Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonists Do Not Increase Fatal Cardiovascular Adverse Events in COPD: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The cardiovascular safety of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a controversial problem. Certain studies have suggested that inhaled LABAs lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with COPD. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the cardiovascular safety of inhaled LABAs in COPD.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials for LABA treatment of COPD with at least 3 months of follow-up was performed. The fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of LABAs on fatal cardiovascular adverse events. Adverse events were collected for each trial, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for LABA/placebo were estimated.

Results

There were 24 trials included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, inhaled LABAs significantly decreased fatal cardiovascular adverse events in COPD patients (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, P = 0.002). In sensitivity analysis, there was still no increased risk of fatal cardiovascular events (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.46 to 1.01, P = 0.06) after excluding the trial with the largest weight. Among the different types of LABAs, only salmeterol had a significant effect (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). In subgroup analyses, inhaled LABAs were able to significantly decrease fatal cardiovascular events in long-term trials (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.87) and in trials with severe COPD patients (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96).

Conclusion

Inhaled LABAs do not increase the risk of fatal cardiovascular events in COPD patients.     

Oral mucolytic drugs for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of oral mucolytics in adults with stable chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials that compared at least two months of regular oral mucolytic drugs with placebo.StudiesTwenty three randomised controlled trials in outpatients in Europe and United States.ResultsCompared with placebo, the number of exacerbations was significantly reduced in subjects taking oral mucolytics (weighted mean difference −0.07 per month, 95% confidence interval −0.08 to −0.05, P<0.0001). Based on the annualised rate of exacerbations in the control subjects of 2.7 a year, this is a 29% reduction. The number needed to treat for one subject to have no exacerbation in the study period would be 6. Days of illness also fell (weighted mean difference −0.56, −0.77 to −0.35, P<0.0001). The number of subjects who had no exacerbations in the study period was greater in the mucolytic group (odds ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.93 to 2.54, P<0.0001). There was no difference in lung function or in adverse events reported between treatments.ConclusionsIn chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, treatment with mucolytics is associated with a reduction in acute exacerbations and days of illness. As these drugs have to be taken long term, they could be most useful in patients who have repeated, prolonged, or severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

What is already know on this topic

Mucolytic drugs have properties that may be beneficial in chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseThese drugs are not prescribed in the United Kingdom and Australasia, although they are widely used in many other countriesDrugs that reduce exacerbations may reduce the morbidity and healthcare costs associated with progressively severe disease

What this study adds

Regular use of mucolytic drugs for at least two months significantly reduces exacerbations and days of illness compared with placebo in patients with chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseExacerbations that do occur may not be as severe, and the benefit may be greater in those with more severe diseaseReductions are modest and treatment may not be cost effective     

Combined forced oscillation and forced expiration measurements in mice for the assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness

Background

Acute exacerbations contribute to the morbidity and mortality associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This proof-of-concept study evaluates whether intermittent pulsed moxifloxacin treatment could reduce the frequency of these exacerbations.

Methods

Stable patients with COPD were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to receive moxifloxacin 400 mg PO once daily (N = 573) or placebo (N = 584) once a day for 5 days. Treatment was repeated every 8 weeks for a total of six courses. Patients were repeatedly assessed clinically and microbiologically during the 48-week treatment period, and for a further 24 weeks' follow-up.

Results

At 48 weeks the odds ratio (OR) for suffering an exacerbation favoured moxifloxacin: per-protocol (PP) population (N = 738, OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.565-0.994, p = 0.046), intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1149, OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.645-1.008, p = 0.059), and a post-hoc analysis of per-protocol (PP) patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum production at baseline (N = 323, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84, p = 0.006). There were no significant differences between moxifloxacin and placebo in any pre-specified efficacy subgroup analyses or in hospitalization rates, mortality rates, lung function or changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores. There was, however, a significant difference in favour of moxifloxacin in the SGRQ symptom domain (ITT: -8.2 vs -3.8, p = 0.009; PP: -8.8 vs -4.4, p = 0.006). Moxifloxacin treatment was not associated with consistent changes in moxifloxacin susceptibility. There were more treatment-emergent, drug related adverse events with moxifloxacin vs placebo (p < 0.001) largely due to gastrointestinal events (4.7% vs 0.7%).

Conclusions

Intermittent pulsed therapy with moxifloxacin reduced the odds of exacerbation by 20% in the ITT population, by 25% among the PP population and by 45% in PP patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum at baseline. There were no unexpected adverse events and there was no evidence of resistance development.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00473460 (ClincalTrials.gov).     

Denial of effective treatment and poor quality of clinical information in placebo controlled trials of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review of published trials.

OBJECTIVE--To determine how many patients were deprived of treatment by being given placebo as comparator in trials of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting. DESIGN--Review of published trials of ondansetron during 1991 to July 1994. SETTING--Medline search in a university department of anaesthesia. SUBJECTS--8806 patients who had been included in 18 indexed placebo controlled trials of ondansetron as prophylaxis against or treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS--Five studies (1236 patients) had been published by July 1992. All were placebo controlled trials. By July 1994, 8806 patients had been included in 18 indexed placebo controlled studies of prophylaxis or treatment. Only 462 patients had been in studies that compared ondansetron with other drugs, and there were no indexed comparative trials of treatment of nausea and vomiting. Roughly 2180 patients had been given placebo as prophylaxis and 440 had been given placebo when already experiencing postoperative nausea or vomiting. CONCLUSIONS--Around 2620 patients in the reviewed studies were denied existing drugs, which, though not completely effective or without side effects, do bring some relief from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Drug regulatory bodies should collaborate with drug companies to ensure better comparison of new with established drugs. This would avoid placebos being given to more than the fewest patients necessary to confirm effect and would allow doctors to be informed more quickly about relative efficacies.     

Concomitant therapy with Cineole (Eucalyptole) reduces exacerbations in COPD: A placebo-controlled double-blind trial

Background

The clinical effects of mucolytics in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are discussed controversially. Cineole is the main constituent of eucalyptus oil and mainly used in inflammatory airway diseases as a mucolytic agent. We hypothesised that its known mucolytic, bronchodilating and anti-inflammatory effects as concomitant therapy would reduce the exacerbation rate and show benefits on pulmonary function tests as well as quality of life in patients with COPD.

Methods

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled multi-center-study we randomly assigned 242 patients with stable COPD to receive 200 mg of cineole or placebo 3 times daily as concomitant therapy for 6 months during winter-time. The frequency, duration and severity of exacerbations were combined as primary outcome measures for testing as multiple criteria. Secondary outcome measures included changes of lung function, respiratory symptoms and quality of life as well as the single parameters of the exacerbations.

Results

Baseline demographics, lung function and standard medication of both groups were comparable. During the treatment period of 6 months the multiple criteria frequency, severity and duration of exacerbations were significantly lower in the group treated with cineole in comparison to placebo. Secondary outcome measures validated these findings. Improvement of lung function, dyspnea and quality of life as multiple criteria were statistically significant relative to placebo. Adverse events were comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

Concomitant therapy with cineole reduces exacerbations as well as dyspnea and improves lung function and health status. This study further suggests cineole as an active controller of airway inflammation in COPD by intervening in the pathophysiology of airway inflammation of the mucus membrane.

Trial registration

ISRCTN07600011     

Tolerability and adverse events in clinical trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of information from company clinical trial reports

The objective was to improve understanding of adverse events occurring with celecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Data were extracted from company clinical trial reports of randomised trials of celecoxib in osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis lasting 2 weeks or more. Outcomes were discontinuations (all cause, lack of efficacy, adverse event, gastrointestinal adverse event), endoscopically detected ulcers, gastrointestinal or cardio-renal events, and major changes in haematological parameters. The main comparisons were celecoxib (all doses) versus placebo, paracetamol (acetaminophen) 4,000 mg daily, rofecoxib 25 mg daily, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (naproxen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and loxoprofen). For NSAIDs, celecoxib was compared both at all doses and at licensed doses (200 to 400 mg daily). Thirty-one trials included 39,605 randomised patients. Most patients had osteoarthritis and were women of average age 60 years or above. Most trials lasted 12 weeks or more. Doses of celecoxib were 50 to 800 mg/day. Compared with placebo, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause or for lack of efficacy, fewer serious adverse events, and less nausea. It had more patients with dyspepsia, diarrhoea, oedema, more adverse events that were gastrointestinal or treatment related, and more patients experiencing an adverse event. There were no differences for hypertension, gastrointestinal tolerability, or discontinuations for adverse events. Compared with paracetamol, celecoxib had fewer discontinuations for any cause, for lack of efficacy, or diarrhoea, but no other differences. Compared with rofecoxib, celecoxib had fewer patients with abdominal pain and oedema, but no other differences. Compared with NSAIDs, celecoxib had fewer symptomatic ulcers and bleeds, endoscopically detected ulcers, and discontinuations for adverse events or gastrointestinal adverse events. Fewer patients had any, or a gastrointestinal, or a treatment-related adverse event, or vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, or reduced haemoglobin or haematocrit. Discontinuations for lack of efficacy were higher. No differences were found for all-cause discontinuations, serious adverse events, hypertension, diarrhoea, nausea, oedema, myocardial infarction, cardiac failure, or raised creatinine. Company clinical trial reports present much more information than published papers. Adverse event information is clearly presented in company clinical trial reports, which are an ideal source of information for systematic review and meta-analysis.     

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV₁ at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I²= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I²= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol.     

Hospital at home for patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review of evidence

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of hospital at home schemes compared with inpatient care in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Design A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Main outcome measure Mortality and readmission to hospital.Results Seven trials with 754 patients were included in the review. Hospital readmission and mortality were not significantly different when hospital at home schemes were compared with inpatient care (relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.12, and 0.61, 0.36 to 1.05, respectively). However, compared with inpatient care, hospital at home schemes were associated with substantial cost savings as well as freeing up hospital inpatient beds.Conclusions Hospital at home schemes can be safely used to care for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD who would otherwise be admitted to hospital. Clinicians should consider this form of management, especially as there is increasing pressure for inpatient beds in the United Kingdom.     

Azithromycin and cough-specific health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic cough: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Macrolides reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD. Their effects on health status has not been assessed as primary outcome and is less clear. This study assessed the effects of prophylactic azithromycin on cough-specific health status in COPD-patients with chronic productive cough.

Methods

In this randomised controlled trial 84 patients met the eligibility criteria: age of ≥40 years, COPD GOLD stage ≥2 and chronic productive cough. The intervention-group (n = 42) received azithromycin 250 mg 3 times a week and the control-group (n = 42) received a placebo. Primary outcome was cough-specific health status at 12 weeks, measured with the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Secondary outcomes included generic and COPD-specific health status and exacerbations. Changes in adverse events and microbiology were monitored.

Results

Mean age of participants was 68 ± 10 years and mean FEV1 was 1.36 ± 0.47 L. The improvement in LCQ total score at 12 weeks was significantly greater with azithromycin (difference 1.3 ± 0.5, 95% CI 0.3;2.3, p = 0.01) and met the minimal clinically important difference. Similar results were found for the domain scores, and COPD-specific and generic health status questionnaires. Other secondary endpoints were non-significant. No imbalances in adverse events were found.

Conclusions

Prophylactic azithromycin improved cough-specific health status in COPD-patients with chronic productive cough to a clinically relevant degree.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01071161","term_id":"NCT01071161"}}NCT01071161     

Prophylactic Use of Macrolide Antibiotics for the Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbation: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPDs) can lead to high frequencies and rates of hospitalization and mortality. Macrolides are a class of antibiotics that possess both antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. Since the occurrence of AECOPDs is associated with aggravation of airway inflammation and bacterial infections, prophylactic macrolide treatment may be an effective approach towards the prevention of AECOPDs.

Methods

We systemically searched the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of prophylactic macrolide therapy on the prevention of AECOPDs. The primary outcomes were the total number of patients with one or more exacerbations as well as the rate of exacerbations per patient per year.

Results

Nine RCTs comprising 1666 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pooled evidence showed macrolides could reduce the frequency of exacerbations in patients with COPD by both unweighted (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.56–0.87; P < 0.01) and weighted approaches (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43–0.78, P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed only 6–12 months of erythromycin or azithromycin therapy could be effective. Moreover, among studies with 6–12 months of azithromycin therapy, both the daily dosing regimen and the intermittent regimen significantly reduced exacerbation rates. The overall number of hospitalizations and the all-cause rate of death were not significantly different between the treatment and control groups. A tendency for more adverse events was found in the treatment groups (OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 1.003–2.39, P = 0.049).

Conclusions

Our results suggest 6-12 months erythromycin or azithromycin therapy could effectively reduce the frequency of exacerbations in patients with COPD. However, Long-term treatment may bring increased adverse events and the emergence of macrolide-resistance. A recommendation for the prophylactic use of macrolide therapy should weigh both the advantages and disadvantages.     

Club Cell-16 and RelB as Novel Determinants of Arterial Stiffness in Exacerbating COPD Patients

Background

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are acute events of worsened respiratory symptoms that may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), a leading cause of mortality amongst COPD patients. The utility of lung-specific inflammatory mediators such as club cell protein-16 (CC-16) and surfactant protein D (SPD) and that of a novel marker of CV outcomes in COPD- RelB- in predicting adverse cardiovascular events during exacerbation is not known.

Methods

Thirty-eight subjects with COPD admitted to the hospital for severe exacerbation were included in this analysis. Clinical, physiological and arterial stiffness measurements were performed within 72 hours of admission; this was followed by measurements taken every 3 days until hospital discharge, then once a week until 30 days after discharge, and then again at 90 and 180 days. Plasma concentrations of inflammatory mediators were measured from peripheral venous blood taken at admission, and at days 15, 30, 90 and 180.

Results

CC-16 and RelB concentrations were increased at day 15 of exacerbations whereas SPD concentrations were decreased. The course of change in CC-16 and RelB levels over time was inversely associated with that of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the gold-standard measure of arterial stiffness. Increases in CC-16 could predict a decreased number of subsequent exacerbations during follow-up.

Conclusions

Lung-specific (CC-16) and novel (RelB) biomarkers are associated with systemic cardiovascular changes over time. CC-16 can predict subsequent exacerbations in subjects with severe COPD and may be an important biomarker of pulmonary and systemic stress in COPD.     

Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids

Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.     

Pulsed moxifloxacin for the prevention of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Acute exacerbations contribute to the morbidity and mortality associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This proof-of-concept study evaluates whether intermittent pulsed moxifloxacin treatment could reduce the frequency of these exacerbations.

Methods

Stable patients with COPD were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to receive moxifloxacin 400 mg PO once daily (N = 573) or placebo (N = 584) once a day for 5 days. Treatment was repeated every 8 weeks for a total of six courses. Patients were repeatedly assessed clinically and microbiologically during the 48-week treatment period, and for a further 24 weeks'' follow-up.

Results

At 48 weeks the odds ratio (OR) for suffering an exacerbation favoured moxifloxacin: per-protocol (PP) population (N = 738, OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.565-0.994, p = 0.046), intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1149, OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.645-1.008, p = 0.059), and a post-hoc analysis of per-protocol (PP) patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum production at baseline (N = 323, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84, p = 0.006).There were no significant differences between moxifloxacin and placebo in any pre-specified efficacy subgroup analyses or in hospitalization rates, mortality rates, lung function or changes in St George''s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores. There was, however, a significant difference in favour of moxifloxacin in the SGRQ symptom domain (ITT: -8.2 vs -3.8, p = 0.009; PP: -8.8 vs -4.4, p = 0.006). Moxifloxacin treatment was not associated with consistent changes in moxifloxacin susceptibility. There were more treatment-emergent, drug related adverse events with moxifloxacin vs placebo (p < 0.001) largely due to gastrointestinal events (4.7% vs 0.7%).

Conclusions

Intermittent pulsed therapy with moxifloxacin reduced the odds of exacerbation by 20% in the ITT population, by 25% among the PP population and by 45% in PP patients with purulent/mucopurulent sputum at baseline. There were no unexpected adverse events and there was no evidence of resistance development.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00473460","term_id":"NCT00473460"}}NCT00473460 (ClincalTrials.gov).     

One-year treatment with mometasone furoate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with twice daily (BID) inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This study evaluated whether daily PM mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) was equally effective compared to twice daily dosing.In a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 911 subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD managed without ICS received MF-DPI 800 μg QD PM, MF-DPI 400 μg BID, or placebo. The change from baseline in postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), total COPD symptom scores, and health status as well as the percentage of subjects with a COPD exacerbation were assessed. Adverse events were recorded.Mometasone furoate administered via a dry powder inhaler 800 μg QD PM and 400 μg BID significantly increased postbronchodilator FEV₁ from baseline (50 mL and 53 mL, respectively, versus a 19 mL decrease for placebo; P < 0.001). The percentage of subjects exacerbating was significantly lower in the pooled MF-DPI groups than in the placebo group (P = 0.043). Subjects receiving MF-DPI 400 μg BID reported a statistically significant (19%) reduction in COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (P < 0.001). Health status as measured with St. George''s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) improved significantly in all domains (Total, Activity, Impacts, and Symptoms) in the pooled MF-DPI groups versus placebo (P ≤ 0.031). MF-DPI treatment was well tolerated.Once-daily MF-DPI improved lung function and health status in subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD and was comparable to BID MF-DPI.     

Long acting β2 agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with poor reversibility: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background

The long acting β2-agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, have been recommended, by some, as first line treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We reviewed evidence of efficacy and safety when compared with placebo or anticholinergic agents in patients with poorly reversible COPD.

Methods

After searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, BIOSIS Previews, PASCAL, ToxFile, SciSearch, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed, as well as Web sites, selected journals, reference lists, and contacting drug manufacturers, two reviewers independently screened reports of randomised controlled trials of parallel or crossover design lasting four weeks or longer and including patients with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ≤ 75% of predicted, a ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FVC) ≤ 88% of predicted, and < 15% improvement from baseline FEV1 after a dose of a β2 agonist. We included trials comparing salmeterol or formoterol with placebo or with ipratropium bromide and reporting one of these outcomes: lung function; exercise capacity; quality of life scores; dyspnea; exacerbations; rescue inhaler use; incidence of tachycardia, hypokalemia, or dry mouth. Two reviewers assessed the quality of included reports using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment, and abstracted data.

Results

Twelve trials satisfied our inclusion criteria; eight were high quality (Jadad score >2) and four were low quality (≤ 2). The adequacy of allocation concealment was unclear in all of them. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to differences in trial design and how outcomes were reported. Two trials comparing salmeterol with ipratropium did not detect differences; one trial comparing formoterol and ipratropium described greater improvement with formoterol in morning PEFR (15.3 versus 7.1 l/min, p = 0.040). Of twelve trials comparing long acting β2 agonists with placebo, six reported no improvement in exercise capacity, eleven reported improvements in FEV1 lung function (one reported no improvement), six reported less rescue inhaler usage (one reported no difference) and five reported improved dyspnea scores (two reported no improvement). Differences in quality of life were detected in one salmeterol trial ; however, two salmeterol, and one formoterol trial reported no differences. Adverse effects of interest were not reported.

Conclusion

In terms of clinical outcomes and safety, we could not find convincing evidence that salmeterol and formoterol have demonstrated advantages to ipratropium, a less expensive drug, for patients with stable COPD and poor reversibility. Compared to placebo, we found evidence of reduced rescue inhaler usage and improved spirometric outcomes without a significant impact on quality of life or exercise capacity.     

Antimuscarinic treatment for lung diseases from research to clinical practice

Inhaled antimuscarinic drugs are the treatment of choice, recommended by guidelines, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In long-term clinical studies ipratropium shows important effects beyond relaxation of airway smooth muscle, e.g. reduction of exacerbations of COPD. In phase III clinical trials the new generation antimuscarinic tiotropium, inhaled once daily, has provided more than 24 hours of stable bronchodilation, that was sustained over the one year treatment period. In addition, tiotropium in comparison to placebo and even ipratropium, has been shown to provide improvement in dyspnea, reduction of exacerbations of COPD, reduced hospital admissions for exacerbations, reduced duration of hospitalisations as well as improved health-related quality of life. Chronic effects, such as reduction of hospitalisations, are conventionally attributed to an anti-inflammatory action and not to symptomatic bronchodilation. The 24 hour stabilisation of airway patency, avoiding fluctuations of the diameter with occasional closure and consequent need for reopening, may explain the extended therapeutic profile of tiotropium. Inhibition by antimuscarinics of pro-inflammatory cholinergic effects may also occur, e.g. inhibition of 5-HETE release from epithelial cells and inhibition of release of neutrophil and eosinophil chemotactic activity from alveolar macrophages. Antimuscarinics have shown increasing value as a therapeutic approach in COPD. The elucidation of their anti-inflammatory potential constitutes an interesting target for future studies.     

Reduction of exacerbations by the PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast - the importance of defining different subsets of patients with COPD

Background

As chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous disease it is unlikely that all patients will benefit equally from a given therapy. Roflumilast, an oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, has been shown to improve lung function in moderate and severe COPD but its effect on exacerbations in unselected populations was inconclusive. This led to the question of whether a responsive subset existed that could be investigated further.

Methods

The datasets of two previous replicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies (oral roflumilast 500 μg or placebo once daily for 52 weeks) that were inconclusive regarding exacerbations were combined in a post-hoc, pooled analysis to determine whether roflumilast reduced exacerbations in a more precisely defined patient subset.

Results

The pooled analysis included 2686 randomized patients. Roflumilast significantly decreased exacerbations by 14.3% compared with placebo (p = 0.026). Features associated with this reduction were: presence of chronic bronchitis with or without emphysema (26.2% decrease, p = 0.001), presence of cough (20.9% decrease, p = 0.006), presence of sputum (17.8% decrease, p = 0.03), and concurrent use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; 18.8% decrease, p = 0.014). The incidence of adverse events was similar with roflumilast and placebo (81.5% vs 80.1%), but more patients in the roflumilast group had events assessed as likely or definitely related to the study drug (21.5% vs 8.3%).

Conclusions

This post-hoc, pooled analysis showed that roflumilast reduced exacerbation frequency in a subset of COPD patients whose characteristics included chronic bronchitis with/without concurrent ICS. These observations aided the design of subsequent phase 3 studies that prospectively confirmed the reduction in exacerbations with roflumilast treatment.

Trials registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00076089","term_id":"NCT00076089"}}NCT00076089 and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00430729","term_id":"NCT00430729"}}NCT00430729.     

Combination bronchodilator therapy in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a significant cause of global morbidity and mortality, with a substantial economic impact. Recent changes in the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidance refined the classification of patients for treatment using a combination of spirometry, assessment of symptoms, and/or frequency of exacerbations. The aim of treatment remains to reduce existing symptoms while decreasing the risk of future adverse health events. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of therapy due to their proven efficacy. GOLD guidelines recommend combining long-acting bronchodilators with differing mechanisms of action if the control of COPD is insufficient with monotherapy, and recent years have seen growing interest in the additional benefits that combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), typified by tiotropium, with long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), such as formoterol and salmeterol. Most studies have examined free combinations of currently available LAMAs and LABAs, broadly showing a benefit in terms of lung function and other patient-reported outcomes, although evidence is limited at present. Several once- or twice-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations are under development, most involving newly developed monotherapy components. This review outlines the existing data for LAMA/LABA combinations in the treatment of COPD, summarizes the ongoing trials, and considers the evidence required to inform the role of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment of this disease.     

Adverse Events of Pirfenidone for the Treatment of Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Pirfenidone (PFD) is a novel antifibrotic agent approved for patients with pulmonary fibrosis. However, there are concerns regarding toxicity of the drug. In this meta-analysis, we analyzed the adverse events (AEs) of PFD for the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials published between January 1999 and October 2011. Data extracted from literature were analyzed with Review manager 5.0.24.

Results

The results of six randomized controlled trials (1073 participants) revealed that the number of individuals who discontinued PFD therapy was significantly higher than patients receiving placebo. The PFD group had a significantly higher rate of gastrointestinal (nausea, dyspepsia, diarrhea, and anorexia), neurological (dizziness and fatigue), and dermatological (photosensitivity and rash) AEs compared to the placebo group.

Conclusions

PFD used for the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis is not so safe or well-tolerated. Notably, gastrointestinal, neurological and dermatological adverse effects were more common in patients receiving PFD therapy, and therefore appropriate precaution is needed.