Search

Rationale: Medication for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is available in many different delivery systems; however, national and international guidelines do not provide recommendations on how to select the optimal system for an individual patient. Objectives: To perform a systematic review of published algorithms for inhaler selection in outpatients with COPD. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for articles on inhaler selection published between January 1, 1990, and March 10, 2021. The results were reviewed for articles containing an algorithm for inhaler selection. The quality of publications containing an algorithm was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information text and opinion critical appraisal checklist. Individual steps recommended in the algorithms and the order in which they were considered were extracted independently by the two authors using the Joanna Briggs Institute's text and opinion data extraction tool. Textual syntheses and a table of factors included were used to appraise and compare algorithms. Results: The search identified 1,016 publications. After removing duplicate studies ( n  = 409), 607 abstracts were examined. Nine different algorithms or hierarchical recommendations for device selection were identified. All nine publications were considered of good quality. Most algorithms contain only a few decision steps. There were significant differences between the algorithms. None of the algorithms have been validated. Three domains for factors included in the algorithms were identified: patient factors, device attributes, and healthcare professional (HCP) factors. Patient factors were considered most frequently (19 times) compared with device attributes (10 times) and HCP factors (7 times). Five specific attributes/factors with at least three rankings in different algorithms were identified as key factors for device selection: ability to perform the required inspiratory maneuver and handle device correctly, sufficient inspiratory flow for dry powder inhalers, availability of molecule(s) in the device, and continuity of device. Conclusions: Although the algorithms generally provide step-by-step approaches based on a literature review and/or the experiences of the different authors, none were developed using item generation/reduction methodology or included input from patients with COPD. However, the review identified key factors that should be considered by HCPs when selecting therapy. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021244475).

Biomarkers in COPD may be clinical (prior exacerbation history), physiologic (FEV 1 ), or blood based (eosinophil count or fibrinogen level). Recent interest in using biomarkers to predict response to therapy in clinical practice has emerged. The benefits of inhaled therapy depend on the correct use of the inhaler, including an appropriate inspiratory flow. Of the available delivery systems, dry powder inhalers are unique because they have an internal resistance, are breath actuated, and are flow dependent. Ideally, the user inhales "forcefully" to generate turbulent energy (determined by an individual's inspiratory flow and the resistance of the device) within the device that disaggregates the powder so that the individual inhales the medication particles into the lower respiratory tract. Because of specific features of dry powder inhalers and the required optimal inspiratory flow, an unmet need exists to identify individuals who are likely or unlikely to benefit from dry powder medications. Peak inspiratory flow, defined as the maximum airflow generated during inhalation against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler, is a physiologic measure that has biological plausibility, has good test characteristics (repeatability and reliability), and is generalizable. Current evidence supports peak inspiratory flow as a predictive therapeutic biomarker to optimize therapy in both outpatients with COPD as well as those hospitalized for an exacerbation before discharge. This approach is consistent with the precepts of precision medicine, which considers differences in a person's biological features, exposure, and lifestyle to prevent and treat disease., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Arformoterol tartrate (arformoterol, 15 μg bid) is a nebulized long-acting β2-agonist approved for maintenance treatment of COPD., Methods: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Patients (aged ≥ 40 years with baseline FEV1 ≤ 65% predicted, FEV1 > 0.50 L, FEV1/FVC ≤ 70%, and ≥ 15 pack-year smoking history) received arformoterol (n = 420) or placebo (n = 421) for 1 year. The primary assessment was time from randomization to respiratory death or first COPD exacerbation-related hospitalization., Results: Among 841 patients randomized, 103 had ≥ 1 primary event (9.5% vs 15.0%, for arformoterol vs placebo, respectively). Patients who discontinued treatment for any reason (39.3% vs 49.9%, for arformoterol vs placebo, respectively) were followed for up to 1 year postrandomization to assess for primary events. Fewer patients receiving arformoterol than placebo experienced COPD exacerbation-related hospitalizations (9.0% vs 14.3%, respectively). Twelve patients (2.9%) receiving arformoterol and 10 patients (2.4%) receiving placebo died during the study. Risk for first respiratory serious adverse event was 50% lower with arformoterol than placebo (P = .003). Numerically more patients on arformoterol (13; 3.1%) than placebo (10; 2.4%) experienced cardiac serious adverse events; however, time-to-first cardiac serious adverse event was not significantly different. Improvements in trough FEV1 and FVC were greater with arformoterol (least-squares mean change from baseline vs placebo: 0.051 L, P = .030 and 0.075 L, P = .018, respectively). Significant improvements in quality of life (overall St. George's Hospital Respiratory Questionnaire and Clinical COPD Questionnaire) were observed with arformoterol vs placebo (P < .05)., Conclusions: Arformoterol demonstrated an approximately 40% lower risk of respiratory death or COPD exacerbation-related hospitalization over 1 year vs placebo. Arformoterol was well-tolerated and improved lung function vs placebo., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00909779; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

This study focused on repeatability data and minimal important difference (MID) estimates of the endurance shuttle walking test (ESWT). 255 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (forced expiratory volume in 1 s 54.7±13.2% predicted) completed four ESWTs at different times during the 8-week study: two under baseline conditions with tiotropium (1 week apart), one after a single dose and one after 4 weeks of either fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination or placebo in addition to tiotropium. 97 patients performed all the tests with a portable metabolic system. Reproducibility of test performance and cardiorespiratory response was investigated with the data obtained on the first two ESWTs. The mean differences between the first two ESWT performances (-6.7±72.2 s and -7.3±113.1 m for endurance time and walking distance, respectively) were not statistically significant. The between-test end-exercise and isotime values for each cardiorespiratory parameter were not significantly different from each other. With the exception of arterial oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry, the repeatability of cardiorespiratory adaptations to ESWT was also confirmed with strong Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients. Finally, changes of 56-61 s and 70-82 m in endurance time and distance walked, respectively, were perceived by patients. This study provides methodological information supporting the reliability of the ESWT and suggests MID estimates for this test., (©ERS 2014.)

Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators and long-acting bronchodilators with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended therapies in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three fixed-dose combination products have recently been approved for the treatment of COPD (the long-acting β2-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LABA/LAMA] combinations glycopyrronium/indacaterol [QVA149] and umeclidinium/vilanterol, and the LABA/ICS fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), with others currently in late-stage development. LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS combination therapies demonstrate positive effects on both lung function and patient-reported outcomes, with significant improvements observed with LABA/LAMA combinations compared with placebo, each component alone and other comparators in current use. No new safety concerns have been observed with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators. Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators represent a new and convenient treatment option in COPD. This review summarizes published efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of both LABA/LAMA and novel LABA/ICS combinations in patients with COPD.

We evaluated the effect of QVA149, a dual bronchodilator combining indacaterol and glycopyrronium, on direct patient-reported dyspnoea in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this multicentre, blinded, double-dummy, three-period crossover study, 247 patients were randomised to once-daily QVA149 110/50 μg, placebo or tiotropium 18 μg. Superiority of QVA149 versus placebo (primary objective) and tiotropium (secondary objective) was assessed for improvement in dyspnoea via the self-administered computerised (SAC) version of the Baseline and Transition Dyspnoea Index after 6 weeks. Secondary end-points included lung function, rescue medication use and safety. After 6 weeks, the SAC Transition Dyspnoea Index total score was significantly higher with QVA149 versus placebo (least squares mean (LSM) treatment difference 1.37, p<0.001) and tiotropium (LSM treatment difference 0.49, p=0.021). QVA149 provided significant improvements in lung function, with higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0-4 h post-dose versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 and week 6 (all p<0.001). Rescue medication use was significantly lower with QVA149 versus placebo (p<0.001) and tiotropium (p=0.002). All treatments were well tolerated. Once-daily QVA149 provided superior improvements in patient-reported dyspnoea and lung function versus placebo and tiotropium. These benefits were associated with improvements in other symptoms and reduced use of rescue medication., (©ERS 2014.)

Background: A peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) of <60 L/min against the internal resistance (resist) of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) may limit the ability of a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to achieve bronchodilation. The hypothesis was that lung function would be higher with a beta-agonist inhaled via nebulization compared with dry powder in patients with COPD who exhibit a PIFRresist of <60 L/min against the Diskus(®)., Methods: This study was randomized, single-blind, and crossover with spirometry and inspiratory capacity (IC) measured at 15, 30, and 120 min post treatment. The efficacy of arformoterol aerosol solution (15 μg/2 mL) via nebulizer was compared with salmeterol dry powder (50 μg) via Diskus. The primary outcome was the change in lung function from baseline at 2 hr as these two inhaled beta-agonists have the similar peak bronchodilator effect as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1)., Results: Twenty patients (15 females/5 males) with postalbuterol FEV1 of 0.83±0.31 L (38±12% predicted) and PIFRresist of 53±5 L/min completed the study. At 15 min, improvements in FEV1, forced vital capacity (FVC), and IC were significantly higher with arformoterol than with salmeterol. At 2 hr, changes in FVC and IC, but not FEV1, were significantly higher with arformoterol. At visit 3, patient preference was similar for salmeterol Diskus (n=8) and arformoterol solution (n=7), whereas five patients reported no preference., Conclusions: At peak effect (2 hr), volume responses were greater with arfomoterol via nebulizer compared with dry powder salmeterol in patients with COPD who had a PIFRresist of <60 L/min. Bronchodilator therapy via nebulization should be considered in patients with COPD who have a suboptimal PIFRresist against a particular DPI.

The concept of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is well established. Here, we review the evidence base and methods used to define MCIDs as well as their strengths and limitations. Most MCIDs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are empirically derived estimates applying to populations of patients. Validated MCIDs are available for many commonly used outcomes in COPD, including lung function (100 ml for trough FEV1), dyspnea (improvement of ≥ 1 unit in the Transition Dyspnea Index total score or 5 units in the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire), health status (reduction of 4 units in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score), and exercise capacity (47.5 m for the incremental shuttle walking test, 45-85 s for the endurance shuttle walking test, and 46-105 s for constant-load cycling endurance tests), but there is currently no validated MCID for exacerbations. In a clinical trial setting, many factors, including study duration, withdrawal rate, baseline severity, and Hawthorne effects, can influence the measured treatment effect and determine whether it reaches the MCID. We also address recent challenges presented by clinical trials that compare active treatments and suggest that MCIDs should be used to identify the additional proportion of patients who benefit, for example, when one drug is replaced by another or when a second drug is added to a first. We propose the term "minimum worthwhile incremental advantage" to describe this parameter.

Background: Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend that treatment choices be based partly on symptoms., Methods: A post-hoc analysis of pooled data from clinical studies compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled bronchodilators indacaterol (150 and 300 μg) and open-label tiotropium (18 μg) according to baseline dyspnoea severity on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale in patients with COPD (mMRC scores <2 = 'less dyspnoea'; scores ≥2 = 'more dyspnoea'). Outcomes were assessed after 26 weeks., Results: The analysis included 3177 patients. In patients with less dyspnoea: indacaterol (both doses) improved 24-h post-dose ('trough') forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores at week 26 and reduced the risk of COPD exacerbations vs placebo; and open-label tiotropium improved trough FEV1 and TDI total score vs placebo at week 26. In patients with more dyspnoea: indacaterol (both doses) improved trough FEV1, TDI and SGRQ total scores at week 26; indacaterol 300 μg was the only treatment to improve the TDI total score by more than the minimum clinically important difference (≥1 point) vs placebo; and open-label tiotropium improved trough FEV1, TDI total score at week 26 and decreased the risk of COPD exacerbations vs placebo. In both subgroups, all treatments were well tolerated., Conclusions: In patients with less dyspnoea, all treatments had similar effects. Indacaterol 300 μg may be a useful treatment option for patients with COPD who experience more severe breathlessness., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate or more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The authors investigated the approach of dual bronchodilation using indacaterol, a once-daily long-acting β(2) agonist, and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium, compared with tiotropium alone., Methods: In two identically designed, double-blind, 12-week studies, patients with moderate to severe COPD were randomised to indacaterol 150 μg once daily or matching placebo. All patients concurrently received open-label tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary outcome was standardised area under the curve of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) from 5 min to 8 h post dose at week 12. The key secondary outcome was 24 h post-dose ('trough') FEV(1) at week 12. Resting inspiratory capacity (IC) was measured in a subgroup., Results: 1134 and 1142 patients were randomised in studies 1 and 2; 94% and 94% completed. Compared with monotherapy, concurrent therapy increased FEV(1) (area under the curve by 130 and 120 ml, trough by 80 and 70 ml; all p<0.001) and trough IC (by 130 and 100 ml, p<0.01). Cough was more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium (10% and 9%) than with tiotropium alone (4% and 4%). Most cases (∼90%) of cough were mild. Other adverse events were similar for the treatment groups., Conclusions: Compared with tiotropium monotherapy, indacaterol plus tiotropium provided greater bronchodilation and lung deflation (reflected by increased resting IC). Adverse events were similar between treatments apart from mild cough being more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium. These results support COPD guideline recommendations to combine bronchodilators with different mechanisms of action., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT00846586 and NCT00877383.

Rationale: Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator studied in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Objectives: To demonstrate greater efficacy of indacaterol versus placebo on FEV(1) at 24 hours post dose (trough) after 12 weeks, to compare efficacy with placebo and tiotropium, and to evaluate safety and tolerability over 26 weeks., Measurements: Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to double-blind indacaterol 150 or 300 microg or placebo, or open-label tiotropium 18 microg, all once daily, for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was trough FEV(1) at 12 weeks. Additional analyses (not adjusted for multiplicity) included transition dyspnea index (TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), and exacerbations. Serum potassium, blood glucose, and QTc interval were measured., Results: A total of 1,683 patients (age, 63.3 yr; post-bronchodilator FEV(1), 56% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC, 0.53) were randomized to the four treatment arms. Trough FEV(1) at Week 12 increased versus placebo by 180 ml with both indacaterol doses and by 140 ml with tiotropium (all P < 0.001 vs. placebo). At Week 26, for indacaterol 150/300 microg, respectively, versus placebo, TDI increased (1.00/1.18, P < 0.001) and SGRQ total score decreased (-3.3/-2.4, P < 0.01); corresponding results with tiotropium were 0.87 (P < 0.001) for TDI and (-1.0, P = not significant) for SGRQ total score. The incidence of adverse events, low serum potassium, high blood glucose, and prolonged QTc interval was similar across treatments., Conclusions: Indacaterol was an effective once-daily bronchodilator and was at least as effective as tiotropium in improving clinical outcomes for patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00463567).

Background: Walking is a familiar daily activity that is generally limited by breathlessness, whereas cycling is an uncommon physical effort typically limited by leg discomfort. The hypothesis was that patients with COPD would exhibit greater improvements in exercise endurance and relief of breathlessness with bronchodilator therapy during treadmill walking compared with cycling., Methods: In this randomized, 2 x 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, 20 patients with COPD (age, 64 +/- 7 years; FEV(1), 56 +/- 14% predicted) performed constant-load endurance exercise on the treadmill and cycle ergometer at 85% of capacity after inhaling normal saline (NS) or arformoterol (ARF) (15 microg)., Results: Increases in endurance times and consistency of responses were greater with treadmill walking (Delta: 157 +/- 286 s; P = .024; 80% improved) than with cycle exercise (Delta: 110 +/- 219 s; P = .038; 65% improved) with ARF compared with NS. However, these changes were not significantly different. The slope of breathlessness-time (mean Delta = -29%; P = .007) and the magnitude of oxygen desaturation were significantly lower with ARF compared with NS during treadmill, but not cycle, exercise. Inspiratory capacity values were similar between modes of exercise when comparing the same study medication., Conclusions: Improved endurance times support both constant-load treadmill and cycle exercise to assess the efficacy of bronchodilator therapy in patients with COPD. Unique differences in physiologic and perceptual responses with bronchodilation demonstrate advantages of treadmill walking as an exercise stimulus., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00754546.

The course of COPD has traditionally been equated with an accelerated decline in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEVi) over time in patients with COPD, compared to healthy individuals. However, other important clinical outcomes associated with COPD also worsen over time and should also be considered in conceptualizing the course of COPD. These include health status, breathlessness related to activities of daily living, exercise capacity, the frequency of exacerbations, and peripheral muscle weakness. These outcomes are often quite responsive to therapy of COPD. Presently there is no evidence that any treatment other than smoking cessation can normalise the rate of decline of FEVi, and therefore be considered as modifying the physiologic course of the disease. Thus, smoking cessation reigns as the primary disease modifying strategy in COPD. Even though there are a number of smoking cessation products on the market and smoking prevalence continues to decrease marginally each year, more needs to be done to provide comprehensive programmes to help people quit smoking. In the US in 2004, 37.5% of preventable deaths were found to be tobacco-related. The FEVi does not reflect the clinical manifestations or the total burden of this multidimensional illness. As novel therapeutic agents become available that may alter the underlying pathology of COPD, additional markers and outcomes of disease progression will be needed to provide a more comprehensive assessment. There has been increasing interest in predicting and assessing mortality as it is the final outcome of disease progression. In this review we have considered three approaches toward modifying the course of COPD: smoking cessation, reduction in lung hyperinflation through medical and surgical approaches, and long-term pharmacotherapy.

Study Objective: To examine the effect of fluticasone propionate, 250 microg/salmeterol, 50 microg combination (FSC 250/50) twice daily on lung hyperinflation and associated measures of exercise performance in patients with COPD., Design: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study., Patients: Eligible patients were > or = 40 years old with a diagnosis of COPD, prealbuterol FEV(1) < 70% of predicted, FEV1/FVC ratio > or = 0.70, and functional residual capacity (FRC) > or = 120% of predicted normal., Interventions: Patients were randomized to FSC 250/50; salmeterol, 50 microg; or placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. Predose and postdose spirometry, plethysmography, and constant-load cycle cardiopulmonary exercise test evaluations were compared. The primary comparison was FSC 250/50 with placebo. The salmeterol group was included for exploratory comparisons with FSC 250/50., Results: A total of 185 patients (mean baseline FEV1 of 41% predicted) were enrolled. At rest, FSC 250/50 significantly reduced postdose FRC and increased inspiratory capacity (IC) compared with placebo (differences of - 0.35 +/- 0.12 L and 0.33 +/- 0.06 L [mean +/- SE], respectively, at week 8; p > or = 0.003) and increased exercise endurance time (difference, 132 +/- 45 s; p = 0.004). At a standardized time during exercise (isotime), FSC 250/50 increased postdose IC by 0.20 +/- 0.05 L over placebo with associated improvements in tidal volume and minute ventilation (p < 0.05 vs placebo at week 8). Improvement in exercise time was significantly correlated with the increase in IC (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) but not FEV1 (r = 0.23, p = 0.08). Predose comparisons of FSC 250/50 with salmeterol and placebo favored FSC 250/50., Conclusion: We conclude that FSC 250/50 decreases lung hyperinflation at rest and during exercise with an associated increase in exercise endurance time when compared with placebo.

Purpose: To examine the responsiveness of a new computerized method for patients to provide continuous ratings of dyspnea during exercise in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study the effects of an inhaled bronchodilator (BD), albuterol/ipratropium bromide solution, were compared with normal saline (NS) in 30 patients with COPD (age, 66+/-9 yr; forced expiratory volume in 1 s, 48+/-14% pred). At visit 1, patients were familiarized with the cycle ergometer and computer, monitor, and mouse system to provide continuous ratings of dyspnea during exercise. At subsequent visits 2-3 d apart, patients performed pulmonary function tests followed by incremental ramp (15 W.min-1) and, 1 h later, constant work (at 55% of maximal work capacity) exercise tests., Results: During incremental exercise the slopes of VO2:dyspnea and VE:dyspnea regressions were significantly lower, and patients exercised longer (Delta=0.4 min; P=0.003) with BD therapy compared with NS. During constant work exercise there was a significant reduction in dyspnea at the same exercise duration (5.0+/-2.8 vs 6.2+/-2.8 units on the 0-10 category-ratio scale; P=0.02) and patients exercised longer (Delta=0.9 min; P=0.04) with BD therapy. Changes in lung function at rest did not correlate significantly with changes in dyspnea ratings during exercise., Conclusions: Continuous ratings of dyspnea were responsive to inhaled bronchodilator therapy during both incremental and constant work exercise tests in patients with symptomatic COPD.

The major clinical outcomes measured in evaluating the responses to pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) include the severity of dyspnea, exercise capacity, exacerbations, and health status. Various studies have demonstrated that testing for acute bronchodilator reversibility in the pulmonary function laboratory does not predict the clinical responses to a trial of bronchodilator therapy in patients with COPD. Separate studies have shown that inhaled albuterol, both a single dose (300 microg) and 2 weeks of therapy (200 microg/4x/day), reduces dyspnea. There is more published information available about the effects of long-acting (>/=12 hours' duration of action) inhaled beta(2)-agonists because of greater interest in considering clinical outcomes at the time of drug testing. In one randomized clinical trial, formoterol reduced symptoms (as recorded in a home diary) and improved health status. Nine clinical studies have examined the effects of salmeterol on clinical outcomes. Salmeterol reduced the perception of breathlessness (in 6 of 9 studies) and improved health status (in 3 of 4 studies). These results collectively demonstrate that long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists not only relax bronchial smooth muscle but also provide important clinical benefits in symptomatic patients with COPD.

This randomized controlled trial examined the benefits of combining an inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (F), with an inhaled long-acting beta(2)-agonist, salmeterol (S), to treat the inflammatory and bronchoconstrictive components of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A total of 691 patients with COPD received the combination of F and S (FSC), S (50 mcg), F (500 mcg), or placebo twice daily via the Diskus device for 24 weeks. A significantly greater increase in predose FEV(1) at the endpoint was observed after FSC (156 ml) compared with S (107 ml, p = 0.012) and placebo (-4 ml, p < 0.0001). A significantly greater increase in 2-hour postdose FEV(1) at the endpoint was observed after treatment with FSC (261 ml) compared with F (138 ml, p < 0.001) and placebo (28 ml, p < 0.001). There were greater improvements in the Transition Dyspnea Index with FSC (2.1) compared with F (1.3, p = 0.033), S (0.9, p < 0.001), and placebo (0.4, p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse effects (except for an increase in oral candidiasis with FSC and F) was similar among the treatment groups. We conclude that FSC improved lung function and reduced the severity of dyspnea compared with individual components and placebo.

Rationale: Current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy recommends the combination of two long-acting bronchodilators of different pharmacologic classes for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) if symptoms are not adequately controlled by a single bronchodilator.Objectives: The FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrrolate), a fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β2-agonist (indacaterol) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (glycopyrrolate), compared with its monocomponents and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.Methods: FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 were 12-week, identical, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled studies. Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (27.5/15.6 μg twice daily), indacaterol (27.5 μg twice daily), glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg twice daily), or placebo, all delivered via the Neohaler device. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of indacaterol/glycopyrrolate versus its monocomponents for standardized area under the curve from 0-12 hours for FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary objectives included St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and transition dyspnea index total score and reduction in daily rescue medication use with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate versus placebo.Measurements and Main Results: In total, 2,038 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Indacaterol/glycopyrrolate was statistically superior in terms of FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 hours compared with its monocomponents (P < 0.001). Statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, transition dyspnea index total score, and reduction in rescue medication use were observed with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate compared with placebo (P < 0.001). The safety profile was comparable across the treatment groups.Conclusions: Indacaterol/glycopyrrolate twice daily can be an alternative treatment option for the management of symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01727141 and NCT 0171251). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Whether the combination of a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid with a once-daily longacting β2 agonist is more protective than a once-daily longacting β2 agonist alone against exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unknown. We hypothesised that fluticasone furoate and vilanterol would prevent more exacerbations than would vilanterol alone. Methods: We did two replicate double-blind parallel-group 1 year trials. Both studies began on Sept 25, 2009. Study 1 ended on Oct 31, 2011, and study 2 on Oct 17, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 40 years or older, had a history of COPD, a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years, a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) to forced vital capacity of 0·70 or less after bronchodilators (and an FEV1 of 70% or less of predicted), and a documented history of one or more moderate or severe disease exacerbations in the year before screening. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) on the basis of the Registration and Medication Ordering System to 25 μg vilanterol alone or 25 μg vilanterol combined with either 50 μg, 100 μg, or 200 μg fluticasone furoate once daily. Our primary endpoint was the yearly rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. The trials were analysed separately and a pooled analysis was also done. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01009463 and NCT01017952). Findings: 1622 patients in study 1 and 1633 patients in study 2 were randomly assigned. In study 1, no significant difference in exacerbation rate was noted between the 200/25 μg fluticasone furoate/vilanterol group and the vilanterol only group (mean 0·90 events vs 1·05 events per year; ratio 0·9 [95% CI 0·7–1·0]). Because of the statistical hierarchy used, we could not infer significance for the 50 μg and 100 μg groups. In study 2, significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations were noted in all fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups than in the vilanterol only group (p=0·0398 for the 50 μg group, 0·0244 for the 100 μg group, and 0·0004 for the 200 μg group). In the pooled analysis, significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations were noted in all fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups than in the vilanterol only group (0·0141 for the 50 μg group, <0·0001 for the 100 μg group, and 0·0003 for the 200 μg group). Nasopharyngitis was the most frequently reported adverse event in both studies. Pneumonia and fractures were reported more frequently with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than with vilanterol alone. Eight deaths from pneumonia were noted in the fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups compared with none in the vilanterol only group. Interpretation: Addition of fluticasone furoate to vilanterol was associated with a decreased rate of moderate and severe exacerbations of COPD in patients with a history of exacerbation, but was also associated with an increased pneumonia risk. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the validity of the hypothesis that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease will show more improvement in exercise endurance and breathlessness relief with bronchodilator therapy if they exercise by treadmill walking instead of cycling. According to the authors, differences in physiologic and perceptual responses with bronchodilation showed that treadmill walking has an advantage as an exercise stimulus.