Dataset Information

Effect of different corticosteroid regimes for hospitalised patients with exacerbated COPD: pooled analysis of individual participant data from the REDUCE and CORTICO-COP trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systemic corticosteroid administration for severe acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) reduces the duration of hospital stays. Corticosteroid-sparing regimens have showed non-inferiority to higher accumulated dose regimens regarding re-exacerbation risk in patients with AECOPD. However, it remains unclear whether 14-day or 2-5-day regimens would result in shorter admission durations and changes in mortality risk. We explored this by analysing the number of days alive and out of hospital based on two randomised controlled trials with different corticosteroid regimens.

Methods

We pooled individual patient data from the two available multicentre randomised trials on corticosteroid-sparing regimens for AECOPD: the REDUCE (n = 314) and CORTICO-COP (n = 318) trials. In the 14-day regimen group, patients were older, fewer patients received pre-treatment with antibiotics and more patients received pre-treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Patients randomly allocated to the 14-day and 2-5-day regimens were compared, with adjustment for baseline differences.

Results

The number of days alive and out of hospital within 14 days from recruitment was higher for the 2-5 day regimen group (mean 8.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0-8.8) than the 14-day regimen patient group (4.2 days; 95% CI3.4-4.9; p < 0.001). The 14-day AECOPD group had longer hospital stays (mean difference, 5.4 days [standard error ± 0.6]; p < 0.0001) and decreased likelihood of discharge within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.6; p < 0.0001). Comparing the 14-day regimen and the 2-5 day regimen group showed no differences in the composite endpoint 'death or ICU admission' (odds ratio [OR] 1.4; 95% CI 0.8-2.3; p = 0.15), new or aggravated hypertension (OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.7; p = 0.15), or mortality risk (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4-1.5; p = 0.45) during the 6-month follow-up period.

Conclusion

14-day corticosteroid regimens were associated with longer hospital stays and fewer days alive and out of hospital within 14 days, with no apparent 6-month benefit regarding death or admission to ICU in COPD patients. Our results favour 2-5 day regimens for treating COPD exacerbations. However, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

SUBMITTER: Sivapalan P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8138920 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies report a lower mortality rate during treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) versus LAMA/LABA in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations.ObjectiveWe compared time to all-cause mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS in patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and a predominantly low exacerbation risk.MethodsData were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (TONADO 1/2, DYNAGITO, WISDOM, UPLIFT and TIOSPIR; LAMA/LABA: n = 3156, LAMA/LABA/ICS: n = 11,891). Analysis was on-treatment and data were censored at 52 weeks. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS received ICS prior to study entry, which was not withdrawn at randomization. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were propensity score (PS)-matched to patients on LAMA/LABA who had not previously received ICS; covariates included age, sex, geographical region, smoking status, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted, exacerbation history in previous year, body mass index and time since diagnosis. Time to all-cause mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models.ResultsAfter PS matching, 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA and 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were analyzed. Fewer than 20% of patients reported ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year (LAMA/LABA: 19.1%; LAMA/LABA/ICS: 19.0%). There were 41 (1.3%) deaths on LAMA/LABA and 45 (1.4%) deaths on LAMA/LABA/ICS. No statistically significant difference in time to death was observed between treatment arms (hazard ratio for LAMA/LABA 1.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.68, 1.64; P = 0.806). Sensitivity analyses conducted using different covariates or in an intent-to-treat population showed similar results.ConclusionThis pooled analysis of over 6000 patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and predominantly low exacerbation risk showed no differences in mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS, suggesting that the survival benefit of triple therapy seen in some recent studies may be specific to a high-risk population. This supports current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations that triple therapy should be reserved for the subpopulations of patients who need it the most (eg, those with an eosinophilic phenotype and a high risk of exacerbations) to avoid ICS overuse.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health issue affecting approximately 4% to 7% of the Swiss population. According to current inpatient guidelines, systemic corticosteroids are important in the treatment of acute COPD exacerbations and should be given for 5 to 7 days. Several studies suggest that corticosteroids accelerate the recovery of FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), enhance oxygenation, decrease the duration of hospitalization, and improve clinical outcomes. However, the additional therapeutic benefit regarding FEV1 recovery appears to be most apparent in the first 3 to 5 days. No data are available on the optimum duration of corticosteroid treatment in primary-care patients with acute COPD exacerbations. Given that many COPD patients are treated as outpatients, there is an urgent need to improve the evidence base on COPD management in this setting. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a 3-day treatment with orally administered corticosteroids is non-inferior to a 5-day treatment in acute exacerbations of COPD in a primary-care setting. METHODS/DESIGN:This study is a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted in a primary-care setting. It is anticipated that 470 patients with acutely exacerbated COPD will be recruited. Participants are randomized to receive systemic corticosteroid treatment of 40?mg prednisone daily for 5 days (conventional arm, n?=?235) or for 3 days followed by 2 days of placebo (experimental arm, n?=?235). Antibiotic treatment for 7 days is given to all patients with CRP???50?mg/l, those with a known diagnosis of bronchiectasis, or those presenting with Anthonisen type I exacerbation. Additional treatment after inclusion is left at the discretion of the treating general practitioner. Follow-up visits are performed on days 3 and 7, followed by telephone interviews on days 30, 90, and 180 after inclusion in the study. The primary endpoint is the time to next exacerbation during the 6-month follow-up period. DISCUSSION:The study is designed to assess whether a 3-day course of corticosteroid treatment is not inferior to the conventional 5-day treatment course in outpatients with exacerbated COPD regarding time to next exacerbation. Depending on the results, this trial may lead to a reduction in the cumulative corticosteroid dose in COPD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02386735. Registered on 12 March 2015.

Project description:BackgroundA medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.ObjectivesWe examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.Search methodsIn this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.Selection criteriaWe included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.Main resultsIn this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Authors' conclusionsMedication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.