YG-1 Extract Improves Acute Pulmonary Inflammation by Inducing Bronchodilation and Inhibiting Inflammatory Cytokines.

YG-1 extract used in this study is a mixture of Lonicera japonica, Arctic Fructus, and Scutellariae Radix. The present study was designed to investigate the effect of YG-1 extract on bronchodilatation (ex vivo) and acute bronchial and pulmonary inflammation relief (in vivo). Ex vivo: The bronchodilation reaction was confirmed by treatment with YG-1 concentration-accumulation (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, and 1 mg/mL) in the bronchial tissue ring pre-contracted by acetylcholine (10 µM). As a result, YG-1 extract is considered to affect bronchodilation by increased cyclic adenosine monophosphate, cAMP) levels through the ß2-adrenergic receptor. In vivo: experiments were performed in C57BL/6 mice were divided into the following groups: control group; PM2.5 (fine particulate matter)-exposed group (PM2.5, 200 µg/kg/mL saline); and PM2.5-exposed + YG-1 extract (200 mg/kg/day) group. The PM2.5 (200 µg/kg/mL saline) was exposed for 1 h for 5 days using an ultrasonic nebulizer aerosol chamber to instill fine dust in the bronchi and lungs, thereby inducing acute lung and bronchial inflammation. From two days before PM2.5 exposure, YG-1 extract (200 mg/kg/day) was administered orally for 7 days. The PM2.5 exposure was involved in airway remodeling and inflammation, suggesting that YG-1 treatment improves acute bronchial and pulmonary inflammation by inhibiting the inflammatory cytokines (NLRP3/caspase-1 pathway). The application of YG-1 extract with broncho-dilating effect to acute bronchial and pulmonary inflammation animal models has great significance in developing therapeutic agents for respiratory diseases. Therefore, these results can provide essential data for the development of novel respiratory symptom relievers. Our study provides strong evidence that YG-1 extracts reduce the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and the incidence of non-specific lung diseases and improve bronchial and lung function.

Single-inhaler triple vs single-inhaler dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND: In some RCTs comparing triple therapy with dual therapy in COPD, there might be a bias resulting from the use of multiple inhaler devices. This meta-analysis included only RCTs that compared ICS/LABA/LAMA vs. LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA using a single device. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to investigate the effect of single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD. The primary end points were the effect of single-inhaler triple therapy compared with single-inhaler dual therapy on all-cause mortality, the risk of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), and some safety endpoints. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the quality of each randomized trial and the risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 25,171 patients suffering from COPD were recruited for the 6 studies. This meta-analysis indicated that single-inhaler triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality than LABA/LAMA FDC (risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.88). Single-inhaler triple therapy reduced the risk of exacerbation and prolonged the time to first exacerbation compared with single-inhaler dual therapy. The FEV1 increased significantly more under single-inhaler triple therapy than under ICS/LABA FDC (mean difference, 103.4 ml; 95% CI 64.65-142.15). The risk of pneumonia was, however, significantly higher with ICS/LAMA/LABA FDC than with LABA/LAMA FDC (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI 1.35-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that single-inhaler triple therapy is effective in reducing the risk of death of any cause and of moderate or severe exacerbation in COPD patients. However, the risk of pneumonia is higher with ICS/LAMA/LABA FDC than with LABA/LAMA FDC. Trial registration PROSPERO #CRD42020186726.

[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.

Magnesium sulphate for treating acute bronchiolitis in children up to two years of age.

BACKGROUND: Acute bronchiolitis is a significant burden on children, their families and healthcare facilities. It mostly affects children younger than two years of age. Treatment involves adequate hydration, humidified oxygen supplementation, and nebulisation of medications, such as salbutamol, epinephrine, and hypertonic saline. The effectiveness of magnesium sulphate for acute bronchiolitis is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of magnesium sulphate in acute bronchiolitis in children up to two years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and two trials registries to 30 April 2020. We contacted trial authors to identify additional studies. We searched conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles. Unpublished and published studies were eligible for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing magnesium sulphate, alone or with another treatment, with placebo or another treatment, in children up to two years old with acute bronchiolitis. Primary outcomes were time to recovery, mortality, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospital stay, clinical severity score at 0 to 24 hours and 25 to 48 hours after treatment, pulmonary function test, hospital readmission within 30 days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of intensive care unit stay. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (564 children). One study received funding from a hospital and one from a university; two studies did not report funding sources. Comparator interventions differed among all four trials. Studies were conducted in Qatar, Turkey, Iran, and India. We assessed two studies to be at an overall low risk of bias, and two to be at unclear risk of bias, overall. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes and comparisons was very low except for one: hospital re-admission rate within 30 days of discharge for magnesium sulphate versus placebo. None of the studies measured time to recovery, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, or pulmonary function. There were no events of mortality or adverse effects for magnesium sulphate compared with placebo (1 RCT, 160 children). The effects of magnesium sulphate on clinical severity are uncertain (at 0 to 24 hours: mean difference (MD) on the Wang score 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.54; and at 25 to 48 hours: MD on the Wang score -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.00). Magnesium sulphate may increase hospital re-admission rate within 30 days of discharge (risk ratio (RR) 3.16, 95% CI 1.20 to 8.27; 158 children; low-certainty evidence). None of our primary outcomes were measured for magnesium sulphate compared with hypertonic saline (1 RCT, 220 children). Effects were uncertain on the duration of hospital stay in days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.28), and on clinical severity on the Respiratory Distress Assessment Instrument (RDAI) score at 25 to 48 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.59). There were no events of mortality or adverse effects for magnesium sulphate, with or without salbutamol, compared with salbutamol (1 RCT, 57 children). Effects on the duration of hospital stay were uncertain (magnesium sulphate: 24 hours (95% CI 25.8 to 47.4), magnesium sulphate + salbutamol: 20 hours (95% CI 15.3 to 39.0), and salbutamol: 24 hours (95% CI 23.4 to 76.9)). None of our primary outcomes were measured for magnesium sulphate + epinephrine compared with no treatment or normal saline + epinephrine (1 RCT,120 children). Effects were uncertain for the duration of hospital stay in hours (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.94 to 3.14), and for RDAI scores (0 to 24 hours: MD -0.20, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.66; and 25 to 48 hours: MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to establish the efficacy and safety of magnesium sulphate for treating children up to two years of age with acute bronchiolitis. No evidence was available for time to recovery, duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay, or pulmonary function. There was no information about adverse events for some comparisons. Well-designed RCTs to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate for children with acute bronchiolitis are needed. Important outcomes, such as time to recovery and adverse events should be measured.

Long-acting dual bronchodilator therapy (indacaterol/glycopyrronium) versus nebulized short-acting dual bronchodilator (salbutamol/ipratropium) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Most guidelines recommend long-acting bronchodilators over short-acting bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The available evidence for the guidelines was based on dry powder or pressurized metered dose inhalers, but not nebulizations. Nevertheless, there is considerable, poorly evidenced based, use of short acting nebulized bronchodilators. METHODS: This was an investigator initiated, randomized, active controlled, cross-over, double-blind and double-dummy single centre study in patients with stable COPD. The active comparators were indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 µg as Ultibro® via Breezhaler® (IND/GLY) and salbutamol/ipratropium 2,5/0,5 mg via air driven nebulization (SAL/IPR), both given as a single dose on separate days. The primary end point was the area under the FEV1 curve from baseline till 6 h. Secondary end points included change in Borg dyspnoea score, adverse events and change in hyperinflation measured by the inspiratory capacity. RESULTS: A total of 33 COPD patients completed the trial and were evaluable, most of them were ex-smokers. The difference between the tested regimens for the primary endpoint, FEV1 AUC 0-6 h, 2965 ± 1544 mL (mean ± SD) for IND/GLY versus 3513 ± 1762 mL for SAL/IPR, was not significant (P = 0.08). The peak in FEV1 was higher and was reached faster with SAL/IPR compared to IND/GLY. No other significant differences were detected for the secondary endpoints including the Borg score, or adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with stable COPD, dry powder long-acting single inhalation of a LABA and a LAMA (IND/GLY) was not superior compared to nebulized short-acting salbutamol plus ipratropium (SAL/IPR) in its bronchodilating effects over 6 h.The effects of the nebulization kicked in faster and peaked higher. The observed differences may be caused by the difference in dosing between the two regimens. The improvement in Borg dyspnoea score did not favour the nebulization. Long-term outcomes were not assessed in this study.

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.

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.

Measuring disease activity in COPD: is clinically important deterioration the answer?

Given the heterogeneity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), personalized clinical management is key to optimizing patient outcomes. Important treatment goals include minimizing disease activity and preventing disease progression; however, quantification of these components remains a challenge. Growing evidence suggests that decline over time in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), traditionally the key marker of disease progression, may not be sufficient to fully determine deterioration across COPD populations. In addition, there is a lack of evidence showing that currently available multidimensional COPD indexes improve clinical decision-making, treatment, or patient outcomes. The composite clinically important deterioration (CID) endpoint was developed to assess disease worsening by detecting early deteriorations in lung function (measured by FEV1), health status (assessed by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire), and the presence of exacerbations. Post hoc and prospective analyses of clinical trial data have confirmed that the multidimensional composite CID endpoint better predicts poorer medium-term outcomes compared with any single CID component alone, and that it can demonstrate differences in treatment efficacy in short-term trials. Given the widely acknowledged need for an individualized holistic approach to COPD management, monitoring short-term CID has the potential to facilitate early identification of suboptimal treatment responses and patients at risk of increased disease progression. CID monitoring may lead to better-informed clinical management decisions and potentially improved prognosis.

Once-daily single-inhaler versus twice-daily multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD: lung function and health status results from two replicate randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD. METHODS: 207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 µg via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) < 50% predicted, or FEV1 < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or 1 severe exacerbations in the prior year. The primary endpoint in both trials was weighted mean change from baseline (wmCFB) in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV1 at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV1 and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively. RESULTS: The modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15 mL [- 13, 43]; Study 207609: 11 mL [- 20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38 mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51 mL [21, 82]) and FEV1 at 12 and 24 h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (< 1%) patients with FF/UMEC/VI and 9 (1%) patients with BUD/FOR+TIO, across both studies. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV1 measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).

Duplicate Prescriptions of Inhaled Medications for Obstructive Lung Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Inhalative treatments with metered dose aerosols and dry powder inhalers are the backbone of the pharmacotherapy for asthma and COPD. In the last decade many new and generic inhalative bronchodilators were launched at the German market, both monotherapies and fixed dose double bronchodilator (LABA/LAMA, beta adrenergic and antimuscarinic) or LABA and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and triple (LABA/LAMA/ICS) combinations. According to two surveys in 2015 among respiratory physicians we expected a high proportion of patients receiving duplicate prescriptions, e. g. a fixed dose new LABA/LAMA combination in addition to an existing ICS/LABA fixed dose combination. METHODOLOGY: We searched the database of a large mail order pharmacy (DocMorris) to identify duplicate prescriptions of inhalative drugs for a patient by the same or by two or more different physicians during a 3 months period. RESULTS: Unexpectedly, we found as little as around 1 % duplicate prescriptions for the same patient. Duplicate prescriptions involving combination products were found to be much more common than duplicate prescriptions of different mono-products. Irrespective the low percentage number of all prescriptions we saw in just one large mail order pharmacy several thousands of erroneous prescriptions. CONCLUSION: At least in the setting of this mail order pharmacy duplicate (i. e. contraindicated and potentially dangerous) prescriptions are relatively rare. Prescribers and pharmacists should be aware of the issue of duplicates - especially when prescribing or filling prescriptions with combination products.

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 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.

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.

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.

Current evidence for COPD management with dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist bronchodilators.

Long-acting inhaled bronchodilator medications are recommended as initial maintenance therapy for many patients with COPD. These medications include long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA). Combinations of long-acting bronchodilator agents (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids combined with LABA (ICS/LABA) are also used as initial or follow-up therapy in patients with more severe symptoms or at risk of COPD exacerbations. This review summarizes the position of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment recommendations, and the evidence supporting their placement relative to LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABA combination therapy, as well as differences within the LAMA/LABA class. Most studies show that LAMA/LABA treatment leads to greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than LAMA monotherapy or ICS/LABA treatment. There are fewer studies comparing the impact of different medication classes on patients' risk of exacerbations; however, the available evidence suggests that LAMA/LABA treatment and LAMA monotherapy lead to a similar reduction in exacerbation risk, while the effect of LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA remains unclear. The incidence of adverse events is similar with LAMA/LABA and LAMA alone. There is a lower risk of pneumonia with LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA. This evidence supports the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial maintenance therapy option for symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk and severe breathlessness or patients with severe symptoms who are at risk of exacerbations, and as follow-up treatment in patients with uncontrolled symptoms or exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy.

An Evaluation Of Single And Dual Long-Acting Bronchodilator Therapy As Effective Interventions In Maintenance Therapy-Naïve Patients With COPD.

Background: Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD should be based on studies conducted specifically in this population. We have reviewed evidence from previous studies of pharmacological treatments in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD and performed a new post-hoc analysis of dual bronchodilator treatment in this population, aiming to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. Materials and methods: A literature review identified clinical trials that included analyses of patients with COPD who were maintenance therapy-naïve with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD in two large phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week trials investigating the efficacy of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination versus monotherapy or placebo (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]). Results: Treatment-naïve patients with COPD often represent a population of patients at the earliest stage at which most patients seek treatment. Of nine relevant studies identified, all reported positive findings for efficacy of LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA treatment in maintenance therapy-naïve populations. Improvements were observed in lung function, symptoms, and health status versus monotherapy or placebo. Post-hoc analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT demonstrated that AB/FF was effective in improving lung function in patients who had received no prior maintenance therapy. AB/FF showed improvements in 1 hr post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and patient-reported outcomes versus placebo and monotherapies. Combined with reviews of previous studies in maintenance therapy-naïve patients, these findings suggest that earlier intervention with a dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy, such as AB/FF, may provide significantly greater benefits than LAMA or LABA mono-bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD. Conclusion: These data show that therapeutic intervention is effective in treatment-naïve patients. Intervention with dual bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD may provide greater benefits than LAMA or LABA monotherapy.

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. RESULTS: We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15-52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15-35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25-50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3-11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION: The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42018102125 .

Economic impact of delaying initiation with multiple-inhaler maintenance triple therapy in Spanish patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend the use of triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to reduce the risk of future exacerbations in symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations. This study aimed to estimate COPD-related healthcare resource use and costs, and subsequent exacerbation rates, for patients initiating multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) early (≤30 days) versus late (31-180 days) following an exacerbation, in a real-world clinical setting. Patients and methods: This was an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study using electronic medical records from the Spanish database of the Red de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios Foundation. Patients ≥40 years old with a confirmed COPD diagnosis who were newly prescribed MITT up to 180 days after an exacerbation between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Patients were followed from the date of MITT initiation for up to 12 months to assess COPD-related health care resource use (routine and emergency visits, hospitalizations, pharmacologic treatment), exacerbation rate, and costs (€2017); these endpoints were compared between early versus late groups. Results: The study included 1280 patients who met selection criteria: mean age 73 years, 78% male, and 41% had severe/very severe lung function impairment. The proportion of patients initiating MITT early versus late was 61.6% versus 38.4%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. During follow-up, health care resource consumption was lower in the early versus late group, especially primary care and ED visits, leading to lower total costs (€1861 versus €1935; P<0.05). In the follow-up period, 28.0% of the patients in the early group experienced ≥1 exacerbation versus 36.4% in the late group (P=0.002), with an exacerbation rate of 0.5 versus 0.6 per person per year (P=0.022), respectively. Conclusion: Initiating MITT early (≤30 days after an exacerbation) may reduce health care costs and exacerbation rate compared with late MITT initiation.

Efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile of dual bronchodilation therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A bidimensional comparative analysis across fixed-dose combinations.

Despite several long-acting ß2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are currently approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there are limited findings concerning the direct comparison across the different LABA/LAMA FDCs. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy/safety profile of approved LABA/LAMA FDCs in COPD. A network meta-analysis was performed by linking the efficacy (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, St' George Respiratory Questionnaire, transitional dyspnea index) and safety (cardiovascular serious adverse events) outcomes resulting from randomized controlled trials that directly compared LABA/LAMA FDCs with placebo and/or each other. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve Analysis (SUCRA) was performed for each single outcome (SUCRA: 1 = best, 0 = worst). The combined efficacy/safety profile was reported via the novel Improved Bidimensional SUCRA score (IBiS: the higher the value the better the treatment). Data obtained from 12,136 COPD patients (79.50% LABA/LAMA FDCs vs. placebo; 20.50% direct comparison between different LABA/LAMA FDCs) were extracted from 22 studies published between 2013 and 2019. The IBiS score showed the following rank of efficacy/safety profile: tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg (area 66.83%) ¼ glycopyrronium/indacaterol 15.6/27.5 µg (area 40.43%)  >  umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg (area 30.48%)  ≈  aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg (area 28.44%)  >  glycopyrronium/indacaterol 50/110 µg (area 19.95%)  >  glycopyrronium/formoterol 14.4/9.6 µg (area 11.50%). Each available LABA/LAMA FDC has a specific efficacy/safety profile that needs to be considered for personalized therapy in COPD. Head-to-head studies aimed to assess the impact of different LABA/LAMA FDCs on the risk of COPD exacerbation are needed to further improve the information provided by this quantitative synthesis.

Are there specific clinical characteristics associated with physician's treatment choices in COPD?

BACKGROUND: The number of pharmacological agents and guidelines available for COPD has increased markedly but guidelines remain poorly followed. Understanding underlying clinical reasoning is challenging and could be informed by clinical characteristics associated with treatment prescriptions. METHODS: To determine whether COPD treatment choices by respiratory physicians correspond to specific patients' features, this study was performed in 1171 patients who had complete treatment and clinical characterisation data. Multiple statistical models were applied to explain five treatment categories: A: no COPD treatment or short-acting bronchodilator(s) only; B: one long-acting bronchodilator (beta2 agonist, LABA or anticholinergic agent, LAMA); C: LABA+LAMA; D: a LABA or LAMA + inhaled corticosteroid (ICS); E: triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS). RESULTS: Mean FEV1 was 60% predicted. Triple therapy was prescribed to 32.9% (treatment category E) of patients and 29.8% received a combination of two treatments (treatment categories C or D); ICS-containing regimen were present for 44% of patients altogether. Single or dual bronchodilation were less frequently used (treatment categories B and C: 19% each). While lung function was associated with all treatment decisions, exacerbation history, scores of clinical impact and gender were associated with the prescription of > 1 maintenance treatment. Statistical models could predict treatment decisions with a < 35% error rate. CONCLUSION: In COPD, contrary to what has been previously reported in some studies, treatment choices by respiratory physicians appear rather rational since they can be largely explained by the patients' characteristics proposed to guide them in most recommendations.