Triple Therapy Versus Dual Bronchodilation and Inhaled Corticosteroids/Long-Acting ?-Agonists in COPD: Accumulating Evidence from Network Meta-Analyses.
ABSTRACT: Guidelines are mainly based on evidence of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but there are limitations to the transferability of conclusions of RCTs to usual care mainly because the patients enrolled in RCTs are selected and not representative of the population encountered in daily practice; moreover, the research environment is substantially different from that of the real world. Because of the scarcity of data generated in large unselected populations in everyday clinical practice, the possibility of using meta-analyses can be considered. Recently, several meta-analyses have attempted to clarify the role of triple therapy containing a long-acting ?-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) delivered from a single inhaler in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also considering that there is a big difference in the use of triple therapy between what is recommended by COPD guidelines or strategies and the prescriptive behaviour of clinicians. Taking into account the results of the most recent meta-analyses, we believe that triple therapy provides modest clinical benefit in the general COPD population, but in patients on LABA/LAMA combination therapy, who still experience acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) and have blood eosinophil counts???300 cells·?l-1, it is of clinical relevance. On the contrary, adding a LAMA to an ICS/LABA combination elicits relevant clinical benefit in the general COPD population, supporting the role of dual bronchodilation therapy for the treatment of COPD. The quantitative synthesis of the currently available clinical evidence seems to suggest that, in patients with COPD already on ICS/LABA combination, the therapy can be improved without an increase of cardiovascular severe adverse events (SAEs) when a LAMA is added to the combination.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although exacerbation and mortality are the most important clinical outcomes of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the drug classes that are the most efficacious in reducing exacerbation and mortality among all possible inhaled drugs have not been determined. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We performed a systematic review (SR) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, and the official websites of pharmaceutical companies (from inception to July 9, 2019). The eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) parallel-design randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) adults with stable COPD; (3) comparisons among long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), combined treatment (ICS/LAMA/LABA, LAMA/LABA, or ICS/LABA), or a placebo; and (4) study duration ? 12 weeks. This study was prospectively registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42017069087). In total, 219 trials involving 228,710 patients were included. Compared with placebo, all drug classes significantly reduced the total exacerbations and moderate to severe exacerbations. ICS/LAMA/LABA was the most efficacious treatment for reducing the exacerbation risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.50-0.64; posterior probability of OR > 1 [P(OR > 1)] < 0.001). In addition, in contrast to the other drug classes, ICS/LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA were associated with a significantly higher probability of reducing mortality than placebo (OR = 0.74, 95% CrI 0.59-0.93, P[OR > 1] = 0.004; and OR = 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.98, P[OR > 1] = 0.015, respectively). The results minimally changed, even in various sensitivity and covariate-adjusted meta-regression analyses. ICS/LAMA/LABA tended to lower the risk of cardiovascular mortality but did not show significant results. ICS/LAMA/LABA increased the probability of pneumonia (OR for triple therapy = 1.56; 95% CrI 1.19-2.03; P[OR > 1] = 1.000). The main limitation is that there were few RCTs including only less symptomatic patients or patients at a low risk. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that triple therapy can potentially be the best option for stable COPD patients in terms of reducing exacerbation and all-cause mortality.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Triple inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ?2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations/symptoms on dual LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA therapy. The relative efficacy of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler 320/18/9.6 µg (BGF MDI) in COPD was compared with other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose and open combination therapies in a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of at least 10-week duration, including at least one fixed-dose or open combination triple therapy arm, in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias. A three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model was used to determine the exacerbation rate per patient per year as well as the following outcomes at week 24: changes from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), post-dose peak FEV1, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; proportion of SGRQ responders; and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score. Change from baseline in rescue medication use over weeks 12-24 was also analyzed. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS:Eighteen studies (n?=?29,232 patients) contributed to the NMA. ICS/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between BGF MDI and other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations with data available within the network. Results from sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were consistent with the base-case scenario. CONCLUSION:This NMA suggested that BGF MDI has comparable efficacy to other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose and open triple combination therapies in reducing exacerbations and improving lung function and symptoms in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Further research is warranted as additional evidence regarding triple therapies, especially fixed-dose combinations, becomes available.
Project description:Background:The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2020 report recommends that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffering from persistent dyspnea, despite long-acting ?2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy, are switched to either a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA combination regimen or LAMA/LABA/ICS triple therapy. However, to date, no studies have investigated the direct switch from LABA/ICS to LAMA/LABA therapy-instead of switching to triple therapy-in a prospective, real-world, non-interventional setting. Methods:EVELUT® (NCT03954132) is an ongoing, prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-interventional study comparing the once-daily fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol (tio/olo) versus any triple therapy (LAMA/LABA/ICS) in patients with COPD who are symptomatic despite LABA/ICS maintenance therapy. Patients with acute or frequent COPD exacerbations are excluded from the study. Participants will receive LABA/ICS maintenance treatment until Visit 1, followed by switching of treatment to tio/olo or LAMA/LABA/ICS. The primary endpoints are changes in modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT®) scores after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints are change in the patients' general condition according to the Physician's Global Evaluation score, the proportion of responders with a change in mMRC score of ?1 and in CAT® score of ?2, and patient satisfaction with the inhaler and therapy. The study is expected to enroll approximately 900 patients. Conclusion:EVELUT results are expected to add to the current real-world evidence informing therapeutic decisions for COPD in everyday clinical practice. Trial Registration:The European Union electronic Register of Post-authorisation Studies (EU PAS Register): EUPAS29784; the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM): NIS Study No 7305; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03954132.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations between triple therapy and dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries searched from inception to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials comparing triple therapy with dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with COPD were eligible. Efficacy and safety outcomes of interest were also available. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Data were collected independently. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate rate ratios, hazard ratios, risk ratios, and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methodology (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation). RESULTS:21 trials (19 publications) were included. Triple therapy consisted of a long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long acting ? agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Triple therapy was associated with a significantly reduced rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy (rate ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.85), LAMA and LABA (0.78, 0.70 to 0.88), and ICS and LABA (0.77, 0.66 to 0.91). Trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and quality of life were favourable with triple therapy. The overall safety profile of triple therapy is reassuring, but pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with dual therapy of LAMA and LABA (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.87). CONCLUSIONS:Use of triple therapy resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD, better lung function, and better health related quality of life than dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with advanced COPD. STUDY REGISTRATION:Prospero CRD42018077033.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The number of pharmacological agents and guidelines available for COPD has increased markedly but guidelines remain poorly followed. Understanding underlying clinical reasoning is challenging and could be informed by clinical characteristics associated with treatment prescriptions. METHODS:To determine whether COPD treatment choices by respiratory physicians correspond to specific patients' features, this study was performed in 1171 patients who had complete treatment and clinical characterisation data. Multiple statistical models were applied to explain five treatment categories: A: no COPD treatment or short-acting bronchodilator(s) only; B: one long-acting bronchodilator (beta2 agonist, LABA or anticholinergic agent, LAMA); C: LABA+LAMA; D: a LABA or LAMA + inhaled corticosteroid (ICS); E: triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS). RESULTS:Mean FEV1 was 60% predicted. Triple therapy was prescribed to 32.9% (treatment category E) of patients and 29.8% received a combination of two treatments (treatment categories C or D); ICS-containing regimen were present for 44% of patients altogether. Single or dual bronchodilation were less frequently used (treatment categories B and C: 19% each). While lung function was associated with all treatment decisions, exacerbation history, scores of clinical impact and gender were associated with the prescription of >?1 maintenance treatment. Statistical models could predict treatment decisions with a?<?35% error rate. CONCLUSION:In COPD, contrary to what has been previously reported in some studies, treatment choices by respiratory physicians appear rather rational since they can be largely explained by the patients' characteristics proposed to guide them in most recommendations.
Project description:The current recommendations for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are pushing towards triple combination therapy based on the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with two bronchodilator agents. However, dual bronchodilation remains the cornerstone for the treatment of most COPD patients. Combining a long-acting ?2 adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) induces appreciable synergistic bronchorelaxant effect in human airways, especially when the medications are combined at isoeffective concentrations. Thus, each LABA/LAMA combination is characterized by a specific range of concentration-ratio at which the drug mixture may induce sustained synergistic interaction. Results of a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT, NCT00696020) and evidences from pre-clinical studies in human isolated airways poses the question whether combining tiotropium 5 ?g with olodaterol 5 ?g is the best combination option: tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 ?g has the same efficacy profile of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/2 ?g, and it is less effective than tiotropium/olodaterol 5/10 ?g. Furthermore, tiotropium/olodaterol 5/2 ?g, 5/5 ?g, and 5/10 ?g combinations are generally characterized by the same safety profile. Indeed tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 ?g is effective and safe in COPD, but a different development strategy based on solid data obtained from human isolated airways would have driven towards a better-balanced FDC to be tested in Phase III RCTs. Accurate bench-to-bedside plans are needed also in the development of triple combination therapies for asthma and COPD, in which the presence of an ICS in the formulation may further modulate the beneficial interaction between the LABA and the LAMA.
Project description:Long-term maintenance therapy for COPD is evolving rapidly. Dual bronchodilation with new long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting beta-agonist (LAMA/LABA) fixed dose combination inhalers were introduced over the past 2 years. In clinical trials, these inhalers significantly improved lung function (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second), patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life measures compared with placebo, their respective monocomponents, and tiotropium. The recorded adverse events of these new inhalers were also similar to those of their monocomponents or placebo. There are concerns regarding long-term complications (weight gain, osteoporosis, cataract) and increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia with the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The new LAMA/LABA inhalers could potentially reduce the use of ICS as part and parcel of maintenance therapy in COPD. Recent studies compared these LAMA/LABA inhalers with ICS/LABA combination inhalers in moderate-to-severe COPD. The results are promising and favor the LAMA/LABA inhalers, especially in the longer duration trials. Furthermore, there is a clearer picture emerging as to the subgroup of COPD patients who may be able to successfully switch from their current ICS/LABA therapy to these new LAMA/LABA inhalers.
Project description:Background:Increasing availability of therapeutic options for COPD may drive new treatment pathways. This study describes COPD treatment in France, focusing on identifying initial treatment modifications in patients with COPD who either initiated long-acting bronchodilator (LABD)-based therapy or escalated to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] + long-acting ?2-agonist [LABA] + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]). Methods:This retrospective analysis of patients with COPD in a large general practitioner database (IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database) in France included two cohorts: Cohort 1 - new initiators of LABD-based therapy (LAMA, LABA, LAMA + LABA, LAMA + ICS, LABA + ICS or LAMA + LABA + ICS); Cohort 2 - patients escalating to triple therapy from mono- or dual-bronchodilator-based maintenance treatment. Both cohorts were indexed on the date of initiation/escalation (January 2008-December 2013), and the first treatment modification (at class level) within the 18-month post-index observational period was described. Five mutually exclusive outcomes were defined: continuous use (no modification), discontinuation (permanent [?91 days with no restart] or temporary [?91 days with subsequent restart]), switch, and augmentation (Cohort 1 only). Exploratory analysis of Cohort 1 explored potential drivers of treatment initiation. Results:Overall, 5,065 patients initiated LABD-based therapy (Cohort 1), and 501 escalated to triple therapy (Cohort 2). In Cohort 1, 7.0% of patients were continuous users, 46.5% discontinued permanently, 28.5% discontinued temporarily, 2.8% augmented (added LAMA and/or LABA and/or ICS), and 15.2% switched therapy. In Cohort 2, 18.2% of patients were continuous users, 7.2% discontinued permanently, 27.9% discontinued temporarily, and 46.7% switched therapy. Exploratory analyses showed that time since COPD diagnosis was first recorded, pre-index exacerbation events, and concomitant medical conditions were potential drivers of initial maintenance treatment choices. Conclusion:Discontinuation among new initiators of LABD-based therapy was high in France, whereas few switched or augmented treatment. In comparison, permanent discontinuation within 18 months was low in patients escalating to triple therapy.
Project description:Triple inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy is recommended for symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and at risk of exacerbations. However, the benefits versus side-effects of triple inhaled therapy for COPD, based on distinct patient clinical profiles, are unclear. FULFIL, a phase III, randomised, double-blind study, compared 24 weeks of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg using the Ellipta inhaler with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 µg using the Turbuhaler. Subgroup analyses of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score and exacerbation rates were carried out. Subgroups were defined by COPD medication at screening (ICS+LABA, BUD+FOR, ICS+LABA+LAMA, LAMA alone, tiotropium alone and LAMA+LABA), by disease severity (lung function and exacerbations) and by exacerbation history (exacerbation severity and frequency). In the intent-to-treat population (n=1810) at week 24, FF/UMEC/VI (n=911) versus BUD/FOR (n=899) improved FEV1 and SGRQ Total score and reduced mean annual exacerbation rates in all disease severity and exacerbation history subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR improved FEV1 and SGRQ Total score in all medication subgroups and reduced mean annual exacerbation rates in all medication subgroups, except LAMA+LABA. Adverse events were similar across subgroups. These findings support the benefit of FF/UMEC/VI compared with dual ICS/LABA therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD regardless of disease severity or prior treatment and may help to inform clinical decision making.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. RESULTS:We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15-52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15-35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25-50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3-11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION:The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO #CRD42018102125 .