The pharmacological strategy to manage chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD), as recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic
Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), is to initiate treatment with long-acting
bronchodilators, namely long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting
β2-agonists (LABAs), alone or in combination (1). For patients with frequent COPD
exacerbations and significant
dyspnea despite these bronchodilators, treatment is intensified to triple therapy
by
adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) (1). These
recommendations have remained quite stable over time, although the 2019 recommendations
introduce the use of blood eosinophil levels in the decision to add ICSs (2).
A global phenomenon, however, is the large gap between these recommendations and clinical
practice, particularly in respect to the overuse of ICSs. In the United States, the
SPIROMICS (Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study) found that
50% of patients were treated with nonindicated ICS-containing regimens (3). The POPE
(Phenotypes of COPD in Central and
Eastern Europe) study found that over 50% of nonexacerbators were using ICSs, including
37% on triple therapy (4). Apart from the
absence of effectiveness, a major concern around such nonindicated ICS overuse is
the
increased risk of pneumonia and of other adverse events associated with ICS (5).
In response to these worldwide trends, the 2019 GOLD recommendations introduced the
notion of withdrawing ICSs for these patients and stepping down to long-acting
bronchodilators (2). This follows randomized
trials and commentaries on the safety of ICS withdrawal in COPD (6–9). Recently, the
European Respiratory Society presented evidence-based guidelines for ICS withdrawal
in
COPD (10).
In this issue of the Journal, Han and colleagues (pp. 1237–1243) report on a reanalysis
of the IMPACT (Informing the
Pathway of COPD Treatment) trial according to baseline ICS use to provide data on
the
effects of ICS withdrawal in COPD (11). The
trial recruited over 10,000 patients with moderate to very severe COPD and a recent
history of exacerbation, including patients with a history of asthma. At screening,
71%
of the study patients were on an ICS-containing treatment (40% on triple therapy)
for at
least 3 months. Thus, IMPACT includes a large number
(n = 7,360) of patients who had ICS abruptly
withdrawn and were randomly assigned to either an ICS-based treatment (i.e., continue
ICS) or a LAMA–LABA bronchodilator (i.e., withdraw ICS), providing an opportunity
for Han and colleagues to assess the effects of ICS withdrawal on the risk of COPD
exacerbation.
Han and colleagues present their results in terms of comparing triple with
LAMA–LABA therapy, but we favor the alternative presentation based on reversing
the estimates to produce the effects of ICS withdrawal, namely comparing
LAMA–LABA with triple therapy, which more accurately reflects the paper’s
title. Thus, among ICS users at baseline, the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations
was significantly increased by 41%, and the rate of severe exacerbations was increased
by 54% with LAMA–LABA (ICS withdrawal) compared with triple therapy (ICS
continuation). This analysis of the IMPACT trial suggests that ICS withdrawal has
a
significant detrimental effect by increasing the frequency of moderate and severe
exacerbations.
Two trials aimed specifically at evaluating the effects of ICS withdrawal in COPD
provide
useful comparisons. The WISDOM (Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids during Optimized
Bronchodilator Management) trial enrolled close to 2,500 patients with severe or very
severe COPD and a history of at least one COPD exacerbation (6). All patients received
triple therapy during a 6-week run-in
period, after which they were randomly assigned to continue triple therapy or to
withdraw the ICS component gradually over a 12-week period. Over the 12-month follow-up,
the rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was no different between ICS
withdrawal and continuation groups (rate ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI],
0.92–1.18; my calculation). The INSTEAD (Indacaterol: Switching Non-exacerbating
Patients with Moderate COPD from Salmeterol/Fluticasone to Indacaterol) trial included
581 patients with moderate COPD and no COPD exacerbations in the previous year who
received a LABA ICS for at least 3 months and then were randomly assigned to a LAMA
or
LABA ICS (7). Over the 6-month follow-up, the
rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was no different between ICS withdrawal
and continuation (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62–1.20). In contrast, the current
reanalysis of the IMPACT trial suggests that the corresponding “ICS
withdrawal” rate ratio is 1.41 (95% CI, 1.30–1.54) among prior users of
any ICS and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.30–1.59) among prior users of triple therapy (Figure 1)
(11).
Figure 1.
Rate ratio and 95% confidence interval of moderate or severe chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease exacerbations comparing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)
withdrawal with ICS continuation from the WISDOM (Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids
during Optimized Bronchodilator Management), INSTEAD (Indacaterol: Switching
Non-exacerbating Patients with Moderate COPD from Salmeterol/Fluticasone to
Indacaterol), and IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease Treatment) trials, with the latter computed among all 7,360 users of
ICSs and among the 2,406 users of triple therapy at baseline (6, 7, 11).
What could explain these large differences? First, the patient populations were
different. WISDOM enrolled patients with an FEV1 of less than 50% predicted
and a history of at least one COPD exacerbation in the previous year, which is identical
to the first type of patients selected in IMPACT. However, IMPACT also included a
second
type of patients, with an FEV1 of 50% to 80% predicted and two or more
moderate exacerbations or one severe exacerbation in the previous year. Thus, 100%
of
this GOLD 2 subgroup in IMPACT were frequent exacerbators compared with an expected
22%,
as observed in the ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive
Surrogate Endpoints) cohort (12). Moreover, a
history of asthma was permitted in IMPACT, but no such information was provided in
WISDOM.
The INSTEAD trial included patients with an FEV1 of 50% to 80% predicted, no
exacerbation in the previous year, and no history of asthma, whose ICS-based treatment
for more than 3 months was not recommended. In contrast, for patients with this degree
of airway obstruction, the IMPACT trial required frequent exacerbations and allowed
a
“history of asthma,” a significant risk factor for moderate and severe
COPD exacerbations (12–14). A second explanation for the differences is
the abruptness of ICS withdrawal in IMPACT compared with the gradual ICS dose reduction
over the first 12 weeks of follow-up in WISDOM. The INSTEAD trial also had an abrupt
withdrawal, though the patients did not have prior exacerbations and had been
inappropriately treated with ICS.
A promising aspect of the IMPACT trial is its varied patient population. Indeed, the
presence of moderate to very severe airway obstruction, frequent and less frequent
exacerbations, history of asthma, and blood eosinophil counts are all significant
risk
factors for COPD exacerbations, thus allowing the identification of profiles of patients
who would benefit from ICS withdrawal or continuation (12–15).
Another potentially strategic marker is the occurrence of an early exacerbation. Indeed,
we previously showed that the difference in the occurrence of the first exacerbation
between LAMA–LABA and triple therapy is only observed in the first month of
follow-up, with equal occurrence in the subsequent 11 months (16, 17). This suggests
that there is a subset of patients who are harmed early by ICS withdrawal, whereas
the
remaining patients are equally safe when stepped down to LAMA–LABA therapy.
Figure E1 of Han and colleagues shows that early exacerbators (in the first month)
represent approximately 20% of the 1,481 patients randomly allocated to
LAMA–LABA, whereas for the remaining 80%, the effectiveness is similar between
LAMA–LABA and triple therapy. The analysis of Han and colleagues that excludes
early exacerbations, rather than early exacerbators (likely the
frequent exacerbators), fall short of addressing this issue (11).
In all, this analysis of the IMPACT trial by Han and colleagues provides some useful
information on the potential effects of ICS withdrawal on the risk of exacerbations
in
COPD. However, the skewed patient population resulted in greatly different results
from
trials specifically aimed at studying ICS withdrawal. Moreover, by pooling rather
than
splitting, this analysis fails to identify the key patient groups who could benefit
from
ICS withdrawal or from continuation. Indeed, stratified analyses by characteristics
such
as a history of asthma, GOLD grade severity of airway obstruction, exacerbation
frequency, and the degree of eosinophilia, as well as a study of the early exacerbators
could provide an informative model of precision medicine for COPD management (18,
19).
Such a modern approach of targeted treatment could permit the identification of subsets
of patients who will benefit from ICS withdrawal or its continuation, thus reducing
unnecessary harms from the adverse effects of these drugs, particularly pneumonia
(18).