Search

Pharmacotherapies and avoidance of environmental/inhaled toxins are core to managing COPD. Compared to the drugs available 50 years ago, there has been substantial progress with COPD pharmacotherapies, but gaps in adherence and inhaler use persist. Personalizing inhaled pharmacotherapies is now possible with digital technologies by objectively documenting adherence and guiding inhaler technique. Another means to improve existing pharmacotherapies is through phenotyping and biomarkers. This is especially important considering the heterogeneity of the disease COPD. Blood eosinophils are now a recommended biomarker to guide use of inhaled corticosteroids and biologics in COPD. On the near horizon, we will see new inhaled medications as dual phosphodiesterase inhibitors, drugs to treat basic protein abnormalities as in alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency that could have remarkable benefits, and biologic drugs targeting specific cell/mediator types in the COPD population. Characterization of COPD phenotypes, as asthma/COPD overlap and comorbid heart disease are vital to understand how to optimize pharmacotherapies. Importantly, we must determine how to optimize current medications; otherwise, we will repeat the same mistakes with new medications. But as we know so well, as we peel one layer of complexity, we encounter many more questions, all the while dedicated to limiting the burden of COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this review is to discuss the development of Wixela™ Inhub™, a generic equivalent of Advair Diskus®, a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol powder for oral inhalation for patients with asthma whose symptoms are not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids alone and for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at a high risk for exacerbations. Summary: We provide an overview of the Inhub device and the bioequivalence studies that have been conducted to date. Briefly, the in vitro performance, improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dose strengths for Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus were comparable. Conclusion: The bioequivalence demonstrated by the totality of clinical and in vitro data supports the use of Wixela Inhub and provides a treatment option for patients with asthma or COPD. Plain Language Summary: The Wixela™ Inhub™ device has been developed as a generic equivalent of Advair Diskus®, and provides a combination treatment for patients with asthma whose symptoms are not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids alone and for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at a high risk for exacerbations. We provide information about the Inhub device and studies conducted to show how Inhub and Diskus are comparable products. Based on the similar results between the two devices, Inhub can be used as a treatment option for patients with asthma or COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most patients with COPD are recommended to initiate maintenance therapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β2-agonist. However, many patients receiving mono-bronchodilation continue to experience high symptom burden, suggesting that patients are frequently not receiving optimal treatment. Treatment goals for COPD are often broad and not individually tailored, making initial treatment response assessments difficult. A personalised approach to initial maintenance therapy, based upon an individual’s symptom burden and exacerbation risk, may be more appropriate. An alternative approach would be to maximise bronchodilation early in the disease course of all patients with COPD. Evidence suggests that dual bronchodilation has greater and consistent efficacy for lung function and symptoms than mono-bronchodilation, whilst potentially reducing the risk of exacerbations and disease deterioration, with a similar safety profile to mono-bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and symptoms between dual- and mono-bronchodilation have also been demonstrated in maintenance-naïve patients, who are most likely to resemble those at first presentation in a clinical setting. Despite promising results, there are several evidence gaps that need to be addressed to allow decision makers to evaluate the merits of a widespread earlier introduction of dual bronchodilation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist delivered via standard jet nebulizer, increased trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in prior phase 3 trials. We evaluated the efficacy of revefenacin in patients with markers of more severe COPD.Methods: A post hoc subgroup analysis of two replicate, randomized, phase 3 trials was conducted over 12 weeks. Endpoints included least squares change from baseline in trough FEV1, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, and transition dyspnea index (TDI) responders at Day 85. This analysis included patient subgroups at high risk for COPD exacerbations and compared patients who received revefenacin 175 μg and placebo: severe and very severe airflow limitation (percent predicted FEV1 30%-< 50% and < 30%), 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) D, reversibility (≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL increase in FEV1) to short-acting bronchodilators, concurrent use of long-acting β agonists and/or inhaled corticosteroids, older age (> 65 and > 75 years), and comorbidity risk factors.Results: Revefenacin demonstrated significant improvements in FEV1 versus placebo at Day 85 among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and all subgroups. Additionally, there was a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population and the majority of subgroups analyzed among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. For the SGRQ responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater in the revefenacin arm versus the placebo arm among the severe airflow obstruction, very severe airflow obstruction and 2011 GOLD D subgroups. For the TDI responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater among the severe airflow obstruction subgroup and patients aged > 75 years.Conclusions: Revefenacin showed significantly greater improvements in FEV1 versus placebo in the ITT population and all subgroups. Furthermore, there were a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population, and in the majority of patient subgroups among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. Based on the data presented, revefenacin could be a therapeutic option among patients with markers of more severe COPD.Trial Registration: Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (Studies 0126 [NCT02459080; prospectively registered 22 May 2015] and 0127 [NCT02512510; prospectively registered 28 July 2015]). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Combinations of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), long-acting β-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are used for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the LAMA revefenacin in patients with COPD taking concomitant LABA, including ICS/LABA (LABA subgroup). Methods: Efficacy data were obtained from two 12-week, replicate, placebo-controlled trials and safety data were pooled from the 12-week and a 52-week tiotropium-controlled trial. Patients received revefenacin 175 µg or placebo in the 12-week or tiotropium 18 µg in the 52-week studies. The efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Clinical health outcomes were assessed using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Results: Revefenacin produced similar improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [placebo-adjusted LS mean change (95% confidence interval) in day 85 trough FEV1, 150.9 (110.3−191.6) ml and 139.2 (82.9−195.5) ml; p < 0.0001 versus placebo]. Similar improvements were observed in SGRQ scores in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [−3.3 (−5.4 to −1.2) and −3.4 (−6.3 to −0.6)]. Improvements in lung function and health outcomes were observed regardless of airflow obstruction severity. Revefenacin was well tolerated with more adverse events reported in the LABA than the non-LABA subgroup. Conclusions: Once daily revefenacin for nebulization can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients who require concomitant use of LABA with or without ICS. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02512510, NCT02459080, NCT02518139 The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) 400/12 µg is a twice-daily long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and long-acting β2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual-bronchodilator maintenance therapy used to relieve symptoms and reduce future risk of exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To date, there have been several clinical studies and post hoc analyses of AB/FF, assessing treatment outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. These studies have looked at a range of outcomes, including lung function parameters, patient-reported symptom scores, quality-of-life measures assessing impaired health and perceived well-being, and the frequency, duration, and severity of exacerbations. In light of the major 2017 revision to the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations, and the subsequent updates, we present an update on the latest evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of AB/FF. This review discusses the clinical relevance of the improvements in lung function, symptoms, quality of life, and exacerbations in patients with COPD reported in the phase III and IV trials of AB/FF. Given the current concerns over unnecessary inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use in COPD, we also touch briefly on the use of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for identifying those patients with COPD already using LAMA/LABA therapy for whom the addition of ICS might be of benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective delivery of inhaled drugs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) depends on patients' ability to correctly use an inhalation device. Nebulized delivery may be appropriate for COPD patients who cannot coordinate breath with inhalation or generate adequate inhalational force. Until recently, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), used for maintenance treatment of COPD, were available for delivery only via handheld inhalers. Lonhala™ Magnair™ (glycopyrrolate inhalation solution) is a LAMA delivered via the eFlow® closed-system (eFlow CS) vibrating membrane nebulizer. We assessed patient-reported ease of use and satisfaction with the eFlow CS nebulizer in the GOLDEN (Glycopyrrolate for Obstructive Lung Disease via Electronic Nebulizer)-5 study. Methods: GOLDEN-5, a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, evaluated the safety and efficacy of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 50 μg twice daily versus tiotropium 18 μg once daily (administered via HandiHaler™) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Only patients in the glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS group completed a study-specific device use questionnaire, evaluating patients' perceptions about ease of use, confidence in drug delivery, and overall device satisfaction at week 48 or end of study. Responses were summarized by counts and percentages. Results: Of 620 patients who received glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS, 454 completed the questionnaire (mean age [standard deviation, SD] 63.3 [8.5] years; mean BMI [SD] 28.45 [6.208] kg/m2). Based on patient-reported perceptions, most patients (83%) were "confident" to "very confident" that the drug was delivered into their lungs with the eFlow CS; >70% rated the eFlow CS as "easy" or "very easy" to assemble, operate, and clean. Most (75%) patients ranked themselves as being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" overall with the eFlow CS nebulizer. Conclusions: High levels of satisfaction, confidence, and ease of use were reported with the eFlow CS nebulizer in this study. These findings support the use of the eFlow CS for maintenance treatment of COPD with glycopyrrolate inhalation solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines offer important changes to the assessment and management of stable COPD of importance to practitioners, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and nurses who care for patients with COPD. Therapies are now chosen based on the burden of symptoms and the history of COPD exacerbations, and inhaler regimens are modifiable based on continual clinical reassessment. Although identifying the degree of airway obstruction remains important for informing the clinical status of the patient with COPD, FEV1 is no longer used to direct the therapeutic approach. Therapies and modes of inhaled medication delivery for each GOLD grouping have been modified and reflect the need for reevaluation of patient symptoms and COPD exacerbation history as an indicator to add or withdraw therapies. As the knowledge of this important disease continues to expand, exacerbation and symptom prevention in patients with stable COPD will remain as an important target of COPD therapies and research. Novel drug combinations and delivery devices are sure to positively affect the practitioner's approach to patients with stable COPD. The new 2017 GOLD guidelines represent a step toward personalized care of the patient with COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COPD is a highly debilitating disease that represents a substantial and growing health burden in women. There is increasing evidence for sex-related differences in COPD risk, progression, and outcomes. However, the disease receives scant attention as a women's health issue. Thus, a multifaceted approach is required to address COPD in women, including greater awareness, minimization of risk, and further elucidation of the sex-specific factors (biological and cultural) that affect risk, disease progression, and treatment success. This article reviews the current literature on the topic and provides suggestions for achieving better outcomes for the millions of women with COPD worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist combinations are recommended for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is not managed with monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate (GP)/formoterol fumarate (FF) fixed-dose combination delivered via a Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology-based metered dose inhaler (MDI) (GFF MDI).Methods: This was a Phase IIb randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, chronic-dosing (7 days), crossover study in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD ( NCT01085045 ). Treatments included GFF MDI twice daily (BID) (GP/FF 72/9.6 μg or 36/9.6 μg), GP MDI 36 μg BID, FF MDI 7.2 and 9.6 μg BID, placebo MDI, and open-label formoterol dry powder inhaler (FF DPI) 12 μg BID or tiotropium DPI 18 μg once daily. The primary endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (FEV1 AUC0-12) on Day 7 relative to baseline FEV1. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and safety.Results: GFF MDI 72/9.6 μg or 36/9.6 μg led to statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-12 after 7 days' treatment versus monocomponent MDIs, placebo MDI, tiotropium, or FF DPI (p ≤ 0.0002). GFF MDI 36/9.6 μg was non-inferior to GFF MDI 72/9.6 μg and monocomponent MDIs were non-inferior to open-label comparators. Pharmacokinetic results showed glycopyrrolate and formoterol exposure were decreased following administration via fixed-dose combination versus monocomponent MDIs; however, this was not clinically meaningful. GFF MDI was well tolerated.Conclusions: GFF MDI 72/9.6 μg and 36/9.6 μg BID improve lung function and are well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01085045 . Registered 9 March 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a multicenter, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of the use of arformoterol tartrate (AT) to treat patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 12 months. The researchers found that AT use did not affect the death rate for respiratory illness or the number of COPD exacerbation-related hospitalizations. They also observed improvements in the quality of life of patients treated with AT.

Umeclidinium (UMEC) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved in the US and EU for the once-daily (QD) treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); it is not indicated for the treatment of asthma. To fully characterize the dose-response relationship of UMEC in patients with COPD, a pooled analysis of data from two randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over, dose-ranging studies was performed, evaluating UMEC at doses of 15.6-1000 mcg QD and 15.6-250 mcg twice daily (BID). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at the end of each study's treatment period (Day 8/Day 15). A population model-based analysis using total daily UMEC dose was used for the primary analysis comparing QD and BID dosing. A physiological effect (Emax) model was optimal in defining the relationship between UMEC dose and the primary endpoint, demonstrating a clear monotonic dose response over QD and BID dosing regimens. UMEC doses ≥62.5 mcg QD were differentiated from lower doses and BID dosing did not provide benefit over QD dosing. The potency (ED50) estimate was 33 mcg with QD dosing. These data indicate that UMEC 62.5 mcg and 125 mcgQD provide lung function benefits that warrant further investigation for the treatment of COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. Methods: In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated. Results: The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52-58%; SAEs: 6-7%; drug-related AEs: 12-13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8-11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ⩾2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13-15% of patients reporting ⩾1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6-2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ⩾1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo. Conclusion: UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians are faced with an increasingly difficult choice regarding the optimal bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) given the number of new treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75/150/300 μg once daily (OD), glycopyrronium bromide 50 μg OD, tiotropium bromide 18 μg/5 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for moderate to severe COPD. Methods: Forty randomized controlled trials were combined in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest were trough and post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and responders (⩾4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score and responders (⩾1 point) at 6 months. Results: Indacaterol was associated with a higher trough FEV1 than other active treatments (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: 152 mL (95% credible interval (CrI): 126, 179); 160 mL (95% CrI: 133, 187)) and the greatest improvement in SGRQ score (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: -3.9 (95% CrI -5.2, -2.6); -3.6 (95% CrI -4.8, -2.3)). Glycopyrronium and tiotropium 18 μg resulted in the next best estimates for both outcomes with minor differences (difference for glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for trough FEV1 and SGRQ: 18 mL (95% CrI: -16, 51); -0.55 (95% CrI: -2.04, 0.92). Conclusion: In terms of trough FEV1 and SGRQ score indacaterol, glycopyrronium, and tiotropium are expected to be the most effective bronchodilators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on a study on the population-based burden of complaints related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that lead to consult at the emergency department (ED). The authors examine ED surveillance system data to measure the frequency of COPD-related ED visits, comorbidities, and hospital admissions. The results of the study shows a significant population-based burden of COPD-related care in the ED, with age having a factor on hospital readmissions.

Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating a pharmacological agent, as they minimise any potential bias. However, it is not always possible to perform double-blind trials, particularly for medications delivered via specific devices, e.g. inhalers. In such cases, open-label studies can be employed instead. Methods used to minimise any potential bias introduced by open-label study design include randomisation, crossover study design, and objective measurements of primary efficacy and safety variables. Concise reviews analysing the effect of blinding procedures of comparator drugs on outcomes in respiratory trials are limited. Here, we compare data from different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials with once-daily indacaterol versus a blinded or non-blinded comparator. The clinical trial programme for indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting β2-agonist, used tiotropium as a comparator either in an open-label or blinded fashion. Data from these studies showed that the effects of tiotropium were consistent for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, an objective measure, across blinded and non-blinded studies. The data were consistent with previous studies of double-blind tiotropium, suggesting that the open-label use of tiotropium did not introduce treatment bias. The effect of tiotropium on subjective measures (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; transition dyspnoea index) varied slightly across blinded and non-blinded studies, indicating that minimal bias was introduced by using openlabel tiotropium. Importantly, the studies used randomised, open-label tiotropium patients to treatment allocation, a method shown to minimise bias to a greater degree than blinding. In conclusion, it is important when reporting a clinical trial to be transparent about who was blinded and how the blinding was performed; if the design is openlabel, additional efforts must be made to minimise risk of bias. If these recommendations are followed, and the data are considered in the full knowledge of any potential sources of bias, results with tiotropium suggest that data from open-label studies can provide valuable and credible evidence of the effects of therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory syndrome affecting more than 80 million people worldwide and is estimated to become the third-leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. A standard-of-care ap-proach to COPD treatment is multifaceted, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, yet the optimum combination among many bronchodilator possibilities remains unclear. We discuss the evidence for ef-fectiveness of combination bronchodilator and inhaled corticosteroid ther-apy in affecting the minimal clinically important difference for these agents in COPD. We propose an approach to the rational use of these combinations that favours the combination of long-acting β-adrenergic agents with long-acting anticholinergic agents in lieu of any other bronchodilators whenever possible. We suggest that, to better detect effects of disease modification in COPD, future studies of combination bronchodilator effectiveness should emphasize endpoints other than short-term change in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has historically been considered a disease of older, white, male smokers, as illustrated in Frank Netter's classic images of the 'pink puffer' and 'blue bloater'. However, women may be more susceptible to COPD than men, and the disease course may be reflective of that increased susceptibility. From a review of epidemiological data of COPD, we found differences in the way men and women present with COPD symptoms, a bias in the way COPD symptoms are treated in men and women, and differences in susceptibility to airway obstruction based on age, sex, and smoking history. These data show that classic stereotypes of COPD - including male predominance - should be abandoned, and that there are not two but multiple COPD phenotypes, which are characterised by differences between women and men in susceptibility, symptoms, and disease progression. These differences impact on physician perception. Although further research into this concept is needed, the differences we found should prompt, in the short term, changes in the way (and in whom) COPD is evaluated, diagnosed, and treated; in the long term, these differences should prompt research into the prognosis of COPD based on sex differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The long-term efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide, a novel, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, were investigated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Methods: In two double-blind, 52-week studies, ACCLAIM/COPD I (n=843) and II (n=804), patients were randomised to inhaled aclidinium 200 μg or placebo once-daily. Patients were required to have a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤70% and FEV1<80% of the predicted value. The primary endpoint was trough FEV1 at 12 and 28 weeks. Secondary endpoints were health status measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and time to first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation.Results: At 12 and 28 weeks, aclidinium improved trough FEV1 versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (by 61 and 67 mL; both p<0.001) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (by 63 and 59 mL; both p<0.001). More patients had a SGRQ improvement≥4 units at 52 weeks with aclidinium versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (48.1% versus 39.5%; p=0.025) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (39.0% versus 32.8%; p=0.074). The time to first exacerbation was significantly delayed by aclidinium in ACCLAIM/COPD II (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.92; p=0.01), but not ACCLAIM/COPD I (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; p=0.9). Adverse events were minor in both studies.Conclusion: Aclidinium is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00363896 (ACCLAIM/COPD I) and NCT00358436 (ACCLAIM/COPD II). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a study wherein symptoms, smoking history and spirometric data were analyzed to determine whether these factors can predict chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). After the analysis, the authors reported that symptoms are frequent in patients with airways obstruction (AO) and this can increase their risk for COPD. The authors also revealed that AO and symptoms hardly contribute to the predictive value of spirometry.

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of arformoterol and formoterol over 6-months in subjects with COPD. In a multi-center, 6-month randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, subjects with COPD (mean FEV1 1.21 L, ∼∼∼41.0%%% predicted) were randomized to receive either nebulized arformoterol (15μμμg BID [[[n === 149]]][[[ARF 15]]], 25μμμg BID [[[n === 147]]][[[ARF 25]]]), or racemic formoterol (12μμμg BID [[[n === 147]]][[[FORM]]]) delivered by DPI. The proportion of subjects with any post-treatment adverse event for ARF 15, ARF 25 μμμg, and FORM was 67.8%%%, 76.2%%% and 66.7%%%, respectively, and those with at least one COPD exacerbation was 32.2%%%, 30.6%%%, and 22.4%%%, respectively. Pulmonary function improved for all treatment groups and was maintained throughout the study. Mean change from baseline at 6-months for ARF 15, ARF 25 and FORM in peak FEV1 was 0.30L, and 0.34L, and 0.26L, respectively, in 24-hour trough FEV1 was, 0.10L, 0.14L, and 0.09L, and in inspiratory capacity was, 0.20L, 0.37L, and 0.23L. Dyspnea, (mean Transition Dypsnea Index (TDI) focal score) improved in all treatment arms (ARF 15: 1.4, ARF 25: 1.5, and FORM: 1.4) at 6 months, as did rescue short-acting βββ2-agonists use (mean range: −−−1.1 to −−−1.3 actuations/day) and ipratropium bromide (mean range: −−−0.3 to −−−0.8 actuations/day). Health status, measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, improved from baseline at 6-months in all treatment groups (mean change: −−−3.7 to −−−6.8). In this 6-month study, arformoterol and formoterol were well-tolerated, and their use was associated with improvement in pulmonary function and health status in subjects with COPD with no apparent development of tolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comparisons of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) between persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and adults in the general population are not well described. Aims: To examine associations between COPD and four measures of HRQOL in a population-based sample. Patients & Methods: These relationships were examined using data from 13,887 adults aged >18 years who participated in the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) conducted in North Carolina (NC). Logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted relative odds (aOR). Results: The age-adjusted prevalence of COPD among NC adults was 5.4% (standard error 0.27). Nearly half of adults with COPD reported fair/poor health compared with 15% of those without the condition (age-aOR, 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4 to 6.8). On average, adults with COPD reported twice as many unhealthy days (physical/mental) as those without the condition. The age-adjusted prevalence of >14 unhealthy days during the prior 30 days was 45% for adults with COPD and 17% for those without. The aOR of >14 unhealthy days was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.2) times greater among adults with COPD compared with those without. Conclusions: These results suggest COPD is independently associated with lower levels of HRQOL and reinforce the importance of preventing COPD and its complications through health education messages stressing efforts to reduce total personal exposure to tobacco smoke, occupational dusts and chemicals, and other indoor and outdoor air pollutants linked to COPD and early disease recognition. Our findings represent one of the few statewide efforts in the US and provide guidance for disease management and policy decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To develop a practical patient-completed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment questionnaire (COPD-AQ) to improve COPD assessment and management in primary care, based on the concept of COPD stability. Methods: An Expert Working Group defined parameters of COPD stability and a 10-item Physician's Global Assessment was established. A 21-item COPD-AQ was developed and validated in a cross-sectional, non-randomised study of patients with COPD (n=395). Items most discriminative of stability status (stable/unstable) were selected to produce a 5-item COPD-AQ, which was then validated. Results: In the development sample, internal consistency reliability of the 5-item COPD-AQ was 0.74 (n=296). The COPD-AQ discriminated between stability groups based on physician assessment (F=44.26; p<0.0001) and post-bronchodilator spirometry measures (F=2.92; p<0.05). A questionnaire score >20 (range: 5.0-25.0) had a specificity of 82.9% and sensitivity of 64.7%. Conclusions: The 5-item COPD-AQ proved a practical tool for assessing COPD status and was sufficiently simple for routine clinical use. However, overall validation was limited by small numbers of patients in the validation sample. Difficulties also existed over using the term 'stability' to define COPD status. COPD-AQ was not progressed further, but this work will prove valuable in the future development of a global questionnaire to improve COPD management in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guideline recommends that dosing racemic albuterol be administered every 1 to 4 hours for treating patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the hospital. Previously published preliminary and retrospective studies suggested that levalbuterol can be administered every 8 hours for the treatment of bronchoconstriction in hospitalized patients. However, it is unclear how the different dosing regimens affect the total number of nebulizations (scheduled plus as-needed treatments) and the costs of treatment of bronchoconstriction in a hospital setting. Moreover, it is not clear how the different dosing regimens affect symptom outcomes and health status in hospitalized patients with asthma or COPD. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate these issues in hospitalized patients with acute asthma or COPD. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study, hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years were randomly assigned to receive 14-day treatment with levalbuterol 1.25 mg q6-8h or racemic albuterol 2.5 mg q1-4h, administered per routine hospital practice at each institution. The primary efficacy end point was total number of nebulizations during hospitalization. Pulmonary function, symptom evaluation (subject general well-being score [SGWB], disease symptom assessment [DSA], and β-mediated adverse effect scores), hospital costs (excluding medication costs) and hospital length of stay (LOS) were also evaluated. Results: In the intent-to-ttreat population (n = 479; levalbuterol, 241;racemic albuterol, 238), the mean (SE) age was 55.3 (16.9) years, the majority of patients were white (57.8%), and the mean (SE) weight was 80.9 (24.5) kg. Demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 treatment groups, except that there were more females with COPD in the levalbuterol treatment group (63.88%) compared with the racemic albuterol treatment group (45.5%) (P = 0.005). Patients treated with levalbuterol required significantly fewer median total nebulizations (10 vs 12; P = 0.031) and scheduled nebulizations (9 vs 11; P = 0.009) compared with those in the racemic albuterol group. The 2 treatment groups required 0 rescue nebulizations. Mean (SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second improved from baseline with both levalbuterol and racemic albuterol (0.06 [0.43] and 0.10 [0.37] L, respectively); these improvements were maintained throughout the hospital stay (0.11 [0.48] and 0.16 [0.52] L). DSA and SGWB scores improved significantly from baseline in both treatment groups, and β-mediated adverse effects mean scores were significantly greater with levalbuterol versus racemic albuterol (P < 0.001). In the levalbuterol and racemic albuterol treatment groups, hospital LOS (70.6 and 65.7 hours, respectively), time to discharge (66.0 and 62.8 hours), and total hospital costs (least squares mean [SE], US $4869.30 [$343.58] and $4899.41 [$343.20]) were similar. Conclusions: In these hospitalized patients with acute asthma or COPD treated with levalbuterol every 6 to 8 hours or racemic albuterol every 1 to 4 hours, significantly fewer total nebulizations were required with levalbuterol, without an increased need for rescue nebulizations during 14 days of hospitalization. Both treatments were associated with improvements from baseline in symptoms and health status. The costs of treating bronchoconstriction in hospitalized patients were similar between the levalbuterol and racemic albuterol groups. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Investigation has repeatedly demonstrated an association between exposure to ambient air pollution particles and numerous indices of human morbidity and mortality. Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are among those with an increased sensitivity to air pollution particles. Current and ex-smokers account for 80 to 85% of all those with COPD. The human breathing in an urban site with a significant level of particulate matter (PM) may be exposed to 720 μ g daily. A single cigarette introduces 15,000 to 40,000 μ g particle into the respiratory tract of the smoker. It is subsequently confounding why such a relatively small mass of airborne PM should have any biological effect in the patient with COPD, as these individuals are repeatedly exposed to particles (with a similar size and composition) at perhaps a thousandfold the mass of ambient PM. Regarding this increased sensitivity of COPD patients to air pollution particles, there are several possible explanations for this seeming contradiction, including correlations of PM levels with other components of air pollution, an accumulation of multiple independent risk factors in a patient, changes in individual activity patterns, disparities in dosimetry between healthy subjects and COPD patients, and some unique characteristic of an ambient air pollution PM. Regardless of the underlying mechanism for the increased sensitivity of COPD patients, exposures of these individuals to elevated levels of PM should be discouraged. To provide a greater awareness of PM levels, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now includes levels of air pollution particles in an air quality index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of nebulized levalbuterol in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was evaluated in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel design study. Randomized subjects (n = 209) received levalbuterol (LEV) 0.63 mg or 1.25 mg, racemic albuterol (RAC) 2.5 mg, or placebo (PBO) TID for 6 weeks. Serial spirometry was completed in-clinic after study drug alone (weeks 0, 2, and 6) or in combination with ipratropium bromide 0.5 mg (week 4). The primary endpoint was the averaged FEV 1 AUC (0–8 hrs) over weeks 0, 2 and 6 compared with placebo. Other endpoints included rescue medication use, safety parameters, COPD exacerbations, and global evaluations. All active treatments demonstrated improvements in the percent change in FEV 1 AUC (0–8 hrs) over the double-blind period and at each visit vs PBO (p [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The FEV 1 is widely used by physicians in the diagnosis, staging, treatment, monitoring and establishing prognosis for patients with COPD. The MCID is the smallest difference which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate a change in patient management. A precise MCID for FEV 1 has not been established. In attempt to establish a MCID for predose or trough FEV 1 , several limitations need to be addressed. There are issues such as reproducibility, repeatability, acceptability, variability, placebo effect, and equipment effects. Patient factors, such as baseline level of FEV 1 , albuterol reversibility, diurnal variation, influence the results. Nonetheless, using anchoring techniques, a change in pre dose FEV 1 of about 100 mL can be perceived by patients, correlates with fewer relapses following exacerbations and is in the range usually achieved with bronchodilators approved for COPD. In the future, consistent reporting of spirometric variables, such as a predose FEV 1 and other outcomes, can be incorporated into a more quantitative effort to establish the MCID. Also distributional/statistical methods may be useful in determining the MCID FEV 1 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presence of acute reversibility to bronchodilators does not distinguish asthma from COPD. Patients with either condition can benefit from bronchodilators, and should be given a trial to assess their response. Some respond with a change in lung volume with less hyperinflation; others improve their forced inspiratory flow and become much more comfortable. The combination of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) and inhaled steroids is useful in both conditions. While anticholinergics seem to yield the best results in COPD, some patients with asthma benefit from their use. Tiotropium may be the most effective agent as monotherapy in COPD, but the combination of an inhaled steroid and a LABA may produce similar results in improving lung function. Long-acting bronchodilators are effective agents as monotherapy in COPD, but in asthma should be combined with a controller medication. Short-acting β-agonists should be used intermittently in asthma, but may be used regularly or combined with an anticholinergic in COPD. The roles of stereoisomers, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and type 4 phosphodiesterase inhibitors in asthma and COPD remain uncertain at this time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective: To compare the bronchodilator efficacy and safety of tiotropium and placebo.Design: A 3-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.Setting: Outpatient.Patients: Four hundred seventy patients with stable COPD (mean FEV(1) = 38.6% predicted).Interventions: Tiotropium 18 microg (N = 279) or placebo (N = 191) given once daily via a lactose-based dry-powder inhaler device.Measurements and Results: Spirometry was evaluated on days 1, 8, 50, and 92. Data were expressed as the mean trough (ie, before morning dose; 23 to 24 h after previous dose) and average response observed in the 3 h after the dose was received. Tiotropium produced significant improvement in trough FEV(1) and FVC, averaging 12% greater than baseline on day 8; these improvements were maintained on days 50 and 92. The average postdose FEV(1) was 16% greater than baseline on day 1 and 20% greater than baseline on day 92; FVC was 17% greater than baseline on day 1 and 19% greater than baseline on day 92. Tiotropium was significantly more effective than placebo in both trough and average FEV(1) and FVC response (p < 0.001). These spirometric effects were corroborated by significant improvements in daily morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate, as well as a reduction in "as-needed" albuterol use. Symptoms of wheezing and shortness of breath were significantly less in patients receiving tiotropium, and the physician global assessment noted overall improvements with those treated with tiotropium relative to placebo. The most common reported adverse event after tiotropium was dry mouth (9.3% vs 1.6% relative to placebo; p < 0.05).Conclusions: These data demonstrate that tiotropium is a safe and effective once-daily anticholinergic bronchodilator and should prove useful as first-line maintenance therapy in COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on the results of the Bronchitis Randomized on NAC Cost-Utility Study (BRONCUS). Analysis of the study, which examined the effect of oxidants and oxidative stress on the lungs, and is the most comprehensive study of a pharmacological antioxidant to date; View that the study represents the best of many study's on the agent N-acetylcysteine; View that medical investigators should pursue other avenues of research, including a look into antioxidant mimetics and the effects newer antioxidants.

This article presents information on the risk of nonvertebral fracture related to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) exposure among adults with chronic lung disease followed up in a managed-care setting. The issue of ICSs and fractures is complex and controversial mainly because lung specialists view them in such high regard. More than 100 publications have cited the value of ICS in the management of chronic lung disease, mainly asthma. They are used widely in COPD, sarcoidosis, and a variety of other disorders as well, but with less proof of overall efficacy than in asthma. They have been fully embraced as asthma disease modifiers and lifesavers by the pulmonary community for almost 2 decades.

Background: Revefenacin is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist that was recently approved for the nebulized treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although shorter duration studies have documented the efficacy of revefenacin in COPD, longer-term efficacy has not been described. In a recent 52-week safety trial, revefenacin was well tolerated and had a favorable benefit-risk profile. Here we report exploratory efficacy and health outcomes in patients receiving revefenacin 175 μg or 88 μg daily during the 52-week trial.Methods: In this randomized, parallel-group, 52-week trial (NCT02518139), 1055 participants with moderate to very severe COPD received revefenacin 175 μg or 88 μg in a double-blind manner, or open-label active control tiotropium.Results: Over the 52-week treatment period, both doses of revefenacin, as well as tiotropium, elicited significant (all p < 0.0003) improvements from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The trough FEV1 profile (least squares mean change from baseline) for revefenacin 175 μg ranged from 52.3-124.3 mL and the trough FEV1 profile for tiotropium ranged from 79.7-112.8 mL. In subgroup comparisons, the effect of revefenacin on trough FEV1 was comparable in patients taking concomitant long-acting β-agonists, with or without inhaled corticosteroids, with patients who were not taking these medications. There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in all measured health status outcomes (evaluated using St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, Clinical COPD Questionnaire and Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Index) from 3 months onward, in all treatment arms.Conclusions: Significant sustained improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 and respiratory health outcomes were demonstrated for 175-μg revefenacin over 52 weeks, further supporting its use as a once-daily bronchodilator for the nebulized treatment of patients with COPD.Trial Registration: NCT02518139 ; Registered 5 August 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cardiovascular safety of revefenacin, an anticholinergic indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), was evaluated in phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. No clinically meaningful changes in 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings were observed with up to 52 weeks of once-daily revefenacin 88 or 175 μg. In a pooled analysis of Studies 0126 and 0127, the incidence of prolonged QT interval corrected for heart rate using the Fridericia correction formula (QTcF; >450 msec) for revefenacin 88 μg (n = 23, 5.6%) and revefenacin 175 μg (n = 23, 5.9%) was similar to that for placebo (n = 22, 5.3%). In Study 0128, the incidence of prolonged QTcF was similar in the revefenacin 175 μg (n = 25, 7.7%) and tiotropium (n = 26, 7.3%) groups and lower in the revefenacin 88 μg (n = 15, 4.2%) group. There were four major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in Study 0126 (one, two, and one in the placebo, revefenacin 88 μg, and revefenacin 175 μg groups, respectively), no MACEs in Study 0127 and 26 MACEs in Study 0128 (9, 10 and 7 in the revefenacin 88 μg, revefenacin 175 μg and tiotropium groups, respectively). In Study 0128, only one MACE was considered possibly/probably related to revefenacin (atrial fibrillation in the revefenacin 175 μg group). Thus, revefenacin may provide beneficial nebulized therapy for patients with COPD without further elevating their risk of cardiovascular events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing focus on understanding the nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the earlier stages. Mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 1 or the now-withdrawn GOLD stage 0) represents an early stage of COPD that may progress to more severe disease. This review summarises the disease burden of patients with mild COPD and discusses the evidence for treatment intervention in this subgroup.Overall, patients with mild COPD suffer a substantial disease burden that includes persistent or potentially debilitating symptoms, increased risk of exacerbations, increased healthcare utilisation, reduced exercise tolerance and physical activity, and a higher rate of lung function decline versus controls. However, the evidence for treatment efficacy in these patients is limited due to their frequent exclusion from clinical trials. Careful assessment of disease burden and the rate of disease progression in individual patients, rather than a reliance on spirometry data, may identify patients who could benefit from earlier treatment intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale/Objective: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) health survey has been used to describe the epidemiology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US. Through addressing respiratory symptoms and tobacco use, it could also be used to characterize COPD risk. Methods: Four US states added questions to the 2015 BRFSS regarding productive cough, shortness of breath, dyspnea on exertion, and tobacco duration. We determined COPD risk categories: provider-diagnosed COPD as self-report, high-risk for COPD as ≥10 years tobacco smoking and at least one significant respiratory symptom, and low risk was neither diagnosed COPD nor high risk. Disease burden was defined by respiratory symptoms and health impairments. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression models with age as a covariate. Results: Among 35,722 adults ≥18 years, the overall prevalence of COPD and high-risk for COPD were 6.6% and 5.1%. Differences among COPD risk groups were evident based on gender, race, age, geography, tobacco use, health impairments, and respiratory symptoms. Risk for disease was seen early where 3.75% of 25–34 years-old met high-risk criteria. Longer tobacco duration was associated with an increased prevalence of COPD, particularly >20 years. Seventy-nine percent of persons ≥45 years-old with frequent shortness of breath (SOB) reported having or being at risk of COPD, reflecting disease burden. Conclusion: These data, representing nearly 18% of US adults, indicates those at high risk for COPD share many, but not all of the characteristics of persons diagnosed with the disease and demonstrates the value of the BRFSS as a tool to define lung health at a population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of unidentified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and determine the screening accuracy of the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cigarette smokers who had a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years and were aged 30 years or older were recruited from 36 centers from February 18, 2009, to May 29, 2009. A total of 1575 patients completed a Web-based survey including the 5-item LFQ. Spirometry was performed on patients with an LFQ total score of 18 or less and on a subset scoring more than 18. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of artflow obstruction as measured by the LFQ (score, ≤18) in whom an airflow obstruction was confirmed by spirometry. RESULTS: Of the patients who completed the LFQ, 849 (54%) had standardized spirometry data available. On the basis of LFQ and spirometry results, the estimated prevalence of possible COPD was 17.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.3%-20.6%). At a cut point of 18 or less, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the LFQ were 88%, 25%, 21%, and 90%, respectively. Approximately 1 in 5 patients (21%) aged 30 years or older and 1 in 4(26%) aged 50 years or older scored 18 or less on the LFQ and had a ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration to forced vital capacity less than 0.70. CONCLUSION: On the basis of postbronchodilator spirometry results using weighted estimates, approximately 1 in 5 patients (21%) aged 30 years or older with a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years seen in a primary care setting is likely to have COPD. The LFQ could be a helpful COPD case-finding tool for clinicians to identify patients who need further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]