Dataset Information

Single-inhaler triple vs single-inhaler dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In some RCTs comparing triple therapy with dual therapy in COPD, there might be a bias resulting from the use of multiple inhaler devices. This meta-analysis included only RCTs that compared ICS/LABA/LAMA vs. LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA using a single device.

Methods

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to investigate the effect of single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD. The primary end points were the effect of single-inhaler triple therapy compared with single-inhaler dual therapy on all-cause mortality, the risk of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), and some safety endpoints. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the quality of each randomized trial and the risk of bias.

Results

A total of 25,171 patients suffering from COPD were recruited for the 6 studies. This meta-analysis indicated that single-inhaler triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality than LABA/LAMA FDC (risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.88). Single-inhaler triple therapy reduced the risk of exacerbation and prolonged the time to first exacerbation compared with single-inhaler dual therapy. The FEV1 increased significantly more under single-inhaler triple therapy than under ICS/LABA FDC (mean difference, 103.4 ml; 95% CI 64.65-142.15). The risk of pneumonia was, however, significantly higher with ICS/LAMA/LABA FDC than with LABA/LAMA FDC (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI 1.35-1.80).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that single-inhaler triple therapy is effective in reducing the risk of death of any cause and of moderate or severe exacerbation in COPD patients. However, the risk of pneumonia is higher with ICS/LAMA/LABA FDC than with LABA/LAMA FDC. Trial registration PROSPERO #CRD42020186726.

SUBMITTER: Long H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8299655 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 .

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:BackgroundMultiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT), comprising inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), has been used as an escalation treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, real-world use of MITT has not been investigated in Asia, including South Korea. This study reports baseline characteristics of patients with COPD initiated on MITT in South Korea, and their treatment patterns. Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with COPD exacerbations following MITT initiation were also assessed.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using the South Korea National Health Insurance database (2014-2018). Included patients were ≥ 40 years, had a COPD diagnosis, were newly initiated on MITT and had ≥ 12 months' data both before (baseline) and after index date (the first day with overlapping supply of all MITT components). Treatment immediately before initiation and immediately following discontinuation of MITT were identified, and proportion of days covered (PDC) by MITT was calculated. HRU and costs (per person per year [PPPY]) associated with exacerbations were identified following MITT initiation; costs were calculated using the average 2020 exchange rate (0.0008 USD/KRW).ResultsAmong 37,400 patients, the mean age was 69 (SD 10) years and 73% were males; 56% had ≥ 1 COPD exacerbation during the baseline period, with a mean of 2 (SD 5) events/year. ICS/LABA was the most frequent regimen prescribed immediately before initiation (37%) and immediately following discontinuation (41% of 34,264 patients) of MITT. At 3, 6, and 12 months from treatment initiation, mean PDC was 81%, 63% and 49%, respectively; median treatment duration was 102 days. The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) number of total visits for severe COPD exacerbations was 0.77 PPPY (0.75-0.78); mean PPPY total healthcare costs were 2093 USD.ConclusionsPatients with COPD in South Korea experienced frequent exacerbations prior to MITT, and PDC by MITT was low. Patients may benefit from early optimization of COPD therapy, and greater emphasis on adherence to inhaled COPD therapy. Severe exacerbations were found to incur substantial costs; treatment alternatives that can reduce the rate of severe exacerbations are likely to minimize healthcare costs.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised control trials (RCTs) with strict eligibility criteria can lead to trial populations not commonly seen in clinical practice. We described the proportion of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in England eligible for RCTs investigating treatment with triple therapy.MethodsMEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs investigating triple therapy and eligibility criteria for each trial were extracted. Using routinely collected primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum linked with Hospital Episode Statistics, we defined a population of COPD patients registered at a general practice in England, who were ≥ 40 years old, and had a history of smoking. Inclusion date was January 1, 2020. Patients who died earlier or left the general practice were excluded. Eligibility criteria for each RCT was applied to the population of COPD patients and the proportion of patients meeting each trial eligibility criteria were described.Results26 RCTs investigating triple therapy were identified from the literature. The most common eligibility criteria were post-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted 30-80%, ≥ 2 moderate/≥ 1 severe exacerbations 12-months prior, no moderate exacerbations one-month prior and no severe exacerbations three-months prior, and the use of maintenance therapy or ICS use prior to inclusion. After applying each RCT eligibility criteria to our population of 79,810 COPD patients, a median of 11.2% [interquartile range (IQR) 1.8-17.4] of patients met eligibility criteria. The most discriminatory criteria included the presence exacerbations of COPD and previous COPD related medication use with a median of 67.6% (IQR 8.5-73.4) and 63% (IQR 69.3-38.4) of COPD patients not meeting these criteria, respectively.ConclusionData from these RCTs may not be generalisable to the wider population of people with COPD seen in everyday clinical practice and real-world evidence studies are needed to supplement trials to understand effectiveness in all people with COPD.

Project description:Rationale: In the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy reduced exacerbation risk versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI and mortality risk versus UMEC/VI. However, pneumonia incidence was higher in the inhaled corticosteroid (FF)-containing arms, raising questions about the relative benefit of exacerbation reduction compared with the increased risk of pneumonia.Objectives: Determine benefit-risk of the three treatments by evaluating time-to-first and rates of composite exacerbation or pneumonia outcomes.Methods: We evaluated time-to-first (prespecified) and rates (post hoc) of investigator-reported pneumonia, serious pneumonia leading to hospitalization or death, and the composite endpoints of 1) moderate (required antibiotics/corticosteroids)/severe (hospitalized) exacerbation or pneumonia and 2) severe exacerbation or serious (hospitalized) pneumonia. Analyses were repeated for radiographically confirmed pneumonia (post hoc).Results: Moderate/severe exacerbations occurred in 47%, 49%, and 50% of patients randomized to FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI and UMEC/VI, and pneumonias in 8%, 7%, and 5%, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced the risk of combined moderate/severe exacerbation or pneumonia (time-to-first) versus FF/VI (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.92]) and UMEC/VI (0.87 [0.81-0.94]), as well as the risk of combined severe exacerbation or serious pneumonia versus UMEC/VI (0.83 [0.72-0.96]). FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of combined moderate/severe exacerbation or pneumonia (rate ratio, 0.78 [0.72-0.84]) and combined severe exacerbation or serious pneumonia (rate ratio, 0.76 [0.65-0.89]) versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar for radiographically confirmed pneumonia endpoints.Conclusions: Despite higher incidence of pneumonia in FF-containing arms, these composite exacerbation/pneumonia outcomes support a favorable benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history 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.

Project description:IntroductionIn the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, pneumonia incidence was higher in FF-containing arms. As COPD is a growing problem in Asia, we compared the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in Asia versus non-Asia regions.MethodsIMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial in symptomatic COPD patients with ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year. This pre-specified analysis evaluated the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, mortality, and safety (including pneumonia) in Asia versus non-Asia regions.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients (Asia n = 1644 [16%]). Rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) for moderate/severe exacerbations with FF/UMEC/VI were 0.89 (0.76-1.05) versus FF/VI and 0.86 (0.71-1.04) versus UMEC/VI in Asia, and 0.84 (0.79-0.90) and 0.74 (0.68-0.80) in non-Asia. Efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI on other endpoints was similar in both regions. There was an increased incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia in patients in Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 13%; FF/VI: 14%; UMEC/VI: 6%) compared with non-Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 6%; FF/VI: 5%; UMEC/VI: 4%). The increased risk of pneumonia in patients in Asia was most marked in patients with lower body mass index, lower lung function, and taking inhaled corticosteroids. In post hoc analysis of adjudicated on-treatment all-cause mortality, probabilities of death were numerically lower in both regions with FF/UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.16%; non-Asia: 1.35%) and FF/VI (Asia: 1.77%; non-Asia: 1.21%) versus UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.91%; non-Asia: 2.23%).ConclusionsFF/UMEC/VI provides similar benefits in COPD patients in Asia and non-Asia regions. Clinical benefits of treatment, including reduction in mortality risk, should be weighed against risk of pneumonia, taking account of all known risk factors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identification, NCT02164513.