Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Review)

Background The long-acting bronchodilator tiotropium and single inhaler combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists are both commonly used for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of using tiotropium and combination therapy together for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear. Objectives To assess the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to tiotropium compared to tiotropium or combination therapy alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (July 2010) and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria We included parallel, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer, comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonists combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium alone or combination therapy alone. Data collection and analysis We independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials. Main results Three trials (1021 patients) were included comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium alone. The duration, type of combination treatment and definition of outcomes varied. The limited data led to wide confidence intervals and there was no significant statistical difference in mortality, participants with one or more hospitalisations, episodes of pneumonia or adverse events. The results on exacerbations were heterogeneous and were not combined. The mean health-related quality of life and lung function were significantly different when combination therapy was added to tiotropium, although the size of the average benefits of additional combination therapy were small, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -2.49; 95% CI -4.04 to -0.94) and forced expiratory volume in one second (MD 0.06 L; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08).One trial (60 patients) compared tiotropium plus combination therapy to combination therapy alone. The results from the trial were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison. Authors' conclusions To date there is uncertainty regarding the long-term benefits and risks of treatment with tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy on mortality, hospitalisation, exacerbations of COPD and pneumonia. The addition of combination treatment to tiotropium has shown improvements in average health-related quality of life and lung function

Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta2-agonist versus tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background Combination therapy (inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists) and tiotropium are both used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is uncertainty about the relative benefits and harms of these treatments. Objectives To assess the relative effects of inhaled combination therapy and tiotropium on patients with COPD. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (March 2010) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted authors of the studies.Selection criteriaWe included only parallel, randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled combination corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist against inhaled tiotropium bromide. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Main results One large two year trial (INSPIRE) and two smaller, shorter trials (Dawber 2005; SCO40034) were found. The results from these trials were not pooled. The number of withdrawals from each arm of the INSPIRE trial was large and imbalanced and outcome data was not collected for patients who withdrew, raising concerns about the reliability of data from this study.In INSPIRE, there were more deaths on tiotropium than on fluticasone/salmeterol (Peto OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93). This was a statistically significant difference, however the number of withdrawals from each of the arms was eleven times larger than the observed number of deaths for participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and seven times larger for participants on tiotropium. There were more all cause hospital admissions in patents on fluticasone/salmeterol than those on tiotropium in INSPIRE (Peto OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67). There was no statistically significant difference in hospital admissions due to exacerbations, the primary outcome of INSPIRE. There was no significant difference in exacerbations in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol compared to tiotropium. Exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids were less frequent in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol (Rate Ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99). Conversely exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics were more frequent in patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol (Rate Ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38). There were more cases of pneumonia in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol than those on tiotropium (Peto OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.40). Confidence intervals for these outcomes do not reflect the additional uncertainty arising from unknown outcome data for patients who withdrew. Authors' conclusions Since the proportion of missing outcome data compared to the observed outcome data is enough to induce a clinically relevant bias in the intervention effect, the relative efficacy and safety of combined inhalers and tiotropium remains uncertain. Further large, long-term randomised controlled trials comparing combination therapy to tiotropium are required, including adequate follow-up of all participants randomised (similar to the procedures undertaken in TORCH and UPLIFT). Additional studies comparing alternative inhaled LABA/steroid combination therapies with tiotropium are also required

The effect of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Review)

BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropiumare commonly used, either on their own or in combination, for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are symptomatic and who suffer repeated exacerbations are recommended to add inhaled corticosteroids to their bronchodilator treatment. However, the benefits and risks of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (February 2011) and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaWe included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.Main resultsOne trial (293 patients) was identified comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist. The study was of good methodological quality, however it suffered from high and uneven withdrawal rates between the treatment arms. There is currently insufficient evidence to know how much difference the addition of inhaled corticosteroids makes to people who are taking tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for COPD.Authors' conclusionsThe relative efficacy and safety of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients remains uncertain and additional trials are required to answer this question

Will the metaverse be out of control? Addressing the ethical and governance implications of a developing virtual society

The development of the metaverse presents novel ethical challenges to society. There is a lack of knowledge of the potential metaverse and its effects on society. In this article, several ethical challenges of the future metaverse are discussed to responsibly prepare for the metaverse. A systematic literature review was conducted that showed the void of literature, meta-information of the state of the field, and level of maturity of the research. After defining the metaverse concept and reviewing its constructs, we present an overview of ethical challenges for the metaverse which ask for governance awareness and responsible action in the future. These ethical challenges have been clustered in the following pairs: Privacy &amp; Freedom, Duplicate &amp; False identities, Abuse &amp; Manipulation, Trade &amp; Ownership, Censorship &amp; Surveillance, Democracy &amp; Participation, and Regulation &amp; Control. Related to these pairs, we also show some potential governance topics as a research agenda for the metaverse.</p

Long-acting beta(2)-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease are unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinicaltrials.gov up to January 2012.Selection criteriaWe included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta2-agonist against tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.Main resultsFive trials were included in this review, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All of them compared tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist to tiotropium alone, but only one trial additionally compared a combination of the two types of bronchodilator with long-acting beta2-agonist (formoterol) alone. Two studies used the long-acting beta2-agonist indacaterol, two used formoterol and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone (3263 patients), treatment with tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist resulted in a slightly larger improvement in the mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.61; 95% CI -2.93 to -0.29). In the control arm, tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with both treatments the improvement was a fall of 6.1 units from baseline (on average). High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator FEV1 showed a small mean increase with the addition of long-acting beta2-agonist (MD 0.07 L; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09) over the control arm, which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L on tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There were wide confidence intervals around these outcomes and moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.The results from the one trial comparing the combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist to long-acting beta2-agonist alone (417 participants) were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.Authors' conclusionsThe results from this review indicate a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life for patients on a combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist compared to tiotropium alone, but it is not clear how clinically important this mean difference may be. Hospital admission and mortality have not been shown to be altered by adding long-acting beta(2)-agonists to tiotropium. There were not enough data to determine the relative efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist compared to long-acting beta2-agonist alone. There were insufficient data to make comparisons between the different long-acting beta2-agonists when used in addition to tiotropium

Towards tailoring of self-management for patients with chronic heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

Introduction Self-management interventions in patients with chronic conditions have received increasing attention over the past few years, yet the meta-analyses encountered considerable heterogeneity in results. This suggests that the effectiveness of self-management interventions must be assessed in the context of which components are responsible for eliciting the effect and in which subgroups of patients the intervention works best. The aim of the present study is to identify condition-transcending determinants of success of self-management interventions in two parallel individual patient data meta-analyses of self-management trials in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods and analysis Investigators of 53 randomised trials (32 in CHF and 21 in COPD) will be requested to share their de-identified individual patient data. Data will be analysed using random effects models, taking clustering within studies into account. Effect modification by age, sex, disease severity, symptom status, comorbid conditions and level of education will be assessed. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. Ethics and dissemination The de-identified individual patient data are used only for the purpose for which they were originally collected and for which ethical approval has been obtained by the original investigators. Knowledge on the effective ingredients of self-management programmes and identification of subgroups of patients in which those interventions are most effective will guide the development of evidence-based personalised self-management interventions for patients with CHF and COPD as well as with other chronic diseases

Unmet needs of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): A qualitative study on patients and doctors

Background: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic disease with repeated exacerbations resulting in gradual debilitation. The quality of life has been shown to be poor in patients with COPD despite efforts to improve self-management. However, the evidence on the benefit of self-management in COPD is conflicting. Whether this could be due to other unmet needs of patients have not been investigated. Therefore, we aimed to explore unmet needs of patients from both patients and doctors managing COPD. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with doctors and patients in Malaysia. We used convenience sampling to recruit patients until data saturation. Eighteen patients and eighteen doctors consented and were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked by the interviewers. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. Results: The themes were similar for both the patients and doctors. Three main themes emerged: knowledge and awareness of COPD, psychosocial and physical impact of COPD and the utility of self-management. Knowledge about COPD was generally poor. Patients were not familiar with the term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD. The word ‘asthma’ was used synonymously with COPD by both patients and doctors. Most patients experienced difficulties in their psychosocial and physical functions such as breathlessness, fear and helplessness. Most patients were not confident in self-managing their illness and prefer a more passive role with doctors directing their care. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study showed that knowledge of COPD is generally poor. There was mislabelling of COPD as asthma by both patients and physicians. This could have resulted in the lack of understanding of treatment options, outcomes, and prognosis of COPD. The misconception that cough due to COPD was contagious, and breathlessness that resulted from COPD, had important physical and psychosocial impact, and could lead to social isolation. Most patients and physicians did not favour self-management approaches, suggesting innovations based on self-management may be of limited benefit

Cochrane corner: Is integrated disease management for patients with COPD effective?

Patients with COPD experience respiratory symptoms, impairments of daily living and recurrent exacerbations. The aim of integrated disease management (IDM) is to establish a programme of different components of care (ie, self-management, exercise, nutrition) in which several healthcare providers (ie, nurses, general practitioners, physiotherapists, pulmonologists) collaborate to provide efficient and good quality of care. The aim of this Cochrane systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of IDM on quality of life, exercise tolerance and exacerbation related outcomes. Searches for all available evidence were carried out in various databases. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisted of interventions with multidisciplinary (≥2 healthcare providers) and multitreatment (≥2 components) IDM interventions with duration of at least 3 months. Two reviewers independently searched, assessed and extracted data of all RCTs. A total of 26 RCTs were included, involving 2997 patients from 11 different countries with a followup varying from 3 to 24 months. In all 68% of the patients were men, with a mean age of 68 years and a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) predicted value of 44.3%. Patients treated with an IDM programme improved significantly on quality of life scores and reported a clinically relevant improvement of 44 m on 6 min walking distance, compared to controls. Furthermore, the number of patients with ≥1 respiratory related hospital admission reduced from 27 to 20 per 100 patients. Duration of hospitalisation decreased significantly by nearly 4 days

Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro. MAIN RESULTS: We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings