Comparative efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for COPD: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: 2021 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Reports recommends that patients with clinically significant symptoms and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should escalate to triple therapy, a combined use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting b2-agonists (LABA)(ICS/LAMA/LABA). Triple therapy in fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), i.e., combining ICS, LABA with LAMA and administrating by a single inhalation device, has appeared in recent years. This study aims to compare the efficacy of triple therapy in FDCs in treating patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Literature search will be conducted on PubMed, Embase and Web of science, according to pre-specified and corresponding search strategies, for relevant reports published since the inception dates of the databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) which compared the triple therapy in FDCs with other pharmacological therapies will be included. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2) will be used to assess the RCT quality. The outcomes will be analyzed as rate ratios and mean differences under a random-effects model in a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA). Additional statistical analyses including subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis will be performed to assess the evidential heterogeneity and robustness. The strength of evidence from the NMA will be evaluated with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required as this systematic review and network meta-analysis do not collect confidential personal data and do not carry out interventions in treating patients. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240823.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the addition of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy has been recommended for patients with COPD who have severe symptoms and a history of exacerbations because it reduces the exacerbations. In addition, a reducing effect on mortality has been shown by this treatment. However, the evidence is mainly based on one large randomized controlled trial IMPACT study, and it remains unclear whether the ICS add-on treatment is beneficial or not. Recently, a large new ETHOS trial has been performed to clarify the ICS add-on effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety including ETHOS trial. METHODS: We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea symptom, lung function and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality, as the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We identified a total of 6 RCTs in ICS add-on protocol (N = 13,579). ICS/LAMA/LABA treatment (triple therapy) significantly decreased the incidence of exacerbations (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83) and improved the QOL score and trough FEV1 compared to LAMA/LABA. In addition, triple therapy significantly improved the dyspnea score (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.48) and mortality (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87). However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.16-2.00). In the ICS-withdrawal protocol including 2 RCTs, triple therapy also showed a significantly better QOL score and higher trough FEV1 than LAMA/LABA. Concerning the trough FEV1, QOL score and dyspnea score in both protocols, the differences were less than the minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSION: Triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia but is a more preferable treatment than LAMA/LABA due to the lower incidence of exacerbations, higher trough FEV1 and better QOL score. In addition, triple therapy is also superior to LABA/LAMA due to the lower mortality and better dyspnea score. However, these results should be only applied to patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD and a history of exacerbations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

Prognostic and functional impact of perioperative LAMA/LABA inhaled therapy in patients with lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an important risk factor for postoperative complications and mortality. To determine the effects of perioperative combination therapy, using a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA), on preoperative lung function, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and long-term outcome in COPD patients. METHODS: Between January 2005 and October 2019, 130 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed COPD underwent surgery for lung cancer. We conducted a retrospective review of their medical record to evaluate that LAMA/LABA might be an optimal regimen for patients with COPD undergoing surgery for lung cancer. All patients were received perioperative rehabilitation and divided into 3 groups according to the type of perioperative inhaled therapy and management: LAMA/LABA (n = 64), LAMA (n = 23) and rehabilitation only (no bronchodilator) (n = 43). We conducted a retrospective review of their medical records. RESULTS: Patients who received preoperative LAMA/LABA therapy showed significant improvement in lung function before surgery (p < 0.001 for both forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1%pred). Compared with patients who received preoperative LAMA therapy, patients with LAMA/LABA therapy had significantly improved lung function (ΔFEV1, LAMA/LABA 223.1 mL vs. LAMA 130.0 mL, ΔFEV1%pred, LAMA/LABA 10.8% vs. LAMA 6.8%; both p < 0.05). Postoperative complications were lower frequent in the LAMA/LABA group than in the LAMA group (p = 0.007). In patients with moderate to severe air flow limitation (n = 61), those who received LAMA/LABA therapy had significantly longer overall survival and disease-free survival compared with the LAMA (p = 0.049, p = 0.026) and rehabilitation-only groups (p = 0.001, p < 0.001). Perioperative LAMA/LABA therapy was also associated with lower recurrence rates (vs. LAMA p = 0.006, vs. rehabilitation-only p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We believe this treatment combination is optimal for patients with lung cancer and COPD.

Triple vs Dual Inhaler Therapy and Asthma Outcomes in Moderate to Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.

Comparisons of Efficacy and Safety between Triple (Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting Beta-Agonist) Therapies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Various combinations of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) have been used as triple therapy for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: Our study was conducted to answer whether there were significant differences among various combinations in efficacy, for reducing exacerbation or mortality, and in safety, for increasing cardiovascular events or pneumonia. METHOD: We searched parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICS/LAMA/LABA with other inhaled drugs in patients with stable COPD for at least 12 weeks in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries from inception to December 31, 2019. We conducted a network meta-analysis with Bayesian statistics using a random-effects model with heterogeneous variance structure (PROSPERO, CRD42019126757). RESULTS: Nine different combinations of ICS/LAMA/LABA were identified in 21 RCTs containing 29,892 patients with moderate to very severe COPD. We could not find any significant evidence suggesting a better treatment for reducing total exacerbations or all-cause mortality among ICS/LAMA/LABA combinations. There were also no significant differences in moderate to severe exacerbation, COPD-related mortality, or cardiovascular disease-related mortality among ICS/LAMA/LABA combinations, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was not different. A significantly lower risk of pneumonia was found in fluticasone propionate (FP)/glycopyrrolate/salmeterol (SAL) than FP/tiotropium/SAL {median odds ratio [OR] (95% credible interval [CrI]) = 0 [0-0.72]} and FP/umeclidinium/SAL {median OR (95% Crl) = 0 [0-0.97]}. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including acute exacerbation and all-cause mortality among various ICS/LAMA/LABA combinations in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

[Inhaled therapies in COPD - all patients on fixed triple?] / Inhalative Therapie der COPD ­ alle Patienten auf "fixed triple"?

Inhaled maintenance therapies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are based on bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Inhaled bronchodilator therapies consist of long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA or LAMA treatment is recommended in symptomatic COPD patients. In case of a history of exacerbations LAMA is superior to LABA in the prevention of exacerbations. LABA LAMA combination therapies are used in patients who are highly symptomatic. Adding ICS to bronchodilator treatment is recommended in COPD patients with repeated exacerbations. Recently, fixed triple therapies consisting of LABA, LAMA and ICS in single inhalers became available.

Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

Randomized controlled trial of triple versus dual inhaler therapy on small airways in smoking asthmatics.

BACKGROUND: Smoking worsens underlying asthma inflammation and also induces resistance to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Small airways dysfunction measured by impulse oscillometry (IOS) is associated with worse control. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects on small airways of adding long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) alone or with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to ICS in asthmatic smokers. METHODS: Sixteen current smokers were enrolled: mean age 44 year, FEV1 84%, FEF25-75 47%, R5 158%, ACQ 1.69, 20 pack year . Patients were converted to a reference ICS as HFA-BDP during initial run-in at median dose of 800 µg/day. Open label olodaterol 5 µg od (OLO) or olodaterol 5 µg/tiotropium 5 µg od (OLO/TIO) was added to HFA-BDP for median duration of 3 weeks in a randomized cross over design, including run-in and washout periods on HFA-BDP. IOS and spirometry were measured after each treatment (BDP/OLO/TIO or BDP/OLO) and at baseline after run-in and washout (BDP). RESULTS: After chronic dosing, IOS outcomes at trough except for R20 were all significantly improved with OLO/TIO compared to OLO. For the primary end-point of total airway resistance (as R5), the mean difference (95%CI) at trough was 0.06 (0.015-0.10) kPa/l/s, peripheral airways resistance (as R5-R20) 0.03 (0.003-0.06) kPa/l/s, peripheral lung reactance area (as AX) 0.38 (0.08-0.68) kPa/l and resonant frequency (as RF) 2.28 (0.45-4.12) Hz. FEF25-75 at trough was also better with OLO/TIO vs TIO: 0.93 (0.86 - 0.95) l/s while FEV1 was not different. CONCLUSIONS: ICS/LABA/LAMA was superior to ICS/LABA on trough small airway outcomes in asthma patients who smoke.

Comparing LAMA with LABA and LTRA as add-on therapies in primary care asthma management.

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends a stepwise approach to adjust asthma treatment to the needs of individual patients; inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the core pharmacological treatment. However, many patients remain poorly controlled, and evidence-based algorithms to decide on the best order and rationale for add-on therapies are lacking. We explore the challenges of asthma management in primary care and review outcomes from randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as add-on to ICS in patients with asthma. In adults, LAMAs and LABAs provide a greater improvement in lung function than LTRAs as add-on to ICS. In children, results were positive and comparable between therapies, but data are scarce. This information could aid decision-making in primary care, supporting the use of add-on therapy to ICS to help improve lung function, control asthma symptoms and prevent exacerbations.

Effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus vilanterol alone on bone mineral density in patients with COPD: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between inhaled corticosteroids and bone mineral density (BMD) remains uncertain despite extensive research. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-year noninferiority study. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (⩾40 years of age; smoking history ⩾10 pack years) and at least one native hip evaluable for BMD were enrolled and randomized 1:1, stratified by sex, to treatment with vilanterol (VI) 25 µg or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100 µg/25 µg. BMD measurements were taken via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry every 6 months. The primary endpoint was assessment of the noninferiority of change from baseline in total hip BMD per year at the -1% noninferiority level. Change from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine and BMD measurements by sex were secondary endpoints. Incidences of COPD exacerbations and bone fractures throughout the study were also recorded. RESULTS: Of 283 randomized patients, 170 (60%) completed the study. Noninferiority was demonstrated for FF/VI versus VI with regards to change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, with changes of -0.27% and 0.18%, respectively, and a treatment difference of -0.46% per year [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to 0.06]. The treatment difference for FF/VI versus VI regarding lumbar spine BMD was -0.51% per year (95% CI -1.11 to 0.10). COPD exacerbations and bone fracture rates were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: FF/VI showed noninferiority to VI for change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, when assessed at the -1% noninferiority margin in a combined sample of men and women with COPD.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Differences in Real-World Health and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with COPD Treated with Combination Tiotropium/Olodaterol Versus Triple Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends combination long-acting muscarinic antagonists/long-acting beta2-agonists (LAMA + LABA) as preferred maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) after monotherapy and stepping up to triple therapy (TT; LAMA + LABA + inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) in case of further exacerbations. Restrictions on TT recommendations have primarily been driven by higher pneumonia risk associated with regular ICS use. Evidence suggests that TT is overprescribed, which may affect economic and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare health plan-paid costs, COPD exacerbations, and pneumonia diagnoses among patients newly treated with a LAMA + LABA regimen composed of tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) in a fixed-dose combination inhaler (TIO + OLO) or TT in a U.S. Medicare Advantage Part D insured population. METHODS: This retrospective study identified COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years who were initiating TIO + OLO or TT (index regimen) between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, from a national administrative claims database. Continuous insurance coverage for 12 months pretreatment (baseline) and ≥ 30 days posttreatment (follow-up) was required. Patients were followed until the earliest of study end (May 31, 2018), discontinuation of index regimen (≥ 60-day gap in index regimen coverage), switch to a different regimen, or health plan disenrollment. Before analysis of outcomes, TIO + OLO and TT patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medication use, medical resource use, and costs. Cohort differences in post-match outcomes were assessed by Wald Z-test (annualized costs) and Kaplan-Meier method (time to first COPD exacerbation and pneumonia diagnosis). RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 1,454 patients who were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Compared with TT, the TIO + OLO cohort incurred $7,041 (41.1%) lower mean COPD-related total costs ($10,094 vs. $17,135; P < 0.001); cohort differences in the medical component ($3,666 lower for TIO + OLO) were driven by lower mean acute inpatient costs ($3,053 lower for TIO + OLO). Combined mean COPD plus pneumonia-related medical costs were $5,212 (39.0%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($8,209 vs. $13,421; P = 0.006), and total mean all-cause costs were $9,221 (30.4%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($21,062 vs. $30,283; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis found longer time to first severe COPD exacerbation (P = 0.020) and first pneumonia diagnosis (P = 0.002) for TIO + OLO versus TT and a lower percentage of TIO + OLO patients experiencing these events (severe COPD exacerbation: 9.0% vs. 16.1%; pneumonia: 14.5% vs. 19.3%). A secondary analysis, which expanded the TIO + OLO cohort to include any LAMA + LABA regimen, had similar findings for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating TIO + OLO incurred lower costs to health plans and experienced fewer COPD exacerbation and pneumonia events relative to TT. These findings provide important real-world economic and clinical insight into the GOLD recommendations for TIO + OLO and LAMA + LABA therapy. The study findings also indicate the continued inconsistency between the recommendations and real-world clinical practices pertaining to TT. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI). Palli and Franchino-Elder are employees of BIPI. Frazer, DuCharme, Buikema, and Anderson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.

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.).

The role of triple therapy in the management of COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy in COPD is becoming increasingly important with the cumulative documentation of its ability to reduce the risk of AECOPD. However, it must be established which patients benefit most from it compared to other treatments. AREAS COVERED: We critically review the literature to determine, if possible, the real role of triple therapy in the treatment of COPD. We have identified studies from several databases and selected the information thought to be more significant. EXPERT OPINION: It is still unclear whether and when addition of an ICS to the LAMA/LABA combination provides real additional clinical value, regardless of a preventive effect on exacerbations. There are many doubts about the value of the blood eosinophil count as a valid biomarker to predict AECOPD risk and the clinical response to ICS, also because no association was found in observational studies. In any case, before starting a therapy involving ICS, the risk factors for the development of pneumonia must always be evaluated. Adding a LAMA to an ICS/LABA combination seems to be less problematic. However, each LABA/LAMA combination has a specific efficacy/safety profile that needs to be considered for personalized therapy in COPD even in the context of triple therapy.

Dual- Versus Mono-Bronchodilator Therapy in Moderate to Severe COPD: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend both long-acting and dual bronchodilator therapy. It is unclear if there are differences in efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of dual therapy with long-acting ß-agonist (LABA) + long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) compared with monotherapy with LAMA for COPD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 2020 to identify English-language, prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dual therapy with monotherapy in adult patients with COPD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad score. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Treatment effect was determined with the random-effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method and was reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. RESULTS: A total of 18 RCTs were included (n = 6086; median Jadad score 5/5) that compared LAMA + LABA with LAMA. There was a greater improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) with dual therapy compared with LAMA: MD = 0.08; 95% CI = [0.05, 0.11]. There was no difference in St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores between groups: OR = -0.85; 95% CI = [-1.83, 0.13]. There were no differences in overall adverse events (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.09), serious adverse events (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.86, 1.18), or cardiovascular events (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.58, 1.34). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Dual therapy improves FEV1 and is as safe as LAMA. Dual therapy does not improve SGRQ scores more than LAMA.

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, disease burden, and persistence/adherence in patients with asthma initiating inhaled triple therapy: real-world evidence from Japan.

Objectives: To help optimize triple therapy use, treatment patterns and disease burden were investigated in patients in Japan with persistent asthma who initiated multi-inhaler triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist; ICS/LABA/LAMA).Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study using health insurance claims data included adults with persistent asthma who initiated triple therapy in 2016. Patients who were prescribed ICS/LABA in 2016 were included as an ICS/LABA-matched cohort. Patients were stratified into those with asthma only and those with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) codes (asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]). Patient data from 1-year prior to 1 year post index date were analyzed.Results: For patients with asthma only in the triple therapy and ICS/LABA cohorts, baseline demographics were similar. A higher proportion of the triple-therapy cohort than the ICS/LABA cohort was receiving high-dose ICS at index (68.2% and 27.6%, respectively), and had experienced an exacerbation in the last year (64.0% and 29.4%, respectively). The proportion of patients with asthma only who developed any exacerbation was lower in the year following initiation of triple therapy compared with the year prior to initiation of triple therapy (45.8% vs 64.0%, respectively). For asthma only patients receiving triple therapy, the mean (standard deviation) proportion of days covered and medication possession ratio was 0.51 (0.36) and 0.86 (0.16), respectively. Similar trends were seen in patients with ACO in the triple-therapy and ICS/LABA cohorts.Conclusion: Evidence from this study may serve as a reference for the use of inhaled triple therapy for asthma.

Treatment with LABA versus LAMA for stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD. METHODS: We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs (N = 28,211). LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.02). In St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV1 after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Treatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV1 compared to LABA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (PROSPERO: CRD42019144764).

Efficacy And Safety Of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler (GFF MDI) Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology In Chinese Patients With COPD.

Background: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist fixed-dose combination therapy delivered by MDI, formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology. The PINNACLE-4 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from Asia, Europe, and the USA. This article presents the results from the China subpopulation of PINNACLE-4. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase III study (NCT02343458), patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24. Secondary lung function endpoints and patient-reported outcome measures were also assessed. Safety was monitored throughout the study. Results: Overall, 466 patients from China were included in the intent-to-treat population (mean age 63.6 years, 95.7% male). Treatment with GFF MDI improved the primary endpoint compared to GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean differences: 98, 104, and 173 mL, respectively; all P≤0.0001). GFF MDI also improved daily total symptom scores and time to first clinically important deterioration versus monocomponents and placebo MDI, and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score versus placebo MDI. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across the active treatment groups and slightly higher in the placebo MDI group. Conclusion: GFF MDI improved lung function and daily symptoms versus monocomponents and placebo MDI and improved dyspnea versus placebo MDI. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. Efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with the global PINNACLE-4 population, supporting the use of GFF MDI in patients with COPD from China.

One-year follow up of asthmatic patients newly initiated on treatment with medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting ß2-agonist in UK primary care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS-LABA) as preferred treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Limited data is available on how step 4/5 patients respond to ICS-LABA and how they step up/down in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed the characteristics, control status, treatment pathways, and healthcare resource utilization in patients with asthma during one year after initiating medium- or high-dose ICS-LABA. Data from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink were analysed between January 01, 2006 and February 28, 2016. RESULTS: Overall, 29,229 and 16,575 patients initiated medium- and high-dose ICS-LABA, and 35.1% and 45.7% of patients, respectively, remained uncontrolled. The proportions of patients who were adherent to treatment (Medication Possession Ratio ≥80%) were 37.8% and 49.1% in the medium- and high-dose ICS-LABA cohorts, respectively. Among these adherent patients, 63.8% in the medium- and 70% in the high-dose cohorts remained uncontrolled. In patients who stepped up therapy in the medium-dose cohort (19.0%), the common step-up choices were add-on leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) (42.2%), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (23.3%), and increase in ICS dose (22.9%). In patients who stepped up therapy in the high-dose cohort (26.1%), the common step-up choices were add-on LAMA (43.8%) and LTRA (42.1%). Healthcare resource utilization was higher in uncontrolled patients, regardless of the ICS-LABA dose. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients remain uncontrolled on both medium- or high-dose ICS-LABA, highlighting the need for timely assessment of asthma control to increase treatment intensity, following evidence-based treatment pathways.

Dual use of bronchodilators versus monotherapy, and its impact on pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients.

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting bronchodilators are the therapy with the best evidence for treating stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting combinations of ß2 agonists and anticholinergics (LABA-LAMA) are recommended in advanced stages when monotherapy has not generated the desired effects. Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is an effective non-pharmacological strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained in patients with COPD who received monotherapy versus dual bronchodilator therapy in terms of functional aerobic capacity, symptoms and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective non randomized intervention study; the patients were divided into two groups: in one group patients were treated with LAMA (Tiotropium Bromide, 5 µg every 24 h) and in the other group patients were treated with LABA + LAMA (Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium, 110/50 µg once a day). After receiving the concept of pulmonology, patients were intervened with 8 weeks of PR. The study was approved by the committee of the Clinica Neumológica del Pacifico in Cali and the Institución Universitaria Escuela Nacional del Deporte, Colombia. To determine the differences, t pair test for intragroup, and t-test was performed for intergroup analysis. For all tests, a p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: 53 patients participated in this study, of which 20 were assigned to the LAMA group and 33 to the LAMA + LABA group. Patients in both groups presented changes in the distance of the 6MWT, in the VO2e, dyspnea and in all the SGRQ domains. Regarding the comparison between groups, there were found no differences in the variables at the beginning of the PR and significant differences (p < 0.05) at the end of the 8 week-period in favor of the LABA + LAMA group, in symptoms with the mMRC scale, functional aerobic capacity with the 6 min walking test and in health related quality of life specifically in the symptoms domain, where the dual therapy group obtained better results. CONCLUSION: The addition of LABA to the treatment with LAMA showed better response results compared with the monotherapy in patients with COPD who attended PR.

Aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Introduction: Treatment options for COPD have evolved rapidly in the last decade and inhaled bronchodilators have largely supplanted the use of oral bronchodilators because of their increased efficacy and excellent safety with topical delivery to the lung. Recently added to the therapeutic armamentarium are fixed-dose combinations (FDC) of two long acting bronchodilators. LAMAs (long acting muscarinic antagonists) and LABAs (long acting beta agonists) are the main classes available and use different pathways to effectively produce bronchial smooth muscle relaxation.Areas covered: The most recent inhaled FDC LAMA/LABA to come to market is Aclidinium Bromide and Formoterol Fumarate. We searched databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and manufacturers' websites and retrieved all the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with these drugs up to September 2019.Expert opinion: It is likely that FDCs will become the core of our COPD pharmacotherapy for all but the mildest COPD patients. These individual drugs have excellent efficacy and safety records for the maintenance treatment of COPD. Studies have demonstrated that twice daily treatment with aclidinium/formoterol resulted in significant improvement in lung function and an improved exercise tolerance when compared to placebo. Adverse effects are within the range of what is seen with other LAMA/LABA combinations.