Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs. INTERPRETATION: Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.

Hungarian adaptation and launch of the 2019 ARIA care pathways of allergic rhinitis in Hungary / A 2019. évi ARIA kezelési irányelvek magyar adaptációja és a hazai alkalmazás lehetoségei allergiás rhinitisben.

Összefoglaló. Az allergiás betegségekben szenvedo emberek száma világszerte, köztük Magyarországon is növekszik. Az egészségügyi ellátórendszerek azon dolgoznak, hogy minél hatékonyabban tudják felhasználni a rendelkezésre álló forrásokat. Az Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) szervezet célja az allergiás náthában szenvedo betegek ellátásának javítása, szakmai ajánlások készítése, aktualizálása. Ennek egyik módja integrált betegellátási utak kidolgozása. Célunk ezek hazai elérhetové tétele, az ajánlások széles köru elterjesztése az Európai Unió (EU) többi tagállamához hasonlóan Magyarországon is. Az ARIA más nemzetközi innovatív szervezetek bevonásával olyan integrált betegellátási utakat fejlesztett ki, amelyek allergiás nátha, esetleg társbetegsége, az asztma esetén támogatják a kezelést. Ezeket újgenerációs irányelvek kidolgozása útján alkották, amelyekhez felhasználták a mobiltechnológiából és pollenkamra-vizsgálatokból származó valós evidenciákat is. A gyógyszeres terápia optimalizálásához a vizuális analóg skálán alapuló, úgynevezett Mobil Légúti Figyelo Hálózat algoritmusát digitalizálták, és valós evidenciák felhasználásával tovább finomították. Allergén immunterápiára az ARIA a világon elsoként dolgozott ki integrált betegellátási utakat 2019-ben. A kezelési irányelvekhez való adherenciaszint alacsony, a betegek a tüneteik erossége alapján módosítják a kezelést. A flutikazon-propionát-azelasztin kombináció hatása erosebb az intranasalis kortikoszteroidokénál, míg az utóbbi hatásosabb az oralis H1-antihisztaminoknál. A mobiltelefonokban tárolt elektronikus napló vagy más 'mobile health' (mHealth) eszközök használata segíti a betegek kiválasztását allergén immunterápiára. Az ARIA által javasolt algoritmus megfelelonek mutatkozott az allergiás rhinitis kezelésére, ezért ezek az irányelvek bekerülnek integrált betegellátási utakba, és részét fogják képezni az EU Egészségügyi és Élelmiszer-biztonsági Foigazgatósága digitalizált, személyközpontú gondozási anyagainak. Az allergén immunterápia hatékony az inhalatív allergének által okozott allergiás betegségekben, alkalmazását azonban korlátozni kell gondosan válogatott betegekre. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(49): 2059-2071. Summary. The number of allergic patients is increasing all over the world, also in Hungary. Delivering effective and cost-effective health care is essential for all health care systems. ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) aims to improve the care of patients who suffer from allergic rhinitis by setting up guidelines and updating them. Development of ICPs (integrated care pathways) can play an essential role in attaining this goal. Our aim is to make ICP-s developed by ARIA available also in Hungary, as is already the case in other countries of the European Union (EU). Together with other international initiatives, ARIA has worked out digitally-enabled ICPs to support care in allergic rhinitis and comorbid asthma. ICPs are based on new-generation guidelines using RWE (real-world evidence) from chamber studies and mobile technology. The MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK) algorithm - based on visual analogue scale - was digitalized to support pharmacotherapy, and was refined by using RWE. ARIA was the first to develop ICPs for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in 2019. Based on MASK data, patients did not follow guidelines and their adherence to treatment was poor. Patients would modify their treatments, depending on the disease control. The effect of fluticasone propionate-azelastine combination is superior to intranasal corticosteroids which are superior to oral H1-antihistamines. Electronic diaries obtained from cell phones and other 'mobile health' (mHealth) devices help select patients for AIT. The ARIA algorithm for AR was found appropriate and no change is necessary. These guidelines will inform ICPs and will be included in the DG Santé digitally-enabled, person-centred care system. AIT is an effective treatment for allergic diseases caused by inhaled allergens. Its use should, however, be restricted to carefully selected patients. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(49): 2059-2071.

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review.

Introduction: Recently, the generic formulation of FP/SAL FDC has been approved in COPD. Although FP/SAL FDC has been the first long-acting FDC approved in COPD, no systematic review assessed the effect of this combination for the treatment of COPD by considering specifically Phase IV studies. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the effect of FP/SAL FDC in COPD patients enrolled in Phase IV studies.Areas covered: The question of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the impact of FP/SAL FDC for the treatment of COPD by searching for Phase IV studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Generic drugs represent an effective cost-saving step for health-care budgets in the treatment of COPD and should be used in agreement with current recommendations and prescription accuracy. FP/SAL FDC is recommended for the initiation therapy just in a small percentage of symptomatic patients that are at high risk of exacerbation with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells per µl. At follow-up, FP/SAL FDC can be escalated to triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination or switched to LABA/LAMA combination by considering symptoms, exacerbations, lack of response to ICS, inappropriate original indication, and ICS-related adverse events such as pneumonia.

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation. METHODS: This post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks' duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 µg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV1 responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison. RESULTS: The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44-45%; ≥75 years: 9-10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50-55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV1 responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.

Fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium bromide, and vilanterol as a combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Introduction: Triple therapy with two bronchodilators (LABA plus LAMA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended for patients suffering from severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Areas covered: All 12-52 week-long studies comparing triple therapy with umeclidinium (UM) added to either fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) vs. other comparators in COPD patients of group B or D (2011 GOLD classification) were considered. When UM was added to ICS/LABA with separate devices or within a single device, triple combination was more effective than comparators (usually, ICS/LABA combinations) regarding improvements to pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and, in the longer studies, rate of moderate-severe exacerbations. The IMPACT study (a large trial comparing UM/FF/VI with both FF/VI and UM/VI combinations) showed that triple therapy had a greater effect compared to dual therapies in reducing the rate of moderate-severe exacerbations, improving trough FEV1 and improving quality of life. The safety profile was good, without excess cardiovascular effects or pneumonia, however, the presence of comorbidities was frequent. Expert commentary: UM/FF/VI combination represents a good option for severe COPD patients who remain symptomatic and/or with frequent exacerbations despite dual therapies. Once daily administration with a simple and effective device may increase adherence and efficacy of the treatment.

Análisis de la eficacia de la doble broncodilatación (LABA+LAMA) en pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y cáncer de pulmón / Efficacy of double bronchodilation (LABA+LAMA) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer

No disponible

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.).

LANTERN: a randomized study of QVA149 versus salmeterol/fluticasone combination in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment strategy recommends the use of one or more bronchodilators according to the patient's airflow limitation, their history of exacerbations, and symptoms. The LANTERN study evaluated the effect of the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator, QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrronium), as compared with the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 744 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbations in the previous year were randomized (1:1) to QVA149 110/50 µg once daily or SFC 50/500 µg twice daily for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of QVA149 versus SFC for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 26. RESULTS: Overall, 676 patients completed the study. The primary objective of noninferiority between QVA149 and SFC in trough FEV1 at week 26 was met. QVA149 demonstrated statistically significant superiority to SFC for trough FEV1 (treatment difference [Δ]=75 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in standardized area under the curve (AUC) from 0 hours to 4 hours for FEV1 (FEV1 AUC0-4h) at week 26 versus SFC (Δ=122 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 and SFC had similar improvements in transition dyspnea index focal score, St George Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and rescue medication use. However, QVA149 significantly reduced the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations by 31% (P=0.048) over SFC. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was comparable between QVA149 (40.1%) and SFC (47.4%). The incidence of pneumonia was threefold lower with QVA149 (0.8%) versus SFC (2.7%). CONCLUSION: These findings support the use of the LABA/LAMA, QVA149 as an alternative treatment, over LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD patients (GOLD B and GOLD D) with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.