Dataset Information

Is Blood Eosinophil Count a Predictor of Response to Bronchodilators in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? Results from Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses.

ABSTRACT: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with blood eosinophil (EOS) count ? 2% benefit from exacerbation reductions with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). We conducted post hoc analyses to determine if EOS count ? 2% is a marker for greater responsiveness to the bronchodilators umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist), vilanterol (VI; long-acting ?2-agonist) or UMEC/VI combination.Effects of once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25, UMEC 62.5 and VI 25 µg versus placebo on trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores and adverse event (AE) incidences in four completed, 6-month studies were assessed by EOS subgroup. Trough FEV1 was also evaluated by ICS use and EOS subgroup. Analyses were performed using a repeated measures model.At baseline, 2437 of 4647 (52%) patients had EOS count ? 2%. Overall, ? 50% of patients used ICSs. At day 169, no notable variations were observed in trough FEV1 least squares mean differences between EOS subgroups versus placebo for UMEC/VI, UMEC and VI; results according to ICS use were similar. No differences were reported between EOS subgroups in TDI and SGRQ scores on day 168, or for incidences of AEs, serious AEs and AEs leading to withdrawal.Response to UMEC/VI, UMEC and VI in terms of trough FEV1, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life was similar for COPD patients with baseline EOS counts ? 2 or <2%. EOS count did not appear to predict bronchodilator response in either ICS users or non-users.

SUBMITTER: Iqbal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4579251 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Blood Eosinophil Count a Predictor of Response to Bronchodilators in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? Results from Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses.

Iqbal Ahmar A Barnes Neil C NC Brooks Jean J

Clinical drug investigation 20151001 10

<h4>Background</h4>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with blood eosinophil (EOS) count ≥ 2% benefit from exacerbation reductions with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). We conducted post hoc analyses to determine if EOS count ≥ 2% is a marker for greater responsiveness to the bronchodilators umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist), vilanterol (VI; long-acting β2-agonist) or UMEC/VI combination.<h4>Methods</h4>Effects of once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25, UMEC 62.5 and VI ...[more]

PMID: 26329916

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSymptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk still have disease instability, which can be improved with better bronchodilation. We evaluated two long-acting bronchodilators individually and in combination on reducing exacerbation risk and the potential impact of concurrent medication in these patients.MethodsIntegrated post hoc intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of data from two large 24-week, randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials (NCT01313637, NCT01313650). Symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD with/without an exacerbation history were randomized (2:3:3:3) to once-daily: PBO, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg [NCT01313650] or 125/25 μg [NCT01313637]), UMEC (62.5 [NCT01313650] or 125 μg [NCT01313637]) or VI (25 μg) via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Medication subgroups were segmented by treatment status at screening: a) maintenance-naïve or on maintenance medications, b) inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]-free or ICS-treated, c) low or high albuterol use based on median run-in use (< 3.6 or ≥ 3.6 puffs/day). Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (Cox proportional hazard model) and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; mixed model repeated measures) were analyzed. Safety was also assessed.ResultsOf 3021 patients (ITT population; UMEC/VI: n = 816; UMEC: n = 825; VI: n = 825; PBO: n = 555), 36% had a recent exacerbation history, 33% were maintenance-naïve, 51% were ICS-free. Mean baseline albuterol use was 5.1 puffs/day. In the ITT population, UMEC/VI, UMEC, and VI reduced the risk of a first exacerbation versus PBO by 58, 44, and 39%, respectively (all p < 0.05). UMEC/VI provided significant risk reductions versus PBO in all subgroups. VI had no benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve, ICS-free, and low rescue use patients and was significantly less effective than UMEC/VI in these subgroups. UMEC had no significant benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve and ICS-free patients. All bronchodilators improved FEV1 versus PBO, and UMEC/VI significantly improved FEV1 versus both monotherapies across all populations studied (p < 0.05). All bronchodilators were similarly well tolerated.ConclusionsResults suggest that UMEC/VI reduces exacerbation risk versus PBO more consistently across medication subgroups than UMEC or VI, particularly in patients with no/low concurrent medication use. Confirmed prospectively, these findings may support first-line use of dual bronchodilation therapy in symptomatic low-risk patients.

Project description:BackgroundBlood eosinophil count has been proposed as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. An optimal threshold of blood eosinophil count for prescribing ICS has not been agreed. Doubt has been cast on the role by observational studies. The role of inhaled corticosteroids in this relationship, independent of long-acting bronchodilators, has not been examined.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of post-hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining three blood eosinophil thresholds and the independent role of ICS. Included studies were categorised by the form (relative or absolute count) and cut point of eosinophil threshold used. Thresholds assessed were relative eosinophil count of 2%, and absolute counts of 150 cells/μL and 300 cells/μL. Three meta-analyses of the effect of ICS use in post-hoc analyses of RCTs based on these counts were carried out. Initial analysis included all studies of ICS vs. any non-ICS regimen. Further analysis examined the effect of ICS, independent of the effect of long-acting bronchodilators.ResultsSixteen studies examined the association between blood eosinophil count and response of exacerbation risk to ICS, in COPD patients. Eleven studies (25,881 patients) were post-hoc analyses of RCTs. Five studies (109,704 patients) were retrospective observational studies. The independent effect of ICS on the reduction of exacerbation risk was 20% at ≥2% blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85), 35% at ≥150 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.65; 0.52-0.79), and 39% at ≥300 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.61; 0.44-0.78). No association was found in four out of five observational studies.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review to assess, in post-hoc analyses of RCTs, the independent effect of ICS in reducing the risk of COPD exacerbation across a range of blood eosinophil thresholds. Association between ICS prescription and reduced exacerbation risk at these thresholds was confirmed. The lack of association found in the observational studies questions the relevance of these observations to a "real world" COPD population. To clarify the clinical utility of this biomarker, the association should be tested in prospective effectiveness studies.

Dataset Information

Is Blood Eosinophil Count a Predictor of Response to Bronchodilators in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? Results from Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses.

Publications

Is Blood Eosinophil Count a Predictor of Response to Bronchodilators in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? Results from Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets