Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 98
Filtrar
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35398549

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4/-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases. In the phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA VENTURE (VENTURE) study (NCT02528214), dupilumab versus placebo reduced oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose and improved clinical outcomes in patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma. Dupilumab efficacy in patients with varying disease burden (defined by baseline OCS dose) has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of VENTURE evaluated dupilumab efficacy across subgroups defined by baseline OCS dose. METHODS: The OCS dose, proportion no longer needing OCS at week 24, annualized severe exacerbation rate, and least squares mean change from baseline in pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second at week 24 were evaluated in VENTURE patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma receiving dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks versus placebo, categorized by a baseline OCS dose of less than 10 mg/d or 10 or more mg/d. RESULTS: Dupilumab reduced daily OCS dose from baseline at week 24 in both dose groups. In dupilumab-/placebo-treated patients with a baseline OCS dose of less than 10 mg/d and 10 or more mg/d, 72%/42% and 37%/23% stopped OCS by week 24 (P < .01/P < .05), respectively. Dupilumab significantly reduced the annualized severe exacerbation rate by 71% and 48% (P < .01/P < .05). At week 24, dupilumab improved pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second in patients in both dose groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with OCS-dependent severe asthma receiving lower or higher baseline OCS doses, dupilumab significantly reduced the OCS dose and improved the likelihood of no longer requiring OCS while also reducing exacerbations and improving lung function.

2.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35023914

RESUMO

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)-a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check™ DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check™ DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice.


Assuntos
Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Administração por Inalação , Inaladores de Pó Seco , Humanos , Pulmão , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/diagnóstico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico
4.
Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis ; 9(1): 68-79, 2022 Jan 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34972260

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes. METHODS: IMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score. RESULTS: Moderate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score. CONCLUSIONS: The CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

5.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 2021 Dec 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34856108

RESUMO

RATIONALE: Medication for treatment of COPD is available in many different delivery systems; however, national and international guidelines do not provide recommendations on how to select the optimal system for an individual patient. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of published algorithms for inhaler selection in out-patients with COPD. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were search for articles on inhaler selection published between January 1, 1990 and March 10, 2021. The results were reviewed for articles containing an algorithm for inhaler selection. The quality of publications containing an algorithm was assessed using the JBI SUMARI text and opinion critical appraisal checklist. Individual steps recommended in the algorithms and the order in which they were considered were extracted independently by the two authors using the JBI text and opinion data extraction tool. Textual syntheses and a table of factors included were used to appraise and compare algorithms. RESULTS: The search identified 1016 publications. After removing duplicate studies (n = 409), 607 abstracts were examined. Nine different algorithms or hierarchical recommendations for device selection were identified. All nine publications were considered of good quality. Most algorithms contain only a few decision steps. There were significant differences between the algorithms. None of the algorithms have been validated. Three domains for factors included in the algorithms were identified: patient factors, device attributes, and HCP factors. Patient factors were considered most frequently (19 times) compared with device attributes (10 times) and HCP factors (7 times). Five specific attribute/factors with at least three rankings in different algorithms, were identified as key factors for device selection. CONCLUSION: Although the algorithms generally provide step-by-step approaches based on a literature review and/or the experiences of the different authors, none were developed using item generation/reduction methodology nor included input from patients with COPD. There were considerable differences between the algorithms; however, the review identified key factors that should be considered by HCPs when selecting therapy. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021244475).

6.
Eur Respir Rev ; 30(162)2021 Dec 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34789465

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Pneumonia , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Administração por Inalação , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Pneumonia/diagnóstico , Pneumonia/epidemiologia , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/diagnóstico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia
7.
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol ; 321(5): L978-L982, 2021 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34585618

RESUMO

Early in the COVID pandemic there were concerns about the outcomes for patients with COPD who developed COVID-19. Although the pandemic has made the diagnosis and routine management of COPD more difficult, the risk of patients developing COVID or of having poor outcomes is less than anticipated and there have been some unexpected findings that may lead to significant improvements in the management of COPD in future.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Humanos , Pandemias , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Pragmat Obs Res ; 12: 93-104, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34408531

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms may persist after the initial phases of COVID-19 infection, a phenomenon termed long COVID. Current knowledge on long COVID has been mostly derived from test-confirmed and hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Data are required on the burden and predictors of long COVID in a broader patient group, which includes both tested and untested COVID-19 patients in primary care. METHODS: This is an observational study using data from Platform C19, a quality improvement program-derived research database linking primary care electronic health record data (EHR) with patient-reported questionnaire information. Participating general practices invited consenting patients aged 18-85 to complete an online questionnaire since 7th August 2020. COVID-19 self-diagnosis, clinician-diagnosis, testing, and the presence and duration of symptoms were assessed via the questionnaire. Patients were considered present with long COVID if they reported symptoms lasting ≥4 weeks. EHR and questionnaire data up till 22nd January 2021 were extracted for analysis. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted comparing demographics, clinical characteristics, and presence of symptoms between patients with long COVID and patients with shorter symptom duration. RESULTS: Long COVID was present in 310/3151 (9.8%) patients with self-diagnosed, clinician-diagnosed, or test-confirmed COVID-19. Only 106/310 (34.2%) long COVID patients had test-confirmed COVID-19. Risk predictors of long COVID were age ≥40 years (adjusted Odds Ratio [AdjOR]=1.49 [1.05-2.17]), female sex (adjOR=1.37 [1.02-1.85]), frailty (adjOR=2.39 [1.29-4.27]), visit to A&E (adjOR=4.28 [2.31-7.78]), and hospital admission for COVID-19 symptoms (adjOR=3.22 [1.77-5.79]). Aches and pain (adjOR=1.70 [1.21-2.39]), appetite loss (adjOR=3.15 [1.78-5.92]), confusion and disorientation (adjOR=2.17 [1.57-2.99]), diarrhea (adjOR=1.4 [1.03-1.89]), and persistent dry cough (adjOR=2.77 [1.94-3.98]) were symptom features statistically more common in long COVID. CONCLUSION: This study reports the factors and symptom features predicting long COVID in a broad primary care population, including both test-confirmed and the previously missed group of COVID-19 patients.

10.
Eur Respir J ; 58(4)2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34266940

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02414854) in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab 200 and 300 mg every 2 weeks versus placebo. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of dupilumab on efficacy outcomes and asthma control across a range of historical exacerbation rates in patients with type 2-high asthma. METHODS: Annualised severe exacerbation rates over the 52-week treatment period, pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52, and the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) score at weeks 24 and 52 were assessed in patients with ≥1, ≥2 or ≥3 exacerbations in the previous year. Subgroups were stratified by baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 or ≥300 cells·µL-1 or baseline exhaled nitric oxide fraction ≥25 ppb and baseline inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose. RESULTS: Across all type 2-high subgroups, dupilumab versus placebo significantly reduced severe exacerbations by 54-90%, with greater improvements in patients with more exacerbations prior to study initiation. Similarly, improvements in FEV1 (least squares (LS) mean difference versus placebo: ≥1 exacerbations, 0.15-0.25 L; ≥2 exacerbations, 0.12-0.32 L; ≥3 exacerbations, 0.09-0.38 L; majority p<0.05) and ACQ-5 score (LS mean difference range: ≥1 exacerbations, -0.30 to -0.57; ≥2 exacerbations, -0.29 to -0.56; ≥3 exacerbations, -0.43 to -0.61; all p<0.05) were observed, irrespective of prior exacerbation history, across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab significantly reduced severe exacerbations and improved FEV1 and asthma control in patients with elevated type 2 biomarkers irrespective of exacerbation history and baseline ICS dose.


Assuntos
Antiasmáticos , Asma , Antiasmáticos/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Método Duplo-Cego , Volume Expiratório Forçado , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento
11.
Pragmat Obs Res ; 12: 25-35, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34079422

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Poor treatment adherence in COPD patients is associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased healthcare burden. Personalized approaches for adherence management, supported with technology-based interventions, may offer benefits to patients and providers but are currently unproven in terms of clinical outcomes as opposed to adherence outcomes. METHODS: Maximizing Adherence and Gaining New Information For Your COPD (MAGNIFY COPD study), a pragmatic cluster randomized trial, aims to evaluate the impact of an adherence technology package (interventional package), comprising an adherence review, ongoing provision of a dual bronchodilator but with an add-on inhaler sensor device and a connected mobile application. This will compare time to treatment failure and other clinical outcomes in patients identified at high risk of exacerbations with historic poor treatment adherence as measured by prescription collection to mono/dual therapy over one year (1312 patients) versus usual care. Treatment failure is defined as the first occurrence of one of the following: (1) moderate/severe COPD exacerbation, (2) prescription of triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [ICS/LABA/LAMA]), (3) prescription of additional chronic therapy for COPD, or (4) respiratory-related death. Adherence, moderate/severe exacerbations, respiratory-related healthcare resource utilization and costs, and intervention package acceptance rate will also be assessed. Eligible primary care practices (N=176) participating in the Optimum Patient Care Quality Improvement Program will be randomized (1:1) to either adherence support cluster arm (suitable patients already receiving or initiated Ultibro® Breezhaler® [indacaterol/glycopyrronium] will be offered interventional package) or the control cluster arm (suitable patients continue to receive usual clinical care). Patients will be identified and outcomes collected from anonymized electronic medical records within the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. On study completion, electronic medical record data will be re-extracted to analyze outcomes in both study groups. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10567920. CONCLUSION: MAGNIFY will explore patient benefits of technology-based interventions for electronic adherence monitoring.

12.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(2)2021 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34109236

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care. METHODS: INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: 3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV1 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26-73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.

15.
Respir Res ; 22(1): 130, 2021 Apr 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33910578

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Fibrinogen is the first qualified prognostic/predictive biomarker for exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial investigated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This analysis used IMPACT trial data to examine the relationship between fibrinogen levels and exacerbation outcomes in patients with COPD. METHODS: 8094 patients with a fibrinogen assessment at Week 16 were included, baseline fibrinogen data were not measured. Post hoc analyses were performed by fibrinogen quartiles and by 3.5 g/L threshold. Endpoints included on-treatment exacerbations and adverse events of special interest (AESIs). RESULTS: Rates of moderate, moderate/severe, and severe exacerbations were higher in the highest versus lowest fibrinogen quartile (0.75, 0.92 and 0.15 vs 0.67, 0.79 and 0.10, respectively). The rate ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for exacerbations in patients with fibrinogen levels ≥ 3.5 g/L versus those with fibrinogen levels < 3.5 g/L were 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) for moderate exacerbations, 1.08 (1.00, 1.15) for moderate/severe exacerbations, and 1.30 (1.10, 1.54) for severe exacerbations. There was an increased risk of moderate/severe exacerbation (hazard ratio [95% CI]: highest vs lowest quartile 1.16 [1.04, 1.228]; ≥ 3.5 g/L vs < 3.5 g/L: 1.09 [1.00, 1.16]) and severe exacerbation (1.35 [1.09, 1.69]; 1.27 [1.08, 1.47], respectively) with increasing fibrinogen level. Cardiovascular AESIs were highest in patients in the highest fibrinogen quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Rate and risk of exacerbations was higher in patients with higher fibrinogen levels. This supports the validity of fibrinogen as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations, and highlights the potential use of fibrinogen as an enrichment strategy in trials examining exacerbation outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02164513.


Assuntos
Fibrinogênio/metabolismo , Pulmão/fisiopatologia , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/sangue , Idoso , Biomarcadores/sangue , Broncodilatadores/uso terapêutico , Progressão da Doença , Método Duplo-Cego , Combinação de Medicamentos , Feminino , Humanos , Pulmão/efeitos dos fármacos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/diagnóstico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/fisiopatologia , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Regulação para Cima
16.
Chest ; 160(2): 491-498, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33812852

RESUMO

Biomarkers in COPD may be clinical (prior exacerbation history), physiologic (FEV1), or blood based (eosinophil count or fibrinogen level). Recent interest in using biomarkers to predict response to therapy in clinical practice has emerged. The benefits of inhaled therapy depend on the correct use of the inhaler, including an appropriate inspiratory flow. Of the available delivery systems, dry powder inhalers are unique because they have an internal resistance, are breath actuated, and are flow dependent. Ideally, the user inhales "forcefully" to generate turbulent energy (determined by an individual's inspiratory flow and the resistance of the device) within the device that disaggregates the powder so that the individual inhales the medication particles into the lower respiratory tract. Because of specific features of dry powder inhalers and the required optimal inspiratory flow, an unmet need exists to identify individuals who are likely or unlikely to benefit from dry powder medications. Peak inspiratory flow, defined as the maximum airflow generated during inhalation against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler, is a physiologic measure that has biological plausibility, has good test characteristics (repeatability and reliability), and is generalizable. Current evidence supports peak inspiratory flow as a predictive therapeutic biomarker to optimize therapy in both outpatients with COPD as well as those hospitalized for an exacerbation before discharge. This approach is consistent with the precepts of precision medicine, which considers differences in a person's biological features, exposure, and lifestyle to prevent and treat disease.


Assuntos
Biomarcadores , Broncodilatadores/administração & dosagem , Inaladores de Pó Seco , Capacidade Inspiratória , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/fisiopatologia , Administração por Inalação , Humanos
17.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(1)2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33718490

RESUMO

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) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. CID at the time-point of interest was defined as a moderate/severe exacerbation, ≥100 mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s or deterioration in health status (increase of ≥4.0 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or increase of ≥2.0 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.

18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33688176

RESUMO

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with major healthcare and socioeconomic burdens. International consortia recommend a personalized approach to treatment and management that aims to reduce both symptom burden and the risk of exacerbations. Recent clinical trials have investigated single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for patients with symptomatic COPD. Here, we review evidence from randomized controlled trials showing the benefits of SITT and weigh these against the reported risk of pneumonia with ICS use. We highlight the challenges associated with cross-trial comparisons of benefit/risk, discuss blood eosinophils as a marker of ICS responsiveness, and summarize current treatment recommendations and the position of SITT in the management of COPD, including potential advantages in terms of improving patient adherence. Evidence from trials of SITT versus dual therapies in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and increased risk of exacerbations shows benefits in lung function and patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, the key benefits reported with SITT are significant reductions in exacerbations and hospitalizations, with data also suggesting reduced all-cause mortality. These benefits outweigh the ICS-class effect of higher incidence of study-reported pneumonia compared with LAMA/LABA. Important differences in trial design, baseline population characteristics, such as exacerbation history, and assessment of outcomes, have significant implications for interpreting data from cross-trial comparisons. Current understanding interprets the blood eosinophil count as a continuum that can help predict response to ICS and has utility alongside other clinical factors to aid treatment decision-making. We conclude that treatment decisions in COPD should be guided by an approach that considers benefit versus risk, with early optimization of treatment essential for maximizing long-term benefits and patient outcomes.


Assuntos
Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Administração por Inalação , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/efeitos adversos , Broncodilatadores/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Humanos , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/efeitos adversos , Nebulizadores e Vaporizadores , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/diagnóstico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico
19.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(1)2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33644225

RESUMO

Inhaled corticosteroids have proven to be less effective in asthmatic patients who smoke; however, there is limited information on the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid-containing regimens in COPD patients who continue smoking. We evaluate the differential efficacy of once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 µg compared with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg in current smokers and ex-smokers with COPD. A pooled analysis of data from ILLUMINATE, LANTERN and FLAME studies was conducted to assess the efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrronium compared with salmeterol/fluticasone in current smokers and ex-smokers with COPD. Efficacy was assessed in terms of improvements in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, reduced rescue medication use and exacerbation prevention at 26 weeks after the start of the therapy. In total, 1769 (38%) current smokers and 2848 (62%) ex-smokers were included. Patients treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium experienced greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus salmeterol/fluticasone in both current and ex-smokers (least squares mean treatment difference, 105 mL and 78 mL, respectively). Improvements in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score and reduction in rescue medication use were also greater with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone in current and ex-smokers. Furthermore, indacaterol/glycopyrronium reduced all exacerbations (moderate/severe) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, irrespective of smoking status. The difference in efficacy in favour of indacaterol/glycopyrronium was more prominent in current smokers in most cases. Indacaterol/glycopyrronium demonstrated greater efficacy versus salmeterol/fluticasone, and the differences were generally more prominent in current smokers suggesting smoking may reduce the effects of salmeterol/fluticasone.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...