RESUMEN
This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.
Asunto(s)
Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2 , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Humanos , Administración por Inhalación , Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/uso terapéutico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Atención Primaria de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos como AsuntoRESUMEN
Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a large, multicentre, multi-national, randomised, double-blind, 24-week trial. EMAX evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual bronchodilator therapy with umeclidinium bromide (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus monotherapy with either UMEC or salmeterol (SAL) in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low exacerbation risk who were not taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). EMAX generated evidence covering a wide range of patient-centred endpoints in COPD in addition to measures of lung function, clinical deterioration and safety. In addition, prospective and post hoc secondary analyses have generated clinically valuable information regarding the effects of baseline patient characteristics on treatment outcomes. Importantly, as concomitant ICS use was not permitted in this study, EMAX compared dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy with LAMA or LABA monotherapy without potential confounding due to concurrent ICS use or withdrawal. EMAX demonstrated beneficial treatment effects of UMEC/VI over UMEC or SAL monotherapy as maintenance treatment across a range of different patient characteristics, with no forfeit in safety. Thus, the trial provided novel insights into the role of LAMA/LABA versus LABA and LAMA monotherapies as maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic COPD at low risk of exacerbations. This article will explore the clinical implications of the main findings to date of the EMAX trial and consider the key learnings this trial offers for future trial design in COPD.
Asunto(s)
Broncodilatadores , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Administración por Inhalación , Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2 , Clorobencenos , Combinación de Medicamentos , Combinación Fluticasona-Salmeterol , Humanos , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Antagonistas Muscarínicos , Estudios Prospectivos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Quinuclidinas/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/uso terapéutico , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: -0.44 [-0.73, -0.16]; maintenance-treated: -0.28 [-0.45, -0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: -0.37 [-0.66, -0.09]; maintenance-treated: -0.25 [-0.41, -0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [-0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [-0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (-0.26 [-1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (-0.58 [-1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.
Asunto(s)
Broncodilatadores , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Administración por Inhalación , Alcoholes Bencílicos/uso terapéutico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Clorobencenos/uso terapéutico , Método Doble Ciego , Combinación de Medicamentos , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Quinuclidinas/uso terapéutico , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis of the "Early MAXimization of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability" (EMAX) trial investigated whether patients achieving early clinically important improvement (CII) sustained longer-term improvements and lower risk of clinically important deterioration (CID). METHODS: Patients were randomized to umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, or salmeterol for 24 weeks. The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) were assessed. CII, defined as attaining minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in ≥2 PROs, was assessed at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CID was defined as a deterioration in CAT, SGRQ, TDI by the MCID and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation from Day 30. RESULTS: Of 2425 patients, 50%, 53% and 51% achieved a CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24, respectively. Patients with a CII at Week 4 versus those without had significantly greater odds of achieving a CII at Weeks 12 and 24 (odds ratio: 5.57 [95% CI: 4.66, 6.66]; 4.09 [95% CI: 3.44, 4.86]). The risk of a CID was higher in patients who did not achieve a CII at Week 4 compared with patients who did (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.09 [1.86, 2.34]). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus either monotherapy had significantly greater odds of achieving CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CONCLUSION: Achieving a CII at Week 4 was associated with longer-term improvement in PROs and a reduced risk of deterioration. Further research is required to investigate the importance of an early response to treatment on the long-term disease course.
Asunto(s)
Broncodilatadores , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado , Humanos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/uso terapéutico , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a multicomponent measure for assessing disease worsening in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis investigated the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the effect of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk in patients in the IMPACT trial. METHODS: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week, multicentre trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25â µg, FF/VI 100/25â µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25â µg. CID at the time-point of interest was defined as a moderate/severe exacerbation, ≥100â mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1â s or deterioration in health status (increase of ≥4.0â units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or increase of ≥2.0â units in COPD Assessment Test score) from baseline. A treatment-independent post hoc prognostic analysis compared clinical outcomes up to week 52 in patients with/without a CID by week 28. A prospective analysis evaluated time to first CID with each treatment. RESULTS: Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (all p<0.001), and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID-free. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of short-term disease worsening was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. FF/UMEC/VI reduced CID risk versus dual therapies; this effect may improve long-term prognosis in this population.
RESUMEN
RATIONALE: Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates. RESULTS: Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20).Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
Asunto(s)
Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/administración & dosificación , Alcoholes Bencílicos/administración & dosificación , Broncodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Clorobencenos/administración & dosificación , Pulmón/efectos de los fármacos , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/administración & dosificación , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Quinuclidinas/administración & dosificación , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/administración & dosificación , Administración por Inhalación , Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/efectos adversos , Anciano , Alcoholes Bencílicos/efectos adversos , Broncodilatadores/efectos adversos , Clorobencenos/efectos adversos , Método Doble Ciego , Combinación de Medicamentos , Femenino , Humanos , Pulmón/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/efectos adversos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Quinuclidinas/efectos adversos , Recuperación de la Función , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/efectos adversos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. METHODS: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
Asunto(s)
Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/uso terapéutico , Alcoholes Bencílicos/uso terapéutico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Clorobencenos/uso terapéutico , Pulmón/efectos de los fármacos , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Quinuclidinas/uso terapéutico , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/uso terapéutico , Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/efectos adversos , Anciano , Alcoholes Bencílicos/efectos adversos , Broncodilatadores/efectos adversos , Clorobencenos/efectos adversos , Método Doble Ciego , Combinación de Medicamentos , Femenino , Humanos , Pulmón/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/efectos adversos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Quinuclidinas/efectos adversos , Recuperación de la Función , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/efectos adversos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once-daily or salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS: Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.
Asunto(s)
Corticoesteroides , Alcoholes Bencílicos/administración & dosificación , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Clorobencenos/administración & dosificación , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Quinuclidinas/administración & dosificación , Xinafoato de Salmeterol/uso terapéutico , Administración por Inhalación , Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Método Doble Ciego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/fisiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by varying trajectories of decline. Information regarding the prognostic value of preventing short-term clinically important deterioration (CID) in lung function, health status, or first moderate/severe exacerbation as a composite endpoint of worsening is needed. We evaluated post hoc the link between early CID and long-term adverse outcomes. METHODS: CID was defined as ≥100 mL decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), ≥4-unit increase in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score from baseline, and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation during enrollment in two 3-year studies. Presence of CID was assessed at 6 months for the principal analysis (TORCH) and 12 months for the confirmatory analysis (ECLIPSE). Association between presence (+) or absence (-) of CID and long-term deterioration in FEV1, SGRQ, future risk of exacerbations, and all-cause mortality was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 2870 (54%; TORCH) and 1442 (73%; ECLIPSE) patients were CID+. At 36 months, in TORCH, CID+ patients (vs CID-) had sustained clinically significant worsening of FEV1 (- 117 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 134, - 100 mL; P < 0.001) and SGRQ score (+ 6.42 units; 95% CI: 5.40, 7.45; P < 0.001), and had higher risk of exacerbations (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61 [95% CI: 1.50, 1.72]; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.15, 1.72]; P < 0.001). Similar risks post-CID were observed in ECLIPSE. CONCLUSIONS: A CID within 6-12 months of follow-up was consistently associated with increased long-term risk of exacerbations and all-cause mortality, and predicted sustained meaningful loss in FEV1 and health status amongst survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00268216 ; NCT00292552 .
Asunto(s)
Broncodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Deterioro Clínico , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/fisiología , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Anciano , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone. METHODS: This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.
Asunto(s)
Alcoholes Bencílicos , Clorobencenos , Combinación Fluticasona-Salmeterol , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Quinuclidinas , Anciano , Alcoholes Bencílicos/administración & dosificación , Alcoholes Bencílicos/efectos adversos , Clorobencenos/administración & dosificación , Clorobencenos/efectos adversos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Combinación Fluticasona-Salmeterol/administración & dosificación , Combinación Fluticasona-Salmeterol/efectos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/administración & dosificación , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/efectos adversos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Quinuclidinas/administración & dosificación , Quinuclidinas/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Fármacos del Sistema Respiratorio/administración & dosificación , Fármacos del Sistema Respiratorio/efectos adversos , Prevención Secundaria/métodos , Evaluación de Síntomas/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Divergent strategies have emerged for the management of severe asthma. One strategy utilises high and fixed doses of maintenance treatment, usually inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), supplemented by a short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) as needed. Alternatively, budesonide/formoterol is used as both maintenance and reliever therapy. The latter is superior to fixed-dose treatment in reducing severe exacerbations while achieving similar or better asthma control in other regards. Exacerbations may be reduced by the use of budesonide/formoterol as reliever medication during periods of unstable asthma. We examined the risk of a severe exacerbation in the period after a single day with high reliever use. METHODS: Episodes of high reliever use were quantified and exacerbations occurring post-index day with these episodes were examined post hoc in two double-blind studies comparing the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART™, Turbuhaler®) 160/4.5 µg twice daily plus as needed with similar or higher maintenance doses of ICS/LABA plus SABA or formoterol. RESULTS: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the risk of episodes of high reliever use (>6 inhalations/day) vs. all alternative ICS/LABA regimens. With conventional fixed-dose treatment the need for exacerbation treatment within 21 days ranged from 6.0-10.1% of days post-index for all regimens compared with 2.5-3.4% of days with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces the incidence of high reliever episodes and the exacerbation burden immediately following these episodes vs. alternative ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at up to double the maintenance dose of ICS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: These studies do not have registration numbers as they were conducted before clinical trial registration was required.
Asunto(s)
Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Budesonida/administración & dosificación , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Etanolaminas/administración & dosificación , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Administración por Inhalación , Corticoesteroides/efectos adversos , Antiasmáticos/administración & dosificación , Antiasmáticos/efectos adversos , Asma/inducido químicamente , Asma/epidemiología , Broncodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Broncodilatadores/efectos adversos , Budesonida/efectos adversos , Combinación Budesonida y Fumarato de Formoterol , Método Doble Ciego , Combinación de Medicamentos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Etanolaminas/efectos adversos , Fumarato de Formoterol , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs), or treatment with high doses of ICSs alone improves asthma control when therapy with low-dose ICSs is not sufficient. However, it is not known which of these treatment options is more effective in sustaining asthma control. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of increasing the ICS dosage vs adding LABAs on the time spent with well-controlled asthma or poorly controlled asthma. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the Formoterol and Corticosteroid Establishing Therapy study, which compared a fourfold increase in the budesonide dose with and without formoterol. RESULTS: Time with well-controlled asthma was improved by 19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3 to 35%; p = 0.017) by adding formoterol, 24 microg/d, to therapy with budesonide, 200 microg/d, compared to 2% (95% CI, -9 to 12%; p = 0.76) with therapy with budesonide, 800 microg/d, alone. Time with well-controlled asthma was further improved by 29% (95% CI, 13 to 47%; p < 0.001) by adding formoterol to therapy with budesonide, 800 microg/d. Time with poorly controlled asthma was significantly reduced using the same interventions by 43% (95% CI, 25 to 57%), 22% (95% CI, 7 to 44%), and 50% (95% CI, 30 to 64%), respectively. Adding formoterol to budesonide was significantly more effective in increasing time with well-controlled asthma when compared to increasing the budesonide dose fourfold (increase, 16%; 95% CI, 1 to 33%; p = 0.035), with a trend for a greater reduction in time with poor control (decrease, 21%; 95% CI, -5 to 42%). CONCLUSION: The addition of formoterol to therapy with low-dose budesonide increases the probability of well-controlled asthma compared to a substantial increase in the dose of an ICS.