Blog
About

11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The comparative effectiveness of initiating fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy via pMDI versus DPI in reducing exacerbations and treatment escalation in COPD: a UK database study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a complex progressive disease, is currently the third leading cause of death worldwide. One recommended treatment option is fixed-dose combination therapy of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β-agonist. Clinical trials suggest pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) show similar efficacy and safety profiles in COPD. Real-world observational studies have shown that combination therapy has significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control when delivered via pMDIs. Our aim was to compare effectiveness, in terms of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) prescriptions, for COPD patients initiating fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol xinafoate (SAL) via pMDI versus DPI at two doses of FP (500 and 1,000 μg/d) using a real-life, historical matched cohort study. COPD patients with ≥2 years continuous practice data, ≥2 prescriptions for FP/SAL via pMDI/DPI, and no prescription for ICS were selected from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were matched 1:1. Rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and odds of LAMA prescription were analyzed using conditional Poisson and logistic regression, respectively. Of 472 patients on 500 μg/d, we observed fewer moderate/severe exacerbations in patients using pMDI (99 [42%]) versus DPI (115 [49%]) (adjusted rate ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 0.93), an important result since the pMDI is not licensed for COPD in the UK, USA, or China. At 1,000 μg/d, we observed lower LAMA prescription for pMDI (adjusted odds ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0.91), but no difference in exacerbation rates, potentially due to higher dose of ICS overcoming low lung delivery from the DPI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of incorrect use of dry powder inhalers on management of patients with asthma and COPD.

          Incorrect usage of inhaler devices might have a major influence on the clinical effectiveness of the delivered drug. This issue is poorly addressed in management guidelines. This article presents the results of a systematic literature review of studies evaluating incorrect use of established dry powder inhalers (DPIs) by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overall, we found that between 4% and 94% of patients, depending on the type of inhaler and method of assessment, do not use their inhalers correctly. The most common errors made included failure to exhale before actuation, failure to breath-hold after inhalation, incorrect positioning of the inhaler, incorrect rotation sequence, and failure to execute a forceful and deep inhalation. Inefficient DPI technique may lead to insufficient drug delivery and hence to insufficient lung deposition. As many as 25% of patients have never received verbal inhaler technique instruction, and for those that do, the quality and duration of instruction is not adequate and not reinforced by follow-up checks. This review demonstrates that incorrect DPI technique with established DPIs is common among patients with asthma and COPD, and suggests that poor inhalation technique has detrimental consequences for clinical efficacy. Regular assessment and reinforcement of correct inhalation technique are considered by health professionals and caregivers to be an essential component of successful asthma management. Improvement of asthma and COPD management could be achieved by new DPIs that are easy to use correctly and are forgiving of poor inhalation technique, thus ensuring more successful drug delivery.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy: Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology.

            The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for beta-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, beta2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested beta2-agonists) proved to have useable data. None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pneumonia risk in COPD patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination: TORCH study results.

              Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are important in reducing exacerbation frequency associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, little is known about the risk of associated infections. In a post hoc analysis of the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, we analysed and identified potential risk factors for adverse event reports of pneumonia in this randomised, double-blind trial comparing twice-daily inhaled salmeterol (SAL) 50 microg, fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 microg, and the combination (SFC) with placebo in 6,184 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD over 3 yrs. Despite a higher withdrawal rate in the placebo arm, after adjusting for time on treatment, a greater rate of pneumonia was reported in the FP and SFC treatment arms (84 and 88 per 1,000 treatment-yrs, respectively) compared with SAL and placebo (52 and 52 per 1,000 treatment-yrs, respectively). Risk factors for pneumonia were age > or =55 yrs, forced expiratory volume in 1 s <50% predicted, COPD exacerbations in the year prior to the study, worse Medical Research Council dyspnoea scores and body mass index <25 kg.m(-2). No increase in pneumonia deaths with SFC was observed; this could not be concluded for FP. Despite the benefits of ICS-containing regimens in COPD management, healthcare providers should remain vigilant regarding the possible development of pneumonia as a complication in COPD patients receiving such therapies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2017
                17 August 2017
                : 12
                : 2445-2454
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Trials and Health Research, Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine, Plymouth University Peninsula School of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK
                [2 ]Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore
                [3 ]Cambridge Research Support, Cambridge, UK
                [4 ]Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK
                [5 ]Mundipharma International Limited, Cambridge, UK
                [6 ]Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David Price, Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK AB25 2ZD, Tel +65 6802 9724, Email dprice@ 123456opri.sg
                Article
                copd-12-2445
                10.2147/COPD.S141409
                5566416
                © 2017 Jones et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article