P = 0.72). Treatment success rates, including cure and treatment completed, were not different between the two groups (87.0 vs. 81.1%, P = 0.38). With 2013 definitions, cure rates (83.1 vs. 78.4%, P = 0.54) and treatment success rates (84.4 vs. 79.7%, P = 0.53) were also similar between the levofloxacin and moxifloxacin groups. Time to culture conversion was also not different between the two groups (27.0 vs. 45.0 d, P = 0.11 on liquid media; 17.0 vs. 42.0 d, P = 0.14 on solid media). Patients in the levofloxacin group had more adverse events than those in the moxifloxacin group (79.2 vs. 63.5%, P = 0.03), especially musculoskeletal ones (37.7 vs. 14.9%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin made no difference to the final treatment outcome among patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive MDR-TB. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicalrials.gov (NCT01055145).

Comparison of levofloxacin versus moxifloxacin for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

RATIONALE: Levofloxacin (LFX) and moxifloxacin (MXF) are the two most frequently recommended fluoroquinolones for treatment of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). However, studies comparing the effectiveness of LFX and MXF among patients with MDR-TB are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of LFX and MXF in terms of culture conversion after 3 months of treatment for MDR-TB. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter randomized open label trial, we randomly assigned 182 patients with MDR-TB (sensitive to LFX and MXF) to receive either LFX (750 mg/day; 90 patients) or MXF (400 mg/day; 92 patients) with a background drug regimen. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were time to culture conversion and time to smear conversion, with data censored at 3 months, and the proportions of adverse drug reactions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 3 months of treatment, 68 (88.3%) of the 77 patients in the LFX group and 67 (90.5%) of the 74 in the MXF group showed conversion to negative sputum cultures (odds ratio for LFX compared with MXF, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.20). Adverse drug reactions were reported in six patients (7.7%) in the LFX group and four (5.2%) in the MXF group (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of LFX or MXF for treatment of patients with MDR-TB may not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01055145).