Long-acting Beta-agonist Treatment Research Articles

Treatment with LABA versus LAMA for stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundInhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD.MethodsWe searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest.ResultsWe carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs (N = 28,211). LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.02). In St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV1 after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; P = 0.02).ConclusionTreatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV1 compared to LABA.Trial registration(PROSPERO: CRD42019144764)

Successful treatment of eosinophilic otitis media associated with severe bronchial asthma with an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, mepolizumab

Eosinophilic otitis media (EOM), which is characterized by the accumulation of eosinophils in middle ear effusion and the middle ear mucosa, is a refractory type of otitis media that is often associated with asthma. Although an early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are necessary to prevent the progression of hearing loss in patients with EOM, there are currently no well-established treatments for this condition. We treated a 60-year-old male patient with asthma and EOM. The patient’s asthma was poorly controlled, despite the use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta-agonist treatment, and the regular use of systemic corticosteroids. Mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, was started to treat the patient’s refractory asthma. At 4 months after the initiation of mepolizumab treatment, the patient’s asthma, hearing, and middle ear effusion improved. The present case suggests that mepolizumab therapy can control EOM and asthma.

Antileukotriene Agents Versus Long‐Acting Beta‐Agonists in Older Adults with Persistent Asthma: A Comparison of Add‐On Therapies

To compare the effectiveness and cardiovascular safety of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) with those of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as add-on treatments in older adults with asthma already taking inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Retrospective cohort study. Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims (2009-10) for a 10% random sample of beneficiaries continuously enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2009. Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 and older continuously enrolled in FFS Medicare with Part D coverage with a diagnosis of asthma before 2009 treated exclusively with ICSs plus LABAs or ICSs plus LTRAs (N = 14,702). The augmented inverse propensity-weighted estimator was used to compare the effect of LABA add-on therapy with that of LTRA add-on therapy on asthma exacerbations requiring inpatient, emergency, or outpatient care and on cardiovascular (CV) events, adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and county-level healthcare-access variables. The primary analysis showed that LTRA add-on treatment was associated with greater odds of asthma-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits (odds ratio (OR) = 1.4, P < .001), as well as outpatient exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids or antibiotics (OR = 1.41, P < .001) than LABA treatment. LTRA add-on therapy was also less effective in controlling acute symptoms, as indicated by greater use of short-acting beta agonists (rate ratio = 1.58, P < .001). LTRA add-on treatment was associated with lower odds of experiencing a CV event than LABA treatment (OR = 0.86, P = .006). This study provides new evidence specific to older adults to help healthcare providers weigh the risks and benefits of these add-on treatments. Further subgroup analysis is needed to personalize asthma treatments in this high-risk population.

Risk of all-cause hospitalization in COPD patients initiating long-acting or short-acting beta agonist therapy

Objective:This retrospective claims study investigated the rates of all-cause hospitalization among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients initiating treatment with short-acting beta agonists (SABA) or long-acting beta agonists (LABA).Methods:Data from the 5% national sample of Medicare enrollees for 2006–2008 were used. Patients initiating COPD therapy were identified as those with no COPD therapy for ≥ 6-months prior to initiating SABA or LABA (administered via dry-powder inhalers, metered-dose inhalers, or nebulizer) treatment. All patients were continuously eligible for Medicare Parts A, B, and D for 18 months. Those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, who had asthma, or were < 65 years old were excluded. Differences in the rates of all-cause hospitalizations and time to all-cause hospitalization during the 6-month follow-up period were examined, while adjusting for demographics, clinical indicators, and health service use.Results:Among 3017 COPD patients who met the inclusion criteria, 883 (30%) were LABA users and 2134 (70%) were SABA users. Overall, 21% of patients (16% [144/883] of LABA and 23% [492/2134] of SABA) had a hospitalization during the follow-up period. Mean time to hospitalization was 86 days for LABA vs 64 days for SABA patients (p < 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratio for hospitalization in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.62–0.90) for patients treated with LABA vs. SABA.Limitations:The analysis was adjusted for multiple background characteristics, but important measures of severity in COPD, such as measures of lung functioning, were not available and may have differed between patients treated with LABA or SABA.Conclusions:The results of this analysis indicate COPD patients initiating LABA treatment had a longer time to all-cause hospitalization and a 26% lower risk of hospitalization during the 6-months follow-up period compared to those initiating SABA therapy.

Survival of COPD patients using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonists

We conducted a historical cohort study to examine the relationship between survival and use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and/or long-acting beta agonists (LABA) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). All COPD patients aged 40 years who were enrolled in one of two regional managed care organizations during 1995-2000, and who had 90 days use of an ICS and/or LABA (N=1288) or of a short-acting bronchodilator (N=397), were identified. Of patients treated with ICS and/or LABA, 14.4% died during the follow-up period, as compared to 28.2% of comparison patients (P<0.01). In a Cox proportional hazards model that controlled for age, sex, comorbidities, COPD severity, and asthma status, a reduced risk of death was found for ICS treatment (HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.46-0.78]), LABA (HR 0.55 [0.34-0.89]), and ICS plus LABA treatment (HR 0.34 [0.21-0.56]). A second model that excluded any patient who also had an ICD-9 code for asthma (N=840) still found improved survival among those using the combination of ICS plus LABA (HR 0.35 [CI 0.17-0.71]). Additional analyses that varied the exposure criteria also found a consistent treatment benefit. Inclusion of ICS or bronchodilator treatment during the follow-up period as a time-dependent function appears to negate the survival benefit; however, the underlying assumptions for valid time-dependent modeling are clearly violated in this situation. In conclusion, we found that COPD patients who used ICS alone or in combination with LABA had substantially improved survival even after adjustment for asthma and other confounding factors.

BAL eotaxin and IL‐5 in asthma, and the effects of inhaled corticosteroid and β2 agonist

In a longitudinal ex vivo placebo-controlled study, asthmatics already treated with inhaled corticosteroid received supplemental long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) or increased doses of their inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Previously reports have shown significant reductions in biopsy eosinophil numbers after treatment with LABA. Following these findings, eosinophil chemokines eotaxin and IL-5 in the BAL fluid at baseline and after 3 months of study medication have now been measured, and these data with that from new cross-sectional controls have also been compared. It is hypothesised that changes in airway eosinophils would be related to eosinophil cytokines. BAL cytokines were measured by chemiluminescent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, while eosinophils were measured by immunohistochemistry or differential cell counting. For all measures, longitudinal data were compared to that from ICS-free asthmatics (n = 42) and non-asthmatic controls (n = 28). BAL eotaxin in asthmatics was elevated above non-asthmatic levels regardless of ICS levels. BAL IL-5 was elevated in ICS-free asthmatics, but not in asthmatics on low-dose ICS treatment. Longitudinally, BAL eotaxin was unchanged after 3 months. Unexpectedly, IL-5 increased after 3 months of additional LABA treatment but was not further affected by increasing the dose of ICS. Airway eotaxin seemed to be constitutively raised in asthmatics, whereas, IL-5 levels were more steroid-responsive. No relationship was observed between eosinophils and eosinophilic cytokines in the BAL. While the elevation of luminal IL-5 with LABA treatment cannot be accounted for, it may have contributed to luminal clearance of airway wall eosinophils. The lack of correlation between airways eosinophils and eosinophilic cytokines in the BAL is particularly important.

Long-acting beta-agonist treatment in patients with persistent asthma already receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

International guidelines recommend that long-acting beta-agonists should be considered in patients who are symptomatic despite moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids. When combined with inhaled corticosteroids they improve asthma symptoms and lung function and reduce exacerbations. The evidence suggests that they are well tolerated. However, they are less effective than inhaled corticosteroids as monotherapy and should not be used alone, although the addition of a long-acting beta-agonist may permit a small reduction in the corticosteroid dose. Both salmeterol and formoterol appear equally effective in improving asthma control. Formoterol, however, has a rapid onset of action and is now being promoted for the relief of acute asthma symptoms. Both drugs provide prolonged protection against exercise-induced bronchospasm. However, this effect rapidly diminishes with continuous therapy and if this is the main aim of treatment, intermittent use may be preferable. When compared with alternative treatments, inhaled long-acting beta-agonists are more effective in controlling asthma symptoms than either theophylline or antileukotriene agents. Bambuterol, an oral prodrug of terbutaline, appears to be as effective as the inhaled long-acting beta-agonists and has the advantage of once daily oral administration. However, the inhaled long-acting beta-agonists are less likely to have systemic adverse effects. There are theoretical concerns that regular beta-agonist treatment may lead to tolerance and a failure to respond to emergency asthma treatment. While there is no doubt that tolerance occurs, there is currently little evidence that this is a clinical problem. Insights into pharmacological as well as therapeutic interactions between inhaled corticosteroids and beta-agonists are providing justification for their use in combination. Guidelines for the management of patients with chronic persistent asthma are likely to require modification to reflect these developments.