Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a type of medication delivered via an inhaler device that are commonly used in the treatment of asthma. ICS can also be used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a progressive respiratory condition in which the lungs become worse over time. However, unlike in asthma, ICS are only effective in a small proportion of people with COPD. ICS can cause significant side effects in people with COPD, including pneumonia. Because of this, guidelines written by COPD experts recommend that ICS should largely be prescribed to people with COPD whose symptoms flare up frequently and become difficult to manage (episodes known as exacerbations). Despite this guidance, records collected from routine clinical practice suggest that many healthcare professionals prescribe ICS to people with COPD who do not have frequent exacerbations, putting them at unnecessary risk of side effects. The over-prescription of ICS in COPD may partly be due to the recent introduction of single-inhaler combination therapies, which combine ICS with other medicines (bronchodilators). This 'one inhaler for all' approach is a concerning trend as it goes against global COPD treatment guidelines, which recommend ICS use in only a small proportion of people. This is a plain language summary of a review article originally published in the journal NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. In this review, we investigate the benefits and risks of ICS use in COPD. Using data from both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, we explain which people benefit from ICS use, and why health regulatory bodies have concluded that ICS do not help people with COPD to live longer. Lastly, we provide practical guidance for doctors and people with COPD regarding when ICS should be prescribed and when they should be withdrawn.

Targeting exertional breathlessness to improve physical activity: the role of primary care.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play a crucial role in the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). By working together with patients to target exertional breathlessness and increase physical activity, PCPs have an important role to play, early in the disease course, in improving patient outcomes in both the short and long term. In this article, we consider how physical activity affects disease progression from the PCP perspective. We discuss the role of pharmacological therapy, the importance of an holistic approach and the role of PCPs in assessing and promoting physical activity. The complexity and heterogeneity of COPD make it a challenging disease to treat. Patients' avoidance of activity, and subsequent decline in capacity to perform it, further impacts the management of the disease. Improving patient tolerance of physical activity, increasing participation in daily activities and helping patients to remain active are clear goals of COPD management. These may require an holistic approach to management, including pulmonary rehabilitation and psychological programmes in parallel with bronchodilation therapy, in order to address both physiological and behavioural factors. PCPs have an important role to optimise therapy, set goals and communicate the importance of maintaining physical activity to their patients. In addition, optimal treatment that addresses activity-related breathlessness can help prevent the downward spiral of inactivity and get patients moving again, to improve their overall health and long-term prognosis.

[What not to do in the therapeutic management of bronchial asthma. Delphi consensus recommendations for physicians who treat asthma]. / Qué no se debe hacer en el manejo terapéutico del asma bronquial. Recomendaciones por consenso Delphi para los médicos que tratan el asma.

Asthma is one of the most prevalent diseases in Spain, yet despite the great diagnostic and therapeutic advances made in this field, health outcomes suggest that up to 80% of patients do not have their asthma well controlled. Although the causes of this situation are diverse, there are some practices among the professionals who treat asthma that are not conducive to improving health outcomes in this disease. Our working group has prepared this document in order to remind clinicians of a series of basic guidelines, aligned with current guidelines and recent literature, and agreed by a multidisciplinary expert panel using Delphi methodology. These recommendations about what not to do in the management of asthma in the adult patient are structured into four areas: diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and prevention of exacerbations.

Efficacy of high doses of penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of uncomplicated community acquired pneumonia in adults. A non-inferiority controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is treated with penicillin in some northern European countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of non-severe CAP. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel, double-blind, controlled, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: 31 primary care centers in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Patients from 18 to 75 years of age with no significant associated comorbidity and with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of CAP were randomized to receive either penicillin V 1.6 million units, or amoxicillin 1000mg three times per day for 10 days. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome was clinical cure at 14 days, and the primary hypothesis was that penicillin V would be non-inferior to amoxicillin with regard to this outcome, with a margin of 15% for the difference in proportions. EudraCT register 2012-003511-63. RESULTS: A total of 43 subjects (amoxicillin: 28; penicillin: 15) were randomized. Clinical cure was observed in 10 (90.9%) patients assigned to penicillin and in 25 (100%) patients assigned to amoxicillin with a difference of -9.1% (95% CI, -41.3% to 6.4%; p=.951) for non-inferiority. In the intention-to-treat analysis, amoxicillin was found to be 28.6% superior to penicillin (95% CI, 7.3-58.1%; p=.009 for superiority). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend favoring high-dose amoxicillin versus high-dose penicillin in adults with uncomplicated CAP. The main limitation of this trial was the low statistical power due to the low number of patients included.

Randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies in evaluating cardiovascular safety of inhaled bronchodilator therapy in COPD.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and their combination are recommended for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the efficacy of LAMAs and LABAs has been well established through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), questions remain regarding their cardiovascular (CV) safety. Furthermore, while the safety of LAMA and LABA monotherapy has been extensively studied, data are lacking for LAMA/LABA combination therapy, and the majority of the studies that have reported on the CV safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy were not specifically designed to assess this. Evaluation of CV safety for COPD treatments is important because many patients with COPD have underlying CV comorbidities. However, severe CV and other comorbidities are often exclusion criteria for RCTs, contributing to a lack in external validity and generalizability. Real-world observational studies are another important tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COPD therapies in a broader population of patients and can improve upon the external validity limitations of RCTs. We examine what is already known regarding the CV and cerebrovascular safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy from RCTs and real-world observational studies, and explore the advantages and limitations of data derived from each study type. We also describe an ongoing prospective, observational, comparative post-authorization safety study of a LAMA/LABA combination therapy (umeclidinium/vilanterol) and LAMA monotherapy (umeclidinium) versus tiotropium, with a focus on the relative merits of the study design.