Search

Background: Triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting muscarinic antagonists/long-acting β 2 -agonists (ICS/LAMA/LABA) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with continued symptoms or exacerbations, despite treatment with LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA. The pulmonary, extrathoracic, and regional lung deposition patterns of a radiolabeled ICS/LAMA/LABA triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF 320/18/9.6 μg), delivered via a single Aerosphere metered dose inhaler (MDI) were previously assessed in healthy volunteers and showed good deposition to the central and peripheral airways (whole lung deposition: 37.7%). Here, we report the findings assessing BGF in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD., Methods: This phase I, single-dose, open-label gamma scintigraphy imaging study (NCT03906045) was conducted in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Patients received two actuations of BGF MDI (160/9/4.8 μg per actuation) radiolabeled with technetium‑99‑pertechnetate, not exceeding 5 MBq per actuation. Immediately following each inhalation, patients performed a breath-hold of up to 10 s, then exhaled into an exhalation filter. Gamma scintigraphy imaging of the anterior and posterior views of the lungs and stomach, and a lateral head and neck view, were performed immediately after exhalation. The primary objective of the study was to assess the pulmonary deposition of BGF. Secondary objectives assessed the deposited dose of radiolabeled BGF in the oropharyngeal and stomach regions, on the actuator, and on the exhalation filter in addition to regional airway deposition patterns in the lungs., Results: The mean BGF emitted dose deposited in the lungs was 32.1% (standard deviation [SD] 15.6) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, 35.2% (SD 12.8) in patients with moderate COPD, and 28.7% (SD 18.4) in patients with severe/very severe COPD. Overall, the mean normalized outer/inner ratio was 0.55 (SD 0.19), while the standardized central/peripheral ratio was 2.21 (SD 1.64)., Conclusions: Radiolabeled BGF 320/18/9.6 μg was efficiently delivered and deposited throughout the entire lung, including large and small airways, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with similar deposition in patients with moderate COPD and patients with severe/very severe COPD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03906045. Registered 8 April 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03906045., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are indicated for prevention of exacerbations in patients with COPD, but they are frequently overprescribed. ICS withdrawal has been recommended by international guidelines in order to prevent side effects in patients in whom ICS are not indicated., Method: Observational comparative effectiveness study aimed to evaluate the effect of ICS withdrawal versus continuation of triple therapy (TT) in COPD patients in primary care. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD) in the UK., Results: A total of 1046 patients who withdrew ICS were matched 1:4 by time on TT to 4184 patients who continued with TT. Up to 76.1% of the total population had 0 or 1 exacerbation the previous year. After controlling for confounders, patients who discontinued ICS did not have an increased risk of moderate or severe exacerbations (adjusted HR: 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.15; p = 0.441). However, rates of exacerbations managed in primary care (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.10-1.60; p = 0.003) or in hospital (IRR 1.72, 95% CI 1.03-2.86; p = 0.036) were higher in the cessation group. Unsuccessful ICS withdrawal was significantly and independently associated with more frequent courses of oral corticosteroids the previous year and with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 300 cells/μL., Conclusions: In this primary care population of patients with COPD, composed mostly of infrequent exacerbators, discontinuation of ICS from TT was not associated with an increased risk of exacerbation; however, the subgroup of patients with more frequent courses of oral corticosteroids and high blood eosinophil counts should not be withdrawn from ICS. Trial registration European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (EUPAS30851).

Objective: Adherence and inhaler technique are often suboptimal in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New inhalers have been developed to improve these determinants of treatment effectiveness. We assessed treatment adherence, satisfaction, and ease of use of DuoResp ® Spiromax ® among SPRINT study participants. Methods: The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 European countries. Asthma and COPD patients were receiving a fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β 2 -agonist (LABA), delivered via various inhalers including DuoResp Spiromax. DuoResp Spiromax users self-assessed adherence using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8 ® ), and ease of use and satisfaction using 10-point scales, during a single physician's office visit. Results: Of 1661 (asthma: n  = 1101; COPD: n  = 560) SPRINT study participants, 342 (asthma: n =  235; COPD: n =  107) received DuoResp Spiromax prior to inclusion. Overall, 72.5% of DuoResp Spiromax users reported medium or high adherence (MMAS-8 score ≥6). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) satisfaction score for DuoResp Spiromax was 8.9 (1.6). Almost all (98.8%) DuoResp Spiromax users were at least satisfied with their inhaler; 85.4% were very satisfied. Mean (SD) ease of use score for DuoResp Spiromax was 9.1 (1.3). Conclusions: Asthma and COPD patients using DuoResp Spiromax reported moderate-to-high medication adherence, were very satisfied with their inhaler and found it easy to use.

Inhaled therapy remains the cornerstone of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pharmacologic care, but some systemic treatments can be of help when the burden of the disease remains high. Azithromycin, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, and mucoactive agents can be used in such situations. The major difficulty remains in the identification of the optimal target populations. Another difficulty is to determine how these treatments should be positioned in the global treatment algorithm. For instance, should they be prescribed in addition to other antiinflammatory agents or should they replace them in some cases? Research is ongoing to identify new therapeutic targets., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies have highlighted a relationship between reduction in rate of exacerbations with therapies containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and baseline blood eosinophil count in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy significantly reduced exacerbations versus dual therapies. Blood eosinophil counts and smoking status could be important modifiers of treatment response to ICS. We aimed to model these relationships and their interactions, including outcomes other than exacerbations., Methods: IMPACT was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week global study comparing once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol) with dual inhaled therapy (fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol). Eligible patients had moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. We used fractional polynomials to model continuous blood eosinophil counts. We used negative binomial regression for numbers of moderate and severe exacerbations, severe exacerbations, and pneumonia. We modelled differences at week 52 in trough FEV 1 , St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transition Dyspnoea Index using repeated measurements mixed effect models. IMPACT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02164513., Findings: The magnitude of benefit of regimens containing ICS (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol n=4151 and fluticasone furoate-vilanterol n=4134) in reducing rates of moderate and severe exacerbations increased in proportion with blood eosinophil count, compared with a non-ICS dual long-acting bronchodilator (umeclidinium-vilanterol n=2070). The moderate and severe exacerbation rate ratio for triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74 to 1·04) at blood eosinophil count less than 90 cells per μL and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66) at counts of 310 cells per μL or more; the corresponding rate ratio for fluticasone furoate-vilanterol versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 1·09 (0·91 to 1·29) and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66), respectively. Similar results were observed for FEV 1 , Transition Dyspnoea Index, and SGRQ total score; however, the relationship with FEV 1 was less marked. At blood eosinophil counts less than 90 cells per μL and at counts of 310 cells per μL or more, the triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol treatment difference was 40 mL (95% CI 10 to 70) and 60 mL (20 to 100) for trough FEV 1 , -0·01 (-0·68 to 0·66) and 0·30 (-0·37 to 0·97) for Transition Dyspnoea Index score, and -0·01 (-1·81 to 1·78) and -2·78 (-4·64 to -0·92) for SGRQ total score, respectively. Smoking status modified the relationship between observed efficacy and blood eosinophil count for moderate or severe exacerbations, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and FEV 1 , with former smokers being more corticosteroid responsive at any eosinophil count than current smokers., Interpretation: This analysis of the IMPACT trial shows that assessment of blood eosinophil count and smoking status has the potential to optimise ICS use in clinical practice in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purposes: Following a hospitalization for COPD, dual and triple therapies were compared in terms of persistence and relations with outcomes (exacerbations, health care resource use and costs)., Methods: This was a historical observational database study. All patients aged ≥45 hospitalized for COPD between 2007 and 2015 were identified in a 1/97 th random sample of French claims data. Patients receiving dual therapy within 60 days after hospitalization were compared to patients receiving triple therapy, after propensity score matching on disease severity., Results: Of the 3,089 patients hospitalized for COPD, 1,538 (49.8%) received either dual or triple therapy in the 2 months following inclusion, and 1,500 (48.6%) had at least 30 days of follow-up available; 846 (27.4%) received dual therapy, and 654 (21.2%) received triple therapy. After matching, the number of exacerbations was 2.4 per year in the dual vs 2.3 in the triple group ( p =0.45). Among newly treated patients (n=206), persistence at 12 months was similar in the dual and triple groups (48% vs 41%, respectively, p =0.37). As compared to patients on dual therapy, more patients on triple therapy received oral corticosteroids (49.1 vs 40.4%, p =0.003) or were hospitalized for any reason (67% vs 55.8%, p =0.0001) or for COPD (35.3 vs 25.1%, p =0.0002) during follow-up. Cost of care was higher for patients on triple than for those on dual therapy (€11,877.1 vs €9,825.1, p =0.01)., Conclusion: Following hospitalizations for COPD, patients on dual and triple therapy experienced recurrent exacerbations, limited adherence to therapies and high cost of care. Patients on triple therapy appeared more severe than those on dual therapy, as reflected by exacerbations and health care resource use., Competing Interests: EVG is Scientific Advisor of PELyon, he reports personal fees from PELyon, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from PELyon, outside the submitted work. MN, FD and MB (employees of PELyon) conducted the study through sponsorship by Chiesi SAS, and were not paid for manuscript development. NR reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer and personal fees from Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3M, Zambon and Chiesi. PD has received consulting fees, honoraria for lectures and/or research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis during the last 3 years. He reports personal fees from Chiesi, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. BH received honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca and Chiesi for his participation in scientific committees or conferences. He reports personal fees from Chiesi, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. HP received honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca and Chiesi for his participation in scientific committees or conferences, is on the board for Chiesi and Novartis, and received an invitation to 2019 American Thoracic Society International Conference in Arizona, USA.  GD received research funding from BTG/PneumRx and received honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, BTG/PneumRx for his participation in scientific committees or conferences. He reports personal fees from Chiesi, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from BTG/PneumRx, and personal fees from Nuvaira, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Dalon et al.)

Exposure to organic dusts is an independent causative factor of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Unhealthy dietary patterns have been associated with poor lung function in smokers. This study investigated whether dietary patterns were associated with post-bronchodilator airway obstruction, a hallmark of COPD, in dairy farmers exposed to organic dusts. All subjects were identified by screening programs and patients with airflow obstruction were matched with subjects with normal spirometry. Six groups were compared, defined by their exposures (non-smoking dairy farmers, smokers ≥ 10 pack-years with no occupational exposure, and smoking dairy farmers) and the presence or absence of post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction, resulting in 321 study subjects. The Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI) score was calculated based on an adapted food frequency questionnaire. Mean total AHEI scores were similar in all groups. Comparison between smokers with post-bronchodilator airway obstruction and subjects with post-bronchodilator airway obstruction related to occupational exposure found minimal differences in dietary patterns: dairy farmers had lower scores for the ratio of white to red meat and higher scores for cereal fiber consumption. As in previous studies, smokers with post-bronchodilator airway obstruction exhibited higher lipid intakes and lower carbohydrate intakes than their counterparts with normal spirometry. No evidence of any meaningful difference in dietary patterns was found between subjects with post-bronchodilator airway obstruction detected by screening and healthy controls, either in dairy farmers or in smokers with no occupational exposure.

Objectives: Budesonide/formoterol (BF) Spiromax ® is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler, designed to minimise common inhaler errors and provide reliable and consistent dose delivery in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated non-inferiority of BF Spiromax after changing from another FDC inhaler, compared with continuing the original inhaler., Methods: Patients with asthma and/or COPD who switched to BF Spiromax were matched (1:3) with non-switchers. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving disease control (using the risk domain control (RDC) algorithm); secondary end points were: exacerbation rate, short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) use and treatment stability (achieved RDC; no maintenance treatment change). Non-inferiority was defined as having 95% CI lower bound above -10%, using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for relevant confounders., Results: Comparing 385 matched patients (asthma 253; COPD 132) who switched to BF Spiromax with 1091 (asthma 743; COPD 348) non-switchers, non-inferiority of BF Spiromax in RDC was demonstrated (adjusted difference: +6.6%; 95% CI -0.3 to 13.5). Among patients with asthma, switchers to BF Spiromax versus BF Turbuhaler ® reported fewer exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.76;95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; p=0.044); were less likely to use high daily doses of SABA (adjusted OR 0.71;95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; p=0.034); used fewer SABA inhalers (adjusted RR 0.92;95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; p=0.019); and were more likely to achieve treatment stability (adjusted OR 1.44;95% CI 1.02 to 2.04; p=0.037). No significant differences in these end points were seen among patients with COPD., Conclusions: Among UK patients with asthma and COPD, real-world use of BF Spiromax was non-inferior to BF Turbuhaler in terms of disease control. Among patients with asthma, switching to BF Spiromax was associated with reduced exacerbations, reduced SABA use and improved treatment stability versus continuing on BF Turbuhaler., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JV and VC are employees of OPRI, which has conducted paid research in respiratory disease on behalf of the following organisations in the past 5 years: Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Orion, Takeda, Teva, Zentiva (a Sanofi company). NR reports grants and personal fees from BoehringerIngelheim, Novartis, and personal fees from Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3M, Pfizer, Zambon, outside the presented work. HB is an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals. MvdT was an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV at the time the study was conducted. JFMvB has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, speaker fees from Menarini, research support from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca and Chiesi and travel support from the European COPD Coalition and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group. LB has during the last 3 years received honoraria to participate or to give lectures for the following companies: ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithklein, Novartis and Teva. MM declares no relevant competing interests. DBP has board membership with Aerocrine, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with Almirall, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service, Zentiva; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Skyepharma, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for manuscript preparation from Mundipharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Chiesi, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Zentiva; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia, Singapore and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and is peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The FLAME study compared once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 μg with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) 50/500 μg in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the previous year., Methods: This prespecified and post hoc subgroup analysis evaluated treatment efficacy on 1) moderate/severe exacerbations according to prior exacerbation history and treatment, and 2) types of exacerbations according to health care resource utilization (HCRU) during 1-year follow-up., Results: IND/GLY reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus SFC in patients with a history of 1 exacerbation (rate ratio [RR]: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.93), ≥2 exacerbations (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.03) and ≥2 exacerbations or ≥1 hospitalization in the previous year (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74-1.00). Prolonged time-to-first exacerbation was observed in all the groups according to exacerbation history. Moderate/severe exacerbations decreased with IND/GLY versus SFC, independent of previous treatment. IND/GLY significantly reduced rates of moderate/severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.93) and systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91); rates of exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone were comparable (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.22)., Conclusion: Overall, IND/GLY demonstrated consistent beneficial effects versus SFC on moderate/severe exacerbations, independent of prior exacerbation history or treatment. The efficacy of IND/GLY on exacerbation prevention was superior to SFC for exacerbations treated with antibiotics with/without systemic corticosteroids and was similar for exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone., Competing Interests: Disclosure CFV has received grant funding, honoraria for lectures and/or participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Teva, and Cipla. KRC reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Baxter, grants and personal fees from CSL Behring, grants and personal fees from Grifols, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Genentech, grants and personal fees from Kamada, grants from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from CIHR-GSK Research Chair in Respiratory Health Care Delivery, UHN, during the conduct of the study. NR has received grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer; personal fees from Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3M, and Zambon, outside the submitted work. JV reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Bioxydyn, Ferring, outside the submitted work. MM has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Menarini, Grifols and Novartis, and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gebro Pharma, CLS Behring, Novartis and Grifols. JAW reports grants from GSK, grants from Johnson and Johnson, other from Novartis, other from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from Astra Zeneca, other from GSK, grants from GSK, grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work. CT, DB, RF, FP and KK are employees and shareholders of Novartis Pharma AG. PO is an employee of Novartis AB and a Novartis shareholder. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

The number of pharmacological treatments available for COPD has increased markedly in the last years, mostly corresponding to new agents, combinations and devices within know pharmacological classes. Hierarchizing these options is not straightforward since expected effects are limited by the intrinsically fixed character of the underlying lung damage. In addition, all options have not been directly compared face-to-face. Therefore, guidelines derive from some level of subjective interpretation of the available evidence. Determining which magnitude of change can be taken as clinically relevant is complex although crucial to define long-term strategies. Similarly, estimating not only the possible benefits but also the risks of treatments at the individual level is of major importance to guide choices. In the future biomarkers may be of help in that respect. They will hopefully emerge from progresses in systems biology and medicine. Before then, prescriptions should be restricted to the appropriate treatment indications, as established by high level studies and formalized by guidelines.

Rationale: The aim of the ALICE (Airflow Limitation in Cardiac Diseases in Europe) study was to investigate the prevalence of airflow limitation in patients with ischemic heart disease and the effects on quality of life, healthcare use, and future health risk., Objectives: To examine prebronchodilator and post-bronchodilator spirometry in outpatients aged greater than or equal to 40 years with clinically documented ischemic heart disease who were current or former smokers., Methods: This multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted in 15 cardiovascular outpatient clinics in nine European countries. Airflow limitation was defined as post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC less than 0.70., Measurements and Main Results: Among the 3,103 patients with ischemic heart disease who were recruited, lung function was defined for 2,730 patients. Airflow limitation was observed in 30.5% of patients with ischemic heart disease: 11.3% had mild airflow limitation, 15.8% moderate airflow limitation, 3.3% severe airflow limitation, and 0.1% very severe airflow limitation. Most patients with airflow limitation (70.6%) had no previous spirometry testing or diagnosed pulmonary disease. Airflow limitation was associated with greater respiratory symptomatology, impaired health status, and more frequent emergency room visits (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Airflow limitation compatible with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease affects almost one-third of patients with ischemic heart disease. Although airflow limitation is associated with additional morbidity and societal burden, it is largely undiagnosed and untreated. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01485159).

Clinical phenotyping is currently used to guide pharmacological treatment decisions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a personalized approach to care. Precision medicine integrates biological (endotype) and clinical (phenotype) information for a more individualized approach to pharmacotherapy, to maximize the benefit versus risk ratio. Biomarkers can be used to identify endotypes. To evolve toward precision medicine in COPD, the most appropriate biomarkers and clinical characteristics that reliably predict treatment responses need to be identified. FEV1 is a marker of COPD severity and has historically been used to guide pharmacotherapy choices. However, we now understand that the trajectory of FEV1 change, as an indicator of disease activity, is more important than a single FEV1 measurement. There is a need to develop biomarkers of disease activity to enable a more targeted and individualized approach to pharmacotherapy. Recent clinical trials testing commonly used COPD treatments have provided new information that is likely to influence pharmacological treatment decisions both at initial presentation and at follow up. In this Perspective, we consider the impact of recent clinical trials on current COPD treatment recommendations. We also focus on the movement toward precision medicine and propose how this field needs to evolve in terms of using clinical characteristics and biomarkers to identify the most appropriate patients for a given pharmacological treatment.

The quality of care can be improved by the development and implementation of evidence-based treatment guidelines. Different national guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exist in Europe and relevant differences may exist among them.This was an evaluation of COPD treatment guidelines published in Europe and Russia in the past 7 years. Each guideline was reviewed in detail and information about the most important aspects of patient diagnosis, risk stratification and pharmacotherapy was extracted following a standardised process. Guidelines were available from the Czech Republic, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain and Sweden. The treatment goals, criteria for COPD diagnosis, consideration of comorbidities in treatment selection and support for use of long-acting bronchodilators, were similar across treatment guidelines. There were differences in measures used for stratification of disease severity, consideration of patient phenotypes, criteria for the use of inhaled corticosteroids and recommendations for other medications (e.g. theophylline and mucolytics) in addition to bronchodilators.There is generally good agreement on treatment goals, criteria for diagnosis of COPD and use of long-acting bronchodilators as the cornerstone of treatment among guidelines for COPD management in Europe and Russia. However, there are differences in the definitions of patient subgroups and other recommended treatments., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)

The long-acting inhaled bronchodilators available for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) vary in their pharmacological class (β2-adrenergic agonist or antimuscarinic/anticholinergic, alone or combined), durations of action and speed of onset of bronchodilator effect. In the early stages of development of a maintenance bronchodilator, the goals are to identify a molecule with the theoretically 'ideal' profile of fast onset and prolonged duration of action in comparison with existing agents, while minimizing non-specific activity at organs outside the lungs. The move towards increasing duration of bronchodilator action is generally paralleled by improved effects on clinical outcomes, and the advent of more potent agents seems likely to provide an opportunity to reduce overreliance on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in treating COPD. In terms of onset of action, an immediately perceived benefit in reducing dyspnea, although not definitively demonstrated, might prove useful in increasing adherence, which is very poor among patients with COPD. Once-daily administration may also be helpful in this respect. Shared decision-making between patient and physician in the choice of treatment is important in optimizing adherence and, thus, treatment effectiveness., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Inhaled therapies reduce risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, but their effect on mortality is less well established. We hypothesized that heterogeneity in baseline mortality risk influenced the results of drug trials assessing mortality in COPD., Methods: The 5706 patients with COPD from the Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) study that had complete clinical information for variables associated with mortality (age, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, pack-years and body mass index) were classified by cluster analysis. Baseline risk of mortality between clusters, and impact of tiotropium were evaluated during the 4-yr follow up., Results: Four clusters were identified, including low-risk (low mortality rate) patients (n = 2339; 41%; cluster 2), and high-risk patients (n = 1022; 18%; cluster 3), who had a 2.6- and a six-fold increase in all-cause and respiratory mortality compared with cluster 2, respectively. Tiotropium reduced exacerbations in all clusters, and reduced hospitalizations in high-risk patients (p < 0.05). The beneficial effect of tiotropium on all-cause mortality in the overall population (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.00, p = 0.054) was explained by a 21% reduction in cluster 3 (p = 0.07), with no effect in other clusters., Conclusions: Large variations in baseline risks of mortality existed among patients in the UPLIFT® study. Inclusion of numerous low-risk patients may have reduced the ability to show beneficial effect on mortality. Future clinical trials should consider selective inclusion of high-risk patients.

Background: Characteristics of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) differ, but data comparing the real-life effectiveness of various ICSs for asthma are lacking., Objective: We sought to compare real-life asthma outcomes and costs of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone and fluticasone administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler., Methods: This retrospective matched cohort study examined database markers of asthma control from a large US longitudinal health care claims database over 1 baseline and 1 outcome year for 10,312 patients with asthma aged 12 to 80 years receiving their first ICS as HFA-beclomethasone or fluticasone and matched on baseline demographic characteristics and asthma severity., Results: Patients started on HFA-beclomethasone had significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI; 1.08-1.31) of achieving overall control (risk and impairment), which was defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection and less than 2 puffs per day of short-acting β-agonist; they also experienced a lower rate of respiratory-related hospitalizations or referrals (adjusted rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93) than patients started on fluticasone. Other database outcome measures were similar in the 2 cohorts. Prescribed HFA-beclomethasone doses were lower (P < .001) than fluticasone doses (median, 320 μg/d [interquartile range, 160-320 μg/d] vs 440 μg/d [interquartile range, 176-440 μg/d]). Adjusted respiratory-related health care costs were significantly lower for HFA-beclomethasone than fluticasone (mean, $1869 [95% CI, $1727-$2032] vs $2259 [95% CI, $2111-$2404]), representing a mean annual savings of $390 (95% CI, $165-$620) per patient prescribed HFA-beclomethasone rather than fluticasone., Conclusions: Asthma treatment outcomes were similar or better with HFA-beclomethasone prescribed at significantly lower doses and with lower costs than fluticasone., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The pharmacological treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can significantly improve quality of life by reducing exacerbations, dyspnea and exercise intolerance, thereby limiting the degree of handicap and improving daily activities. Recently, large randomised trials showed that some treatments can alter the decline in FEV1, which was previously only accessible to smoking cessation, and maybe reduce mortality. Bronchodilators are the first-line pharmacological treatment of COPD. Their clinical efficacy cannot be predicted by the inconstant changes in FEV(1.) Their main mechanism of action is the reduction in lung hyperinflation. Theophylline has a lower efficacy/tolerance ratio than inhaled bronchodilators. In symptomatic patients with FEV1 <50/60% predicted and repeated exacerbations despite bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids combined with long acting beta-agonists can be used. Several other approaches targeting inflammation and oxidative stress, remodelling and lung regeneration are also being studied. Medications must be associated with non-pharmacological measures (including help towards smoking cessation, education, exercise training...). Systemic manifestations of COPD must also be taken into account.

DEMONSTRATED EFFICACY: Inhaled bronchodilators improve the quality of life of COPD patients by reducing dyspnea and exacerbation frequency. There is no data supporting the superiority of one of the families of inhaled bronchodilators (i.e. beta 2 agonists and anticholinergic agents) over the other. Thus, the choice has to be based on the individual symptomatic response. These agents can be combined. OTHER POSSIBILITIES: Long-acting beta 2 agonists are already available and long-acting anticholinergics should be marketed soon. Theophylline has a lower efficacy/tolerance ratio than inhaled bronchodilators but can provide additional benefits when associated with the latter in some patients. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors with both bronchodilating and anti-inflammatory effect are being developed. THE BENEFITS OF CORTICOSTEROIDS: Finally, in symptomatic patients with FEV1<50% predicted and repeated exacerbations despite bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids can be added.

Therapeutic Possibilities: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains under-diagnosed and under-treated despite its growing impact on public health. However several treatments, either pharmacological or not (pulmonary rehabilitation with exercise training), can improve quality of life significantly, even if they can not modify the natural history of the disease, as reflected by the decline in FEV1, which smoking cessation is the only way to alter. THE ACTION OF BRONCHODILATORS: Bronchodilators represent the first-line pharmacological treatment. Their clinical efficacy cannot be predicted by the inconstant changes in FEV1, since their main mechanism of action is the reduction in lung hyperinflation. Besides decreasing dyspnea, they reduce the number of exacerbations and improve quality of life.

Background: Most randomised clinical trials typically exclude a significant proportion of asthma patients, including those at higher risk of adverse events, with comorbidities, obesity, poor inhaler technique and adherence, or smokers. However, these patients might differentially benefit from extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This matched cohort, database study, compared the effectiveness of extrafine-particle with fine-particle ICS in a real-life population initiating ICS therapy in the Netherlands.Methods: Data were from the Pharmo Database Network, comprising pharmacy and hospital discharge records, representative of 20 % of the Dutch population. The study population included patients aged 12 - 60, with a General Practice-recorded diagnosis for asthma (International Classification of Primary Care code R96), when available, ≥2 prescriptions for asthma therapy at any time in their recorded history, and receiving first prescription of ICS therapy as either extrafine-particle (ciclesonide or hydrofluoroalkane beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]) or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine-particle-BDP). Patients were matched (1:1) on relevant demographic and clinical characteristics over 1-year baseline. Primary outcomes were severe exacerbation rates, risk domain asthma control and overall asthma control during the year following first ICS prescription. Secondary outcomes, treatment stability and being prescribed higher versus lower category of short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) dose, were compared over a 1-year outcome period using conditional logistic regression models.Results: Following matching, 1399 patients were selected in each treatment cohort (median age: 43 years; males: 34 %). Median (interquartile range) initial ICS doses (fluticasone-equivalents in μg) were 160 (160 - 320) for extrafine-particle versus 500 (250 - 500) for fine-particle ICS (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for residual confounders, matched patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had significantly lower rates of exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [95 % CI], 0.59 [0.47-0.73]), and significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control and treatment stability in the year following initiation than those prescribed fine-particle ICS, and this occurred at lower prescribed doses. Patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had lower odds of being prescribed higher doses of SABA (0.50 [0.44-0.57]).Conclusion: In this historical, matched study, extrafine-particle ICS was associated with better odds of asthma control than fine-particle ICS in patients prescribed their first ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Of importance, this was reached at significantly lower prescribed dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: According to the Global Initiative of Asthma, the aim of asthma treatment is to gain and maintain control. In the INTERNATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL ASSESSMENT ON ASTHMA CONTROL (LIAISON) study, we evaluated the level of asthma control and quality of life (QoL), as well as their determinants and impact in a population consulting specialist settings.Methods: LIAISON is a prospective, multicentre, observational study with a cross-sectional and a 12-month longitudinal phase. Adults with an asthma diagnosis since at least 6 months, receiving the same asthma treatment in the 4 weeks before enrolment were included. Asthma control was assessed with the 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and QoL with the MiniAsthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ).Results: Overall, 8111 asthmatic patients were enrolled in 12 European countries. Asthma control was suboptimal in 56.5 % of patients and it was associated with poorer asthma-related QoL, higher risk of exacerbations and greater consumption of healthcare resources. Variables associated with suboptimal control were age, gender, obesity, smoking and comorbidities. Major determinants of poor asthma control were seasonal worsening and persisting exposure to allergens/irritants/triggers, followed by treatment-related issues.Conclusions: The cross-sectional phase results confirm that suboptimal control is frequent and has a high individual and economic impact.Trial Registration: The clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01567280 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In Europe, administration of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combined with a long-acting β2 agonist is approved in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with a prebronchodilator FEV1 < 60% predicted normal, a history of repeated exacerbations, and who have significant symptoms despite regular bronchodilator therapy. Minimal data are available on the use of the fluticasone propionate / salmeterol xinafoate combination (FSC) in the reallife COPD setting and prescription compliance with the licensed specifications. Methods A French observational study was performed to describe the COPD population prescribed with FSC, prescription modalities, and the coherence of prescription practices with the market authorized population. Data were collected for patients initiating FSC treatment (500 μg fluticasone propionate, 50 μg salmeterol, dry powder inhaler) prescribed by a general practitioner (GP) or a pulmonologist, using physician and patient questionnaires. Results A total of 710 patients were included, 352 by GPs and 358 by pulmonologists. Mean age was over 60 years, and 70% of patients were male. More than half were retired, and overweight or obese. Approximately half were current smokers and one-third had cardiovascular comorbidities. According to both physician evaluation and GOLD 2006 classification, the majority of patients (>75%) had moderate to very severe COPD. Strict compliance by prescribing physicians with the market-approved population for dry powder inhaler SFC in COPD was low, notably in ICS-naïve patients; all three conditions were fulfilled in less than a quarter of patients with prior ICS and less than 7% of ICS-naïve patients. Conclusions Prescription of dry powder inhaler SFC by GPs and pulmonologists has very low conformity with the three conditions defining the licensed COPD population. Prescription practices need to be improved and systematic FEV1 evaluation for COPD diagnosis and treatment management should be emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms in the morning, including dyspnea and sputum production, affect patients' quality of life and limit their ability to carry out even simple morning activities. It is now emerging that these symptoms are associated with increased risk of exacerbations and work absenteeism, suggesting that they have a more profound impact on patients than previously thought. The development of validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires to capture patients' experience of COPD symptoms in the morning is, therefore, vital for establishing effective and comprehensive management strategies. Although it is well established that long-acting bronchodilators are effective in improving COPD symptoms, the limited available data on their impact on morning symptoms and activities have been obtained with non-validated PRO questionnaires. In this review, we discuss the impact of COPD symptoms in the morning and available tools used to evaluate them, and highlight specific gaps that need to be addressed to develop standardized instruments able to meet regulatory requirement. We also present available evidence on the effect of pharmacological therapies on morning symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, complex, and heterogeneous disorder that is responsible for substantial and growing morbidity, mortality, and health-care expense worldwide. Of imperative importance to decipher the complexity of COPD is to identify groups of patients with similar clinical characteristics, prognosis, or therapeutic needs, the so-called clinical phenotypes. This strategy is logical for research but might be of little clinical value because clinical phenotypes can overlap in the same patient and the same clinical phenotype could result from different biological mechanisms. With the goal to match assessment with treatment choices, the latest iteration of guidelines from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease reorganised treatment objectives into two categories: to improve symptoms (ie, dyspnoea and health status) and to decrease future risk (as predicted by forced expiratory volume in 1 s level and exacerbations history). This change thus moves treatment closer to individualised medicine with available bronchodilators and anti-inflammatory drugs. Yet, future treatment options are likely to include targeting endotypes that represent subtypes of patients defined by a distinct pathophysiological mechanism. Specific biomarkers of these endotypes would be particularly useful in clinical practice, especially in patients in which clinical phenotype alone is insufficient to identify the underlying endotype. A few series of potential COPD endotypes and biomarkers have been suggested. Empirical knowledge will be gained from proof-of-concept trials in COPD with emerging drugs that target specific inflammatory pathways. In every instance, specific endotype and biomarker efforts will probably be needed for the success of these trials, because the pathways are likely to be operative in only a subset of patients. Network analysis of human diseases offers the possibility to improve understanding of disease pathobiological complexity and to help with the development of new treatment alternatives and, importantly, a reclassification of complex diseases. All these developments should pave the way towards personalised treatment of patients with COPD in the clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence is scarce on the relative risk-benefit of inhaled triple therapy, consisting of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting β2-agonist, versus dual bronchodilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare a single-inhaler triple combination of beclometasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G) versus a single-inhaler dual bronchodilator combination of indacaterol plus glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) in terms of the rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations over 52 weeks of treatment.Methods: This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study was done at 187 sites across 17 countries. Eligible patients had symptomatic COPD, severe or very severe airflow limitation, at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year, and were receiving inhaled maintenance medication. After a 2 week run-in period with one inhalation per day of IND/GLY (85 μg/43 μg), patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive response technology system, to receive 52 weeks of treatment with two inhalations of extrafine BDP/FF/G (87 μg/5 μg/9 μg) twice per day or one inhalation of IND/GLY (85 μg/43 μg) per day. Randomisation was stratified by country and severity of airflow limitation. The primary endpoint was the rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations across 52 weeks of treatment in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02579850.Findings: Between May, 29 2015, and July 10, 2017, 1532 patients received BDP/FF/G (n=764) or IND/GLY (n=768). Moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were 0·50 per patient per year (95% CI 0·45-0·57) for BDP/FF/G and 0·59 per patient per year (0·53-0·67) for IND/GLY, giving a rate ratio of 0·848 (0·723-0·995, p=0·043) in favour of BDP/FF/G. Adverse events were reported by 490 (64%) of 764 patients receiving BDP/FF/G and 516 (67%) of 768 patients receiving IND/GLY. Pneumonia occurred in 28 (4%) patients receiving BDP/FF/G versus 27 (4%) patients receiving IND/GLY. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in each group: dysuria in a patient receiving BDP/FF/G and atrial fibrillation in a patient receiving IND/GLY.Interpretation: In patients with symptomatic COPD, severe or very severe airflow limitation, and an exacerbation history despite maintenance therapy, extrafine BDP/FF/G significantly reduced the rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations compared with IND/GLY, without increasing the risk of pneumonia.Funding: Chiesi Farmaceutici. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]