Dataset Information

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. RESULTS:We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15-52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15-35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25-50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3-11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION:The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO #CRD42018102125 .

SUBMITTER: Langham S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6829989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations between triple therapy and dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries searched from inception to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials comparing triple therapy with dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with COPD were eligible. Efficacy and safety outcomes of interest were also available. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Data were collected independently. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate rate ratios, hazard ratios, risk ratios, and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methodology (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation). RESULTS:21 trials (19 publications) were included. Triple therapy consisted of a long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long acting ? agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Triple therapy was associated with a significantly reduced rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy (rate ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.85), LAMA and LABA (0.78, 0.70 to 0.88), and ICS and LABA (0.77, 0.66 to 0.91). Trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and quality of life were favourable with triple therapy. The overall safety profile of triple therapy is reassuring, but pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with dual therapy of LAMA and LABA (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.87). CONCLUSIONS:Use of triple therapy resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD, better lung function, and better health related quality of life than dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with advanced COPD. STUDY REGISTRATION:Prospero CRD42018077033.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Patients and methodsThe validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionAt the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the risk of mortality associated with long term use of tiotropium delivered using a mist inhaler for symptomatic improvement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, the pharmaceutical company clinical trials register, the US Food and Drug Administration website, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials from inception to July 2010.Study selectionTrials were selected for inclusion if they were parallel group randomised controlled trials of tiotropium solution using a mist inhaler (Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler, Boehringer Ingelheim) versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; the treatment duration was more than 30 days, and they reported data on mortality. Relative risks of all cause mortality were estimated using a fixed effect meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) statistic.ResultsFive randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Tiotropium mist inhaler was associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality (90/3686 v 47/2836; relative risk 1.52, 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.16; P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). Both 10 µg (2.15, 1.03 to 4.51; P = 0.04; I(2) = 9%) and 5 µg (1.46, 1.01 to 2.10; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%) doses of tiotropium mist inhaler were associated with an increased risk of mortality. The overall estimates were not substantially changed by sensitivity analysis of the fixed effect analysis of the five trials combined using the random effects model (1.45, 1.02 to 2.07; P = 0.04), limiting the analysis to three trials of one year's duration each (1.50, 1.05 to 2.15), or the inclusion of additional data on tiotropium mist inhaler from another investigational drug programme (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00). The number needed to treat for a year with the 5 µg dose to see one additional death was estimated to be 124 (95% confidence interval 52 to 5682) based on the average control event rate from the long term trials.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis explains safety concerns by regulatory agencies and indicates a 52% increased risk of mortality associated with tiotropium mist inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Dataset Information

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets