Respiratory Questionnaire Total Score Research Articles

Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation

BackgroundDupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear.MethodsIn a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52.ResultsA total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P=0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab.ConclusionsIn patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; NOTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04456673.)

Comparison of Disease Severity Classifications of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: GOLD vs. STAR in Clinical Practice.

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there are two known classifications for assessing what is called disease severity. One is the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, which is based on the post-bronchodilator value of FEV1 (% reference). The other is the STaging of Airflow obstruction by Ratio (STAR), with four grades of severity in subjects with an FEV1/FVC ratio <0.70: STAR 1 ≥0.60 to <0.70, STAR 2 ≥0.50 to <0.60, STAR 3 ≥0.40 to <0.50, and STAR 4 <0.40. The aim of this study was to compare the staging of COPD using the GOLD and STAR classifications in clinical practice. We reanalyzed data from our outpatient cohort study, which included 141 participants with COPD from 2015 to 2023. We compared mortality and COPD-specific health status between the GOLD 1 to 4 groups and the STAR 1 to 4 groups. By simple calculation, GOLD and STAR severity classes coincided in 75 participants (53.2%). The weighted Bangdiwala B value with linear weights was 0.775. The participants were observed for up to 95 months, with a median of 54 months. Death was confirmed in 29 participants (20.5%). In univariate Cox proportional hazards analyses, there was a significant difference in mortality between the GOLD 1 and GOLD 3 + 4 groups, with the GOLD 1 group used as the reference [hazard ratio 4.222 (95% CI 1.298-13.733), p = 0.017]. However, there was no statistically significant predictive relationship between STAR 1 and STAR 2, or between STAR 1 and STAR 3 + 4. St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores were significantly different between all GOLD groups, except for the CAT score between GOLD 1 and GOLD 2. The SGRQ Total and CAT scores were significantly different between STAR 1 and STAR 3 + 4, but not between STAR 1 and STAR 2. From the perspective of all-cause mortality and COPD-specific health status, the GOLD classification is more discriminative than STAR.

Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in a Chinese population with severe asthma: a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

In China, the prevalence of severe asthma with eosinophilic phenotype is rising, yet treatment options are limited. Mepolizumab is the first targeted biologic therapy for eosinophilic-driven disease in China. This study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03562195) evaluated efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in Chinese patients with severe asthma. The phase III, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study enrolled patients aged ≥12 years with severe asthma, with two or more exacerbations in the previous year, and on inhaled corticosteroids plus at least one controller medication. Following a 1-4-week run-in, patients were randomised 1:1 to mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end-point was annualised rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs) through week 52. Secondary end-points were time to first CSE, frequency of CSEs requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visits or hospitalisation over 52 weeks, mean change in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 52; safety was evaluated. The modified intention-to-treat population included 300 patients. At week 52 with mepolizumab versus placebo, annualised rate of CSEs was 65% lower (0.45 versus 1.31 events per year; rate ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.24-0.50; p<0.001); time to first CSE longer (hazard ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56; p<0.001) and number of CSEs requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit lower (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.77; p=0.012). From baseline to week 52, SGRQ score improved (p=0.001) and pre-bronchodilator FEV1 increased (p=0.006). Incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Mepolizumab provided clinical benefits to patients with severe asthma in China and showed a favourable benefit-risk profile.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist combination for the treatment of maintenance therapy-naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a narrative review.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Faster lung function impairment occurs earlier in the disease, particularly in mild-to-moderate COPD, highlighting the need for early and effective targeted interventions. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2024 report recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination in group B (0 or 1 moderate exacerbation not leading to hospitalization, modified Medical Research Council score of ⩾2, and COPD Assessment Test™ score of ⩾10) and E (⩾2 moderate exacerbations or ⩾1 exacerbation leading to hospitalization and blood eosinophil count <300 cells/µL) patients. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and reduced the use of rescue medications, exacerbation risk, and risk of first clinically important deterioration (CID), compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy. However, there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy in maintenance therapy-naïve patients. This review discusses the rationale for the early initiation of LAMA/LABA combination therapy in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD. In post hoc analyses of pooled data from RCTs, compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy, LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function and quality of life and reduced COPD symptoms, risk of first moderate/severe exacerbation, risk of first CID, and use of rescue medication, with no new safety signals. In a real-world study, patients initiating LAMA/LABA had significantly reduced risk of COPD-related inpatient admissions and rate of on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admissions over 12 months than those initiating LAMA. Consequently, LAMA/LABA combination therapy could be considered the treatment of choice in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD, as recommended by the GOLD 2024 report.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Long-Term Macrolide Therapy for COPD in Stable Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent condition with fewer treatments available as the severity increases. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the benefits of long-term macrolide use. However, the therapeutic differences between different macrolides and the optimal duration of use remain unclear. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness of long-term macrolide use in reducing COPD exacerbations, compare the therapeutic differences among macrolides, and determine the appropriate treatment duration. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ICHU-SHI) were searched until 20 March 2023, and a random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effect. Results: The meta-analysis included nine randomized controlled trials involving 1965 patients. The analysis revealed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19, 0.59, p < 0.001) for the reduction in exacerbation frequency. Notably, only azithromycin or erythromycin showed suppression of COPD exacerbations. The ORs for reducing exacerbation frequency per year and preventing hospitalizations were -0.50 (95% CI: -0.81, -0.19; p = 0.001) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.3, 0.97; p = 0.04), respectively. Statistical analyses showed no significant differences between three- and six-month macrolide prescriptions. However, studies involving a twelve-month prescription showed an OR of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.68; p = 0.005; I2 = 81%). Although a significant improvement in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores was observed with a mean difference of -4.42 (95% CI: -9.0, 0.16; p = 0.06; I2 = 94%), the minimal clinically important difference was not reached. While no adverse effects were observed between the two groups, several studies have reported an increase in bacterial resistance. Conclusions: Long-term use of azithromycin or erythromycin suppresses COPD exacerbations, and previous studies have supported the advantages of a 12-month macrolide prescription over a placebo.

Clinically Important Deterioration (CID) and Ageing in COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis According to PRISMA Statement.

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a composite endpoint developed to quantify the impact of pharmacological treatment in clinical trials for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), also showing a prognostic value. CID is defined as any of the following condition: forced expiratory volume in 1 s decrease ≥100 mL from baseline, and/or St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score increase ≥4-unit from baseline, and/or the occurrence of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation of COPD. Although most COPD patients experience a clinical worsening as they get older, to date, no specific studies assessed the correlation between ageing and CID in COPD. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of ageing on CID in COPD patients. Data obtained from 55219 COPD patients were extracted from 17 papers, mostly post-hoc analyses. A pairwise meta-analysis and a meta-regression analysis were performed according to PRISMA-P guidelines to quantify the impact of pharmacological therapy on CID and to determine whether ageing might modulate the risk of CID in COPD patients. Inhaled treatments resulted generally effective in reducing the risk of CID in COPD (relative risk: 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.84; P < 0.001). The meta-regression analysis indicated a trend toward significance (P = 0.063) in the linear relationship between age and the risk of CID. Of note, age significantly (P < 0.05) increased the risk of CID when associated with lower post-bronchodilator FEV1. These results were not affected by a significant risk of bias. This quantitative synthesis suggests that inhaled therapy is effective in reducing the risk of CID in COPD, although such a protective effect may be affected in older patients with impaired lung function. Further studies specifically designed on CID in COPD are needed to confirm these results.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies and aclidinium versus placebo in Chinese and other Asian patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The AVANT Phase 3 study

AVANT was a Phase 3, 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol 400 μg/12 μg combination vs monotherapies and aclidinium vs placebo (1:1:1:1) in Asian patients (∼70% of whom were Chinese) with moderate-to-severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Endpoints were analyzed hierarchically to incorporate type I error control. At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol demonstrated improvements from baseline in 1-h morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) vs aclidinium (least squares [LS] mean 92 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] 60, 124 mL; p < 0.001), and in trough FEV1 vs formoterol (LS mean 85 mL; 95% CI 53, 117 mL; p < 0.001). Furthermore, aclidinium provided improvements in trough FEV1 vs placebo (LS mean 134 mL; 95% CI 103, 166 mL; p < 0.001). There was an improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score at Week 24 for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean 0.8; 95% CI 0.2, 1.3; p = 0.005) but not for aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean 0.4; 95% CI −0.1, 1.0; p = 0.132). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores occurred for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean −4.0; 95% CI −6.7, −1.4; p = 0.003) and aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean −2.9; 95% CI −5.5, −0.3; p = 0.031). Aclidinium/formoterol and aclidinium were well tolerated and safety findings were consistent with known profiles; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (aclidinium/formoterol: 54.8%; aclidinium: 47.4%; placebo: 53.9%), serious AEs (7.2, 7.9, and 7.8%, respectively), and AEs leading to discontinuation of study medication (2.3, 1.5, and 2.2%, respectively) were similar between groups.

Tai Chi as a complementary exercise for pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesWith the characteristics of mindfulness and breathing techniques, Tai Chi has been recommended with therapeutic values in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, its strengths as a complementary exercise for conventional pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) remain unclear. Design and settingThis single-blinded randomised controlled trial recruited patients with mild to severe stable COPD. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to the group with usual care (control), total body recumbent stepper (TBRS) exercise, Tai Chi (TC), or combined TBRS exercise and Tai Chi (TBRS-TC). Patients received a two-month hospital-based supervised exercise, followed by a ten-month community- or home-based rehabilitation program. ResultsA total of 120 participants were recruited, and 102 were included in the per-protocol analysis. The mean changes in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score from baseline to the post-hospital exercise in the control group, TBRS group, TC group, and TBRS-TC group was 2.62 (95 % CI −8.99 to 8.99), −9.28 (95 % CI −13.96 to −4.60), −10.19 (95 % CI −13.72 to −6.67), and −16.75 (95 % CI −20.25 to −13.24), respectively, with a statistically significant difference between groups in favor of the TBRS-TC exercise (P < 0.001). The remarkable effect of TBRS-TC exercise in improving the quality of life maintained until the end of the community- or home-based rehabilitation training (P < 0.001). Besides, a statistically better effect with the TBRS-TC exercise was also observed in the outcomes regarding exercise capacity, pulmonary function, symptom burden, and systemic inflammation after the whole process of 12-month integrative PR exercise programme. ConclusionsBased on the results, a novel integrated exercise modality combining Tai Chi and conventional pulmonary rehabilitation was developed. It might contribute to more positive effects in patients with stable COPD. RegistrationThe study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-IOR-15006874) prior to commencing recruitment.

The minimal important difference of the constant work rate cycle test in severe COPD

BackgroundThe Constant Work Rate Cycle Test (CWRT) is a commonly used and sensitive test to detect treatment success in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Earlier, the Minimal Important Difference (MID) of the CWRT was estimated at 101 s (or 34%) change from baseline based on one well executed study. However, this study was performed in a population of patients with mild-to-moderate COPD, and we have learned that MIDs might be quite different in patients with severe COPD. Therefore, we aimed to establish the MID of the CWRT in patients with severe COPD. MethodsWe included 141 patients with severe COPD, who underwent either pulmonary rehabilitation, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves, or a sham bronchoscopy as a control group. CWRT workload was set at 75% of the peak work capacity, as determined by an incremental cycle test. We used the change in 6-min walking test (6-MWT), forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1), residual volume (RV), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score as anchors to calculate the MID. ResultsAll anchors had an association of ≥0.41 with change in CWRT. The MID estimates for the different anchors were: 6-MWT 278 s (95%), FEV1 273 s (90%), RV 240 s (84%), and SGRQ 208 s (71%). The average of these four MID estimates resulted in an MID of 250 s (or 85%). ConclusionWe established the MID for CWRT at 250 s (or 85%) change from baseline in patients with severe COPD.

Ziritaxestat, a Novel Autotaxin Inhibitor, and Lung Function in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

There is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). To assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF. The 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life). At the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was -124.6 mL (95% CI, -178.0 to -71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs -147.3 mL (95% CI, -199.8 to -94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, -52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and -173.9 mL (95% CI, -225.7 to -122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, -26.7 mL [95% CI, -100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was -173.8 mL (95% CI, -209.2 to -138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs -176.6 mL (95% CI, -211.4 to -141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, -46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and -174.9 mL (95% CI, -209.5 to -140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, -47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo. Ziritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT03733444.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy for mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a study protocol for a randomised and interventional study

IntroductionBronchodilators, including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting beta 2 agonists (LABA), are the main treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids/LAMA/LABA) has...

Quality of Life and Mortality Outcomes for Augmentation Naïve and Augmented Patients with Severe Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.

Intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) augmentation therapy is the only specific treatment available for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD)-related lung disease. It is widely used worldwide but remains unavailable to patients with AATD in the United Kingdom. While randomized trials of augmentation therapy have demonstrated biochemical efficacy and lung tissue preservation using computed tomography (CT) densitometry, these studies were not adequately powered to demonstrate effectiveness in well-accepted clinical endpoints such as quality of life (QOL) or survival. We used large, prospectively followed AATD patient populations in the United States and United Kingdom to explore these important clinical endpoints. Our inclusion criterion was adults with severe AATD and associated lung disease. The treatment group was U.S. AATD patients receiving augmentation therapy for lung disease. The control group was augmentation therapy naïve AATD patients. Multivariable regression and survival analyses were used to assess QOL and mortality outcomes respectively. Mean annual deterioration of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score was 1.43 points greater/year in the control group compared to those receiving augmentation therapy (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 2.39, p=0.003). At 7 years, median survival was 82.7% (95% CI 75.3 to 90.7) for the control group versus 87.8% (95% CI 82.8 to 93.2) in the augmentation group, p=0.66. There was significant heterogeneity between cohorts. A comparison of 2 highly characterized AATD cohorts was not able to reliably determine if AAT augmentation therapy improves QOL or mortality in patients with severe AATD-related lung disease. Alternative surrogate biomarkers of disease progression, such as CT lung density, may be a more pragmatic option.

Effects of exercise-based pulmonary rehabilitation on severe/very severe COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been considered to be an effective treatment method for various respiratory diseases. However, the effects of exercise-based PR on patients with severe/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are unclear. This review aimed to investigate the effects of exercise-based PR on patients with severe/very severe COPD. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to December 23, 2022, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of exercise-based PR on patients with severe/very severe COPD were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently. RevMan software (version 5.3) was used for meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Six studies (263 patients) were identified. Compared with the control group, the 6-min walking distance [MD = 52.91, 95% CI (3.80, 102.03)], the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores [MD = -7.70, 95% CI (-14.32, -1.08)] and the Borg scale scores [MD = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.28, -0.08)] in the experimental group improved, respectively. The St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and Borg scale scores were rated as 'moderate quality' and 'low quality', respectively, and the 6-min walking distance was rated as 'very low quality'. Exercise-based PR may improve the exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnea of patients with severe/very severe COPD, which can be regarded as an adjuvant treatment. High quality and large sample RCTs are needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022294085).

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus dual therapy in current and former smokers with COPD: IMPACT trial post hoc analysis

BackgroundSmoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status. MethodsIMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed. ResultsOf the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77–0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76–0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78–0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64–0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers. ConclusionsFF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers. Clinical trial registrationGSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation Performed Through Exercise Training for Patients with Stable COPD: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

The application of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) improves functional capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at all stages of disease severity. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of PR, performed through exercise training (PR-ET), on functional capacity and HRQoL in patients with stable COPD. The meta-analysis was performed by including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with stable COPD who participated in different types of PR-ET in which six-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/ or St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores (SGRQ) were measured. The data search was conducted in December 2020 and January 2021. The first meta-analysis showed a statistically significant positive effect (MD=31.73m; p<0.00001) of PR-ET on 6MWD. Similarly, the second meta-analysis found a statistically significant favourable effect of pulmonary rehabilitation through exercise training on SGRQ total scores (MD=-8.09; p=0.002). PR, which includes several different types of exercise training, has a positive effect on the functional capacity and HRQoL of patients with stable COPD. Further studies should be conducted to determine the effects of home-based PR-ET and PR-ET >8 weeks on SGRQ total scores.

Impact of Previous Occupational Exposure on Outcomes of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

: BackgroundOccupational exposures have been regarded as a risk factor for the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there is little knowledge regarding the effect of occupational exposure on the treatment outcomes of COPD. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the question of whether occupational exposure can have a potential impact on COPD outcomes. Methods: Information regarding self-reported occupational exposure for 312 patients with COPD from the Korean Obstructive Lung Disease (KOLD) Cohort were included. A comparison of the rate of acute exacerbation, annual lung function change, and quality of life according to the presence or absence of occupational exposure was performed. Results: Seventy-six patients (24.4%) had experienced occupational exposure; chemical materials were most common. At enrollment, a higher COPD-specific version of the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire total score (39.7 ± 18.8 vs. 33.1 ± 17.6, p = 0.005) and a higher exacerbation history in the past year (30.3% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.017) were observed for patients with occupational exposure compared to those without occupational exposure. Furthermore, in the follow-up period, after adjusting for potential confounders, a higher frequency of acute exacerbation (odd ratio, 1.418; 95% confidence interval, 1.027–1.956; p = 0.033) and a more rapid decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (p = 0.009) was observed for COPD patients with occupational exposure compared to those without occupational exposure. Conclusions: In the KOLD cohort, worse outcomes in terms of exacerbation rate and change in lung function were observed for COPD patients with occupational exposure compared to those without occupational exposure. These findings suggest that occupational exposure not only is a risk factor for COPD but also might have a prognostic impact on COPD.

Effect of Recent Exacerbation History on the Efficacy of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the FULFIL Trial.

BackgroundIn the FULFIL trial, once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) resulted in reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) dual therapy.MethodsFULFIL was a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD were randomized 1:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg or BUD/FOR 400/12 mcg. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized by exacerbation history in the year prior to study entry (≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation [recent exacerbation] versus no recent exacerbation). Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations up to Week 24, annual rate of on-treatment severe exacerbations up to Week 24, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24, and change from baseline in health status as measured by St George’s respiratory questionnaire total score at Week 24.ResultsOf the 1810 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 1180 (65%) had one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the year prior to entry, while 630 (35%) patients did not. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.19 vs 0.29; rate ratio [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.64: [0.45, 0.91]; p=0.014) and numerically reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the no recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.29 vs 0.43; rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.43, 1.04]; p=0.073). Severe exacerbation rates were numerically reduced with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR treatment across both subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR, regardless of recent exacerbation history.ConclusionFF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of recent exacerbation history.

Pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care for adults with asthma.

Pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care for adults with asthma.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IntroductionFew randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.MethodsA systematic literature review (October 2015–November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.ResultsThe NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.ConclusionUMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IntroductionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β2-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.MethodsThis NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).ResultsThe NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV1 at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).ConclusionThe findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02231-0.