Coordinated nasal mucosa-mediated immunity accelerates recovery from COVID-19.

Introduction: Understanding the interplay of immune mediators in relation to clinical outcomes during acute infection has the potential to highlight immune networks critical to symptom recovery. The objective of the present study was to elucidate the immune networks critical to early symptom resolution following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Methods: In a community-based randomised clinical trial comparing inhaled budesonide against usual care in 139 participants with early onset SARS-CoV-2 (the STOIC study; clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04416399), significant clinical deterioration (reported need for urgent care, emergency department visit, hospitalisation: the primary outcome), self-reported symptom severity (Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaire) and immune mediator networks were assessed. Immune mediator networks were determined using pre-defined mathematical modelling of immune mediators, determined by the Meso Scale Discovery U-Plex platform, within the first 7 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to 22 healthy controls. Results: Interferon- and chemokine-dominant networks were associated with high viral burden. Elevated levels of the mucosal network (chemokine (C-C motif) ligand (CCL)13, CCL17, interleukin (IL)-33, IL-5, IL-4, CCL26, IL-2, IL-12 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) was associated with a mean 3.7-day quicker recovery time, with no primary outcome events, irrespective of treatment arm. This mucosal network was associated with initial nasal and throat symptoms at day 0. Conclusion: A nasal immune network is critical to accelerated recovery and improved patient outcomes in community-acquired viral infections. Overall, early prognostication and treatments aimed at inducing epithelial responses may prove clinically beneficial in enhancing early host response to virus.

Development and validation of a new algorithm for improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

QRISK algorithms use data from millions of people to help clinicians identify individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Here, we derive and externally validate a new algorithm, which we have named QR4, that incorporates novel risk factors to estimate 10-year CVD risk separately for men and women. Health data from 9.98 million and 6.79 million adults from the United Kingdom were used for derivation and validation of the algorithm, respectively. Cause-specific Cox models were used to develop models to predict CVD risk, and the performance of QR4 was compared with version 3 of QRISK, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk scores. We identified seven novel risk factors in models for both men and women (brain cancer, lung cancer, Down syndrome, blood cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, oral cancer and learning disability) and two additional novel risk factors in women (pre-eclampsia and postnatal depression). On external validation, QR4 had a higher C statistic than QRISK3 in both women (0.835 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.833-0.837) and 0.831 (95% CI, 0.829-0.832) for QR4 and QRISK3, respectively) and men (0.814 (95% CI, 0.812-0.816) and 0.812 (95% CI, 0.810-0.814) for QR4 and QRISK3, respectively). QR4 was also more accurate than the ASCVD and SCORE2 risk scores in both men and women. The QR4 risk score identifies new risk groups and provides superior CVD risk prediction in the United Kingdom compared with other international scoring systems for CVD risk.

Functional MRI assessment of the lungs in fetuses that deliver very Preterm: An MRI pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare mean pulmonary T2* values and pulmonary volumes in fetuses that subsequently spontaneously delivered before 32 weeks with a control cohort with comparable gestational ages and to assess the value of mean pulmonary T2* as a predictor of preterm birth < 32 weeks' gestation. METHODS: MRI datasets scanned at similar gestational ages were selected from fetuses who spontaneously delivered < 32 weeks of gestation and a control group who subsequently delivered at term with no complications. All women underwent a fetal MRI on a 3 T MRI imaging system. Sequences included T2-weighted single shot fast spin echo and T2* sequences, using gradient echo single shot echo planar sequencing of the fetal thorax. Motion correction was performed using slice-to-volume reconstruction and T2* maps generated using in-house pipelines. Lungs were manually segmented and volumes and mean T2* values calculated for both lungs combined and left and right lung separately. Linear regression was used to compare values between the preterm and control cohorts accounting for the effects of gestation. Receiver operating curves were generated for mean T2* values and pulmonary volume as predictors of preterm birth < 32 weeks' gestation. RESULTS: Datasets from twenty-eight preterm and 74 control fetuses were suitable for analysis. MRI images were taken at similar fetal gestational ages (preterm cohort (mean ± SD) 24.9 ± 3.3 and control cohort (mean ± SD) 26.5 ± 3.0). Mean gestational age at delivery was 26.4 ± 3.3 for the preterm group and 39.9 ± 1.3 for the control group. Mean pulmonary T2* values remained constant with increasing gestational age while pulmonary volumes increased. Both T2* and pulmonary volumes were lower in the preterm group than in the control group for all parameters (both combined, left, and right lung (p < 0.001 in all cases). Adjusted for gestational age, pulmonary volumes and mean T2* values were good predictors of premature delivery in fetuses < 32 weeks (area under the curve of 0.828 and 0.754 respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that mean pulmonary T2* values and volumes were lower in fetuses that subsequently delivered very preterm. This may suggest potentially altered oxygenation and indicate that pulmonary morbidity associated with prematurity has an antenatal antecedent. Future work should explore these results correlating antenatal findings with long term pulmonary outcomes.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has caused severe illness and mortality for millions worldwide. Despite the development, approval and rollout of vaccination programmes globally to prevent infection by SARS-CoV-2 and the development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), treatments are still urgently needed to improve outcomes. Early in the pandemic it was observed that patients with pre-existing asthma or COPD were underrepresented among those with COVID-19. Evidence from clinical studies indicates that the inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) routinely taken for asthma and COPD could have had a protective role in preventing severe COVID-19 and, therefore, may be a promising treatment for COVID-19. This review summarises the evidence supporting the beneficial effects of ICS on outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and explores the potential protective mechanisms.

Early Th2 inflammation in the upper respiratory mucosa as a predictor of severe COVID-19 and modulation by early treatment with inhaled corticosteroids: a mechanistic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Community-based clinical trials of the inhaled corticosteroid budesonide in early COVID-19 have shown improved patient outcomes. We aimed to understand the inflammatory mechanism of budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19. METHODS: The STOIC trial was a randomised, open label, parallel group, phase 2 clinical intervention trial where patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care (as needed antipyretics were only available treatment) or inhaled budesonide at a dose of 800 µg twice a day plus usual care. For this experimental analysis, we investigated the nasal mucosal inflammatory response in patients recruited to the STOIC trial and in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2-negative healthy controls, recruited from a long-term observational data collection study at the University of Oxford. In patients with SARS-CoV-2 who entered the STOIC study, nasal epithelial lining fluid was sampled at day of randomisation (day 0) and at day 14 following randomisation, blood samples were also collected at day 28 after randomisation. Nasal epithelial lining fluid and blood samples were collected from the SARS-CoV-2 negative control cohort. Inflammatory mediators in the nasal epithelial lining fluid and blood were assessed for a range of viral response proteins, and innate and adaptive response markers using Meso Scale Discovery enzyme linked immunoassay panels. These samples were used to investigate the evolution of inflammation in the early COVID-19 disease course and assess the effect of budesonide on inflammation. FINDINGS: 146 participants were recruited in the STOIC trial (n=73 in the usual care group; n=73 in the budesonide group). 140 nasal mucosal samples were available at day 0 (randomisation) and 122 samples at day 14. At day 28, whole blood was collected from 123 participants (62 in the budesonide group and 61 in the usual care group). 20 blood or nasal samples were collected from healthy controls. In early COVID-19 disease, there was an enhanced inflammatory airway response with the induction of an anti-viral and T-helper 1 and 2 (Th1/2) inflammatory response compared with healthy individuals. Individuals with COVID-19 who clinically deteriorated (ie, who met the primary outcome) showed an early blunted respiratory interferon response and pronounced and persistent Th2 inflammation, mediated by CC chemokine ligand (CCL)-24, compared with those with COVID-19 who did not clinically deteriorate. Over time, the natural course of COVID-19 showed persistently high respiratory interferon concentrations and elevated concentrations of the eosinophil chemokine, CCL-11, despite clinical symptom improvement. There was persistent systemic inflammation after 28 days following COVID-19, including elevated concentrations of interleukin (IL)-6, tumour necrosis factor-α, and CCL-11. Budesonide treatment modulated inflammation in the nose and blood and was shown to decrease IL-33 and increase CCL17. The STOIC trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399. INTERPRETATION: An initial blunted interferon response and heightened T-helper 2 inflammatory response in the respiratory tract following SARS-CoV-2 infection could be a biomarker for predicting the development of severe COVID-19 disease. The clinical benefit of inhaled budesonide in early COVID-19 is likely to be as a consequence of its inflammatory modulatory effect, suggesting efficacy by reducing epithelial damage and an improved T-cell response. FUNDING: Oxford National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

Discordant diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in COPD trials: a review.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have a class effect of increasing pneumonia risk in patients with COPD. However, pneumonia incidence varies widely across clinical trials of ICS use in COPD. This review clarifies methodological differences in defining and recording pneumonia events in these trials and discusses factors that could contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. Literature searches and screening yielded 40 relevant references for inclusion. Methods used to capture pneumonia events in these studies included investigator-reported pneumonia adverse events, standardised list of signs or symptoms, radiographic confirmation of suspected cases and/or confirmation by an independent clinical end-point committee. In general, more stringent pneumonia diagnosis criteria led to lower reported pneumonia incidence rates. In addition, studies varied in design and population characteristics, including exacerbation history and lung function, factors that probably contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. As such, cross-trial comparisons are problematic. A minimal set of standardised criteria for diagnosis and reporting of pneumonia should be used in COPD studies, as well as reporting of patients' pneumonia history at baseline, to allow comparison of pneumonia rates between trials. Currently, within-trial comparison of ICS-containing versus non-ICS-containing treatments is the appropriate method to assess the influence of ICS on pneumonia incidence.

Renaming COPD exacerbations: the UK respiratory nursing perspective.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD experience acute worsenings, termed 'exacerbations'. While other terms to describe these events have been proposed there is no consensus on terminology which has led to multiple terms being used across the UK. Respiratory nurses are part of a multi-disciplinary team managing COPD patients, however, the nursing perspective on the term 'exacerbation' is unknown. METHODS: An anonymised survey of 17 questions was sent to respiratory nurses through an email invitation link. The survey link was open for one month. The aim was to understand the nurse perspective on 'exacerbation'. Alternative terms used in the UK were compared versus the term 'exacerbation'. RESULTS: Responses were received from 113 nurses. The majority (88%) were female. There was no consensus on preference or meaning for the term 'exacerbation' between nurses. Less than 5% of nurses thought that patients with COPD would understand the term 'exacerbation'. In ranked order, the nurses preferred the following terms: 'flare-up', 'lung attack', 'crisis', 'exacerbation' and 'chest infection'. The term 'crisis', although new, was considered to be the term that most resonated with clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Respiratory nurses in the UK report that the term 'exacerbation' is not fit for purpose for patients, and alternatives should be sought.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Predicting treatment outcomes following an exacerbation of airways disease.

BACKGROUND: COPD and asthma exacerbations result in many emergency department admissions. Not all treatments are successful, often leading to hospital readmissions. AIMS: We sought to develop predictive models for exacerbation treatment outcome in a cohort of exacerbating asthma and COPD patients presenting to the emergency department. METHODS: Treatment failure was defined as the need for additional systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and/or antibiotics, hospital readmissison or death within 30 days of initial emergency department visit. We performed univariate analysis comparing characteristics of patients either given or not given SCS at exacerbation and of patients who succeeded versus failed treatment. Patient demographics, medications and exacerbation symptoms, physiology and biology were available. We developed multivariate random forest models to identify predictors of SCS prescription and for predicting treatment failure. RESULTS: Data were available for 81 patients, 43 (53%) of whom failed treatment. 64 (79%) of patients were given SCS. A random forest model using presence of wheeze at exacerbation and blood eosinophil percentage predicted SCS prescription with area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.69. An 11 variable random forest model (which included medication, previous exacerbations, symptoms and quality of life scores) could predict treatment failure with AUC 0.81. A random forest model using just the two best predictors of treatment failure, namely, visual analogue scale for breathlessness and sputum purulence, predicted treatment failure with AUC 0.68. CONCLUSION: Prediction of exacerbation treatment outcome can be achieved via supervised machine learning combining different predictors at exacerbation. Validation of our predictive models in separate, larger patient cohorts is required.

Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19. METHODS: We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (Steroids in COVID-19; STOIC) of inhaled budesonide, compared with usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The trial was done in the community in Oxfordshire, UK. Participants were randomly assigned to inhaled budsonide or usual care stratified for age (≤40 years or >40 years), sex (male or female), and number of comorbidities (≤1 and ≥2). Randomisation was done using random sequence generation in block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio. Budesonide dry powder was delivered using a turbohaler at a dose of 400 µg per actuation. Participants were asked to take two inhalations twice a day until symptom resolution. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, including emergency department assessment or hospitalisation, analysed for both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The secondary outcomes were self-reported clinical recovery (symptom resolution), viral symptoms measured using the Common Cold Questionnare (CCQ) and the InFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome Questionnaire (FLUPro), body temperature, blood oxygen saturations, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399. FINDINGS: From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned-73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0-50] vs 50% [15-71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference -0·12, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference -0·10, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

The Use of Inhaled Corticosteroids to Prevent Acute Exacerbations of COPD: A Pro/Con Debate.

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has been accepted as standard practice following early landmark studies. These demonstrated a reduction in the risk of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). However, these studies were performed at a time when other therapies were not available and now our standards of care have changed. Other data has emerged which have also raised concerns as to an increase in the incidence of pneumonia in COPD patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. It is thus timely to evaluate the evidence. We present the two sides of this debate and consider the evidence both for the use of ICS as the best therapy to reduce the risk of AECOPD and also the evidence for the use of bronchodilators as a more effective and safer alternative. It is clear that as we approach an age of personalised medicine taking a "one size fits all" approach is both intellectually and medically wrong. We present the evidence that will help clinicians make better decisions for each of their patients.

What will Happen in the World of COPD 2030?

2030 may seem to be a long way into the future, but it's not. We live in a world of relentless rapid change in modern medicine and our approach to our patients with chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will need to evolve at speed. This review looks at what may occur in society and medicine that will influence the way we manage COPD. The article is the opinion of the authors and is based upon current research at the cutting edge of management with a degree of gazing into a dimly lit crystal ball. COPD is a current epidemic, and this is likely to continue. Legislative efforts to reduce smoking will continue and hopefully accelerate, but this will not be globally accepted or successful. Technological advances will occur that will lead to miniaturization and the rise of near patient testing. This itself will enable a personalised approach to management with the ability to measure rapidly biomarkers which will direct therapy. The blood eosinophil is the most promising of these and is available now. New developments in the identification of disease clusters and phenotypes will also enhance a more personalised approach. Through both these epidemiological studies and also new developments in the understanding of basic mechanisms it is hoped that in the future patients will be given treatments that may fundamentally change the prognosis of COPD. Small molecule and antibody directed therapies may, if given early enough, stop and even possibly reverse the effects of COPD on cells and organs. Of course, the most important step which is achievable now is to ban all tobacco-based products from the world.

Blood eosinophil count and GOLD stage predict response to maintenance azithromycin treatment in COPD patients with frequent exacerbations.

INTRODUCTION: Maintenance treatment with macrolides are useful in preventing COPD exacerbations. We investigated which characteristics of COPD patients with frequent exacerbations predicted the best response to maintenance treatment with azithromycin. METHODS: This study was part of the COLUMBUS trial, a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 92 COPD patients with frequent exacerbations. During the 1-year treatment period, follow-up data were collected for spirometry, mMRC scores, sputum cultures and blood inflammatory markers. RESULTS: In the azithromycin group a significant lower number of exacerbations per patient was observed in patients with the following characteristics: baseline blood eosinophil count ≥2.0% (x̄ = 1.26), compared to an eosinophil count < 2.0% (x̄ = 2.50; p = 0.02), GOLD stage 1-2 (x̄ = 1.06), versus GOLD stage 4 (x̄ = 2.62; p = 0.02) and GOLD group C (x̄ = 0.45) compared to group D (x̄ = 2.18; p < 0.01). Moreover, the number of hospitalizations was significantly lower in patients, with a blood eosinophil count ≥2.0% (x̄ = 0.26) compared to an eosinophil count < 2.0% (x̄ = 0.90; p = 0.01) and in GOLD stages 1-2 (x̄ = 1.06) compared to stage 4 (x̄ = 2.62; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, azithromycin maintenance treatment appears to be effective in COPD patients with frequent exacerbations, who are either classified in GOLD stage 1-2 or GOLD C and those with a blood eosinophil count of ≥2.0%.

What Does the TOVITO Programme Tell Us about How We Can Manage COPD?

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients suffer from a significant burden of disease which impairs their quality of life, exercise capacity and lung function. They also suffer from acute worsening of disease, called exacerbations. The role of drug treatment in the management of COPD is aimed at improving lung function, quality of life and reducing the risk of exacerbations. Bronchodilator drugs are the mainstay of therapy and the tow classes, long acting beta2 agonists and long acting anti-muscarinics, are being combined together. The TOVITO programme of clinical research is a comprehensive and consistent set of studies investigating the role of Tiotropium and Olodaterol (Spiolto) on lung function, quality of life, exercise capacity and exacerbation frequency. The programme has included over 16 000 patients who have received the benefits of these two compounds when given together in a suitable inhaler. Safety data was collected with a focus on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The use of tiotropium/olodaterol combination resulted in significant gains in lung function, quality of life and exercise endurance. There was no difference between the arms in the Dynagito study which was designed to compare tiotropium/olodaterol combination with its constituent compounds. In all studies no safety concerns were raised. Tiotropium/Olodaterol (Spiolto) is an effective treatment for COPD with benefits to lung function, quality of life and exercise tolerance.