[Hearing loss].

T. Yamasoba

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Serum levels of immunoglobulin and complement in giant-cell arteritis.

B. Malmvall,B. Bengtsson,B. Kaijser,L. Nilsson,K. Alestig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.1976.03270170042025

1976-10-18

Abstract:The levels of IgG, total complement, and complement factors C3 and C4 were elevated in serum from patients with giant-cell arteritis as compared to a control group of patients in the same range of age. No increase of the IgM concentration was found. The concentration of IgA was higher in men with giant-cell arteritis as compared to men in a control group. This increase of IgA was not seen in women. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the studied variables between those with a histologically verified arteritis on temporal biopsy specimens and those without.
LABA/LAMA versus LABA/ICS fixed-dose combinations in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a modeling analysis of literature aggregate data

Yiwen Gong,Zichao Sui,Yinghua Lv,Qingshan Zheng,Lujin Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-023-03543-y

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in preventing moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Methods: A literature search was performed using public databases. The time course characteristics of the probability of a moderate or severe exacerbation in stable COPD patients treated with LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS FDCs were described by the parametric survival function. A random-effects model in a single-arm meta-analysis was used to analyze the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and pneumonia. Results: Twenty studies including 23,955 participants were included. The proportion of participants with a history of COPD exacerbation (%) in the previous year and the postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (%predicted) were important factors affecting drug efficacy. After adjusting the above factors to median levels of 100% and 45.5%, respectively, the moderate or severe exacerbation rates at 52 weeks for olodaterol/tiotropium, formoterol/budesonide, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, formoterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/fluticasone, salmeterol/fluticasone, and vilanterol/umeclidinium were 38.3%, 41.0%, 42.6%, 47.0%, 47.5%, 47.9%, and 53.0%, respectively. In terms of safety, significant differences were observed among drugs containing different LABA/LAMA FDCs. Conclusions: This study showed that not all LABA/LAMA FDCs were superior to LABA/ICS FDCs in safety and in preventing moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with stable COPD, providing important quantitative information for COPD-related guidelines.
[On the immunochemistry of the O antigens of Enterobacteriaceae. V. The antigen factors in isolated Salmonella O antigens].

O. Luederitz,G. O'neill,O. Westphal

Abstract:
Impact of ICS/LABA and LABA/LAMA FDCs on functional and clinical outcomes in COPD: A network meta-analysis

Luigino Calzetta,Fabiano Di Marco,Francesco Blasi,Mario Cazzola,Stefano Centanni,Claudio Micheletto,Andrea Rossi,Paola Rogliani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2019.101855

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) and LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) FDCs are extensively used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of the present network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of all the currently available dual therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods: A network meta-analysis (≥3 nodes, Bayesian method) was performed by searching for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the impact of different LABA/LAMA FDCs vs. ICS/LABA FDCs on both primary and secondary endpoints. The primary endpoints were: the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and the risk of exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). The secondary endpoints were: peak FEV1, St' George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), and rescue medication use. Results: Data of 17,734 COPD patients were extracted from 16 RCTs. The length of treatment ranged from 6 weeks to 52 weeks. All LABA/LAMA FDCs, except aclidinium/formoterol, produced a statistically significant improvement compared to ICS/LABAs in trough FEV1. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis indicated that umeclidinium/vilanterol, glycopyrronium/indacaterol and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate were the most effective FDCs in improving trough FEV1. Across the FDCs analyzed for the risk of AECOPD, glycopyrronium/indacaterol significantly reduced the exacerbation risk compared to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and resulted the most effective combination in the SUCRA analysis. Similar trend were also observed for the peak FEV1. No significant differences were detected across the investigated FDCs regarding SGRQ, TDI, and use of rescue medication. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis show that LABA/LAMA combinations are consistently more effective than ICS/LABA FDCs for most of the evaluated outcomes. However, differences have also been observed between FDCs belonging to the same class. Across the investigated LABA/LAMA FDCs, glycopyrronium/indacaterol revealed a consistent and robust efficacy profile.
LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gustavo J Rodrigo,David Price,Antonio Anzueto,Dave Singh,Pablo Altman,Giovanni Bader,Francesco Patalano,Robert Fogel,Konstantinos Kostikas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S130482

2017-03-17

Abstract:Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as β2-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks' LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results: Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P<0.0001), with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in FEV1 of >100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P<0.0001), but not versus LABA/ICS, and reduced rescue medication use versus both (P<0.0001 and P=0.001, respectively). LABA/LAMA significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with LABA/ICS (RR 0.82, 95% CI: [0.75, 0.91]). Adverse event (AE) incidence was no different for LABA/LAMA versus LAMA treatment, but it was lower versus LABA/ICS (RR 0.94, 95% CI: [0.89, 0.99]), including a lower pneumonia risk (RR 0.59, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.81]). LABA/LAMA presented a lower risk for withdrawals due to lack of efficacy versus LAMA (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.87]) and due to AEs versus LABA/ICS (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: [0.69, 0.99]). Conclusion: The greater efficacy and comparable safety profiles observed with LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA or LABA/ICS support their potential role as first-line treatment options in COPD. These findings are of direct relevance to clinical practice because we included all currently available LABA/LAMAs and comparators, only at doses approved for clinical use.
Injuries to the inferior vena cava and their management.

I. Turpin,D. State,A. Schwartz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-197712000-00019

1977-12-01

Abstract:Injuries to the inferior vena cava are being seen with increasing frequency in the civilian population. A review of the experience at UCLA/Harbor General Hospital Medical Center over a ten year period (1966 to 1976) discloses thirty-four patients with major injuries to the inferior vena cava, with an overall mortality of 53%. The factors that appear critical to patient survival are: (1) level of injury (suprarenal versus infrarenal sites); (2) presence or absence of profound shock on admission; and (3) the speed with which diagnosis is made and treatment carried out. Technical considerations regarding identification and handling of inferior vena caval injuries are presented. The mortality rate for major inferior vena caval injuries remains distressingly high and serves as a challenge for future improvement.
Direct selected multireference configuration interaction calculations for large systems using localized orbitals.

N. Ben Amor,Fabienne Bessac,S. Hoyau,D. Maynau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3600351

2011-07-01

Abstract:A selected multireference configuration interaction (CI) method and the corresponding code are presented. It is based on a procedure of localization that permits to obtain well localized occupied and virtual orbitals. Due to the local character of the electron correlation, using local orbitals allows one to neglect long range interactions. In a first step, three topological matrices are constructed, which determine whether two orbitals must be considered as interacting or not. Two of them concern the truncation of the determinant basis, one for occupied/virtual, the second one for dispersive interactions. The third one concerns the truncation of the list of two electron integrals. This approach permits a fine analysis of each kind of approximation and induces a huge reduction of the CI size and of the computational time. The procedure is tested on linear polyene aldehyde chains, dissociation potential energy curve, and reaction energy of a pesticide-Ca(2+) complex and finally on transition energies of a large iron system presenting a light-induced excited spin-state trapping effect.
Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study

David M Kern,Jill Davis,Setareh A Williams,Ozgur Tunceli,Bingcao Wu,Sally Hollis,Charlie Strange,Frank Trudo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-015-0210-x

IF: 5.8

2015-04-23

Respiratory Research

Abstract:BackgroundInhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) have emerged as first line therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with exacerbation history. No randomized clinical trial has compared exacerbation rates among COPD patients receiving budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) and fluticasone/salmeterol combination (FSC) to date, and only limited comparative data are available. This study compared the real-world effectiveness of approved BFC and FSC treatments among matched cohorts of COPD patients in a large US managed care setting.MethodsCOPD patients (≥40 years) naive to ICS/LABA who initiated BFC or FSC treatments between 03/01/2009-03/31/2012 were identified in a geographically diverse US managed care database and followed for 12 months; index date was defined as first prescription fill date. Patients with a cancer diagnosis or chronic (≥180 days) oral corticosteroid (OCS) use within 12 months prior to index were excluded. Patients were matched 1-to-1 on demographic and pre-initiation clinical characteristics using propensity scores from a random forest model. The primary efficacy outcome was COPD exacerbation rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes included exacerbation rates by event type and healthcare resource utilization. Pneumonia objectives included rates of any diagnosis of pneumonia and pneumonia-related healthcare resource utilization.ResultsMatching of the identified 3,788 BFC and 6,439 FSC patients resulted in 3,697 patients in each group. Matched patients were well balanced on age (mean = 64 years), gender (BFC: 52% female; FSC: 54%), prior COPD-related medication use, healthcare utilization, and comorbid conditions. During follow-up, no significant difference was seen between BFC and FSC patients for number of COPD-related exacerbations overall (rate ratio [RR] = 1.02, 95% CI = [0.96,1.09], p = 0.56) or by event type: COPD-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.96), COPD-related ED visits (RR = 1.11), and COPD-related office/outpatient visits with OCS and/or antibiotic use (RR = 1.01). The proportion of patients diagnosed with pneumonia during the post-index period was similar for patients in each group (BFC = 17.3%, FSC = 19.0%, odds ratio = 0.92 [0.81,1.04], p = 0.19), and no difference was detected for pneumonia-related healthcare utilization by place of service.ConclusionThis study demonstrated no difference in COPD-related exacerbations or pneumonia events between BFC and FSC treatment groups for patients new to ICS/LABA treatment in a real-world setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01921127.

respiratory system
A Comparison of the Real-Life Clinical Effectiveness of the Leading Licensed ICS/LABA Combination Inhalers in the Treatment for COPD

Simon Wan Yau Ming,John Haughney,Dermot Ryan,Iain Small,Federico Lavorini,Alberto Papi,Dave Singh,David M G Halpin,John R Hurst,Shishir Patel,Matthias Ochel,Janwillem Kocks,Victoria Carter,Antony Hardjojo,David B Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S263745

2020-11-26

Abstract:Introduction: The Fostair® 100/6 (BDP/FF) pressurized metered-dose inhaler, delivering an extrafine formulation, is licensed for asthma and COPD in the UK. However, its real-life effectiveness for COPD has not been evaluated. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of BDP/FF against other licensed ICS/LABA combination inhalers: the Seretide® Accuhaler® (FP/SAL) and the Symbicort® Turbohaler® (BUD/FF). Methods: A matched historical cohort study was conducted using records of patients with diagnostic codes for COPD from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD). Patients who had received BDP/FF as their first ICS/LABA were matched 1:1 with patients who had received FP/SAL or BUD/FF, resulting in two matched comparisons. Additional analysis was conducted on patients who had never had diagnostic codes for asthma. Noninferiority in terms of the proportion of patients with moderate/severe COPD exacerbations on the different inhalers in the following year was assessed. Noninferiority was achieved if the upper CI limit were ≤1.2. Results: This study included 537 and 540 patient pairs in the BDP/FF vs FP/SAL cohort and the BDP/FF vs BUD/FF cohort, respectively. The proportion of patients with COPD exacerbations in the BDP/FF group was not significantly different from either the FP/SAL (68.7% vs 70.2%, AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19) or BUD/FF group (68.5% vs 69.4%, AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58-1.08). Noninferiority of BDP/FF in preventing COPD exacerbations was fulfilled in both comparisons. In patients without asthma, BDP/FF was also noninferior to BUD/FF (proportion with COPD exacerbations, 67.8% vs 64.7%, AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51-1.1997). Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of patients prescribed BDP/FF had COPD exacerbations than FP/SAL (64.8% vs 73.7%, AOR 0.64 95% CI 0.43-0.96). Conclusion: Initiating ICS/LABA treatment of COPD with extrafine-formulation BDP/FF was noninferior in preventing moderate/severe exacerbations compared to FP/SAL and BUD/FF.
Effectiveness of Treatment With Dual Bronchodilation (LABA/LAMA) Compared With Combination Therapy (LABA/ICS) for Patients With COPD: A Population-Based Study

Mònica Monteagudo,Alexa Nuñez,Miriam Barrecheguren,Marc Miravitlles

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2022.05.002

Abstract:Background: Initiation of treatment of COPD with a combination of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is frequent irrespective of the risk of exacerbations. Method: We performed a retrospective, population-based, observational study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a LABA/long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) and LABA/ICS in patients with COPD over a one-year follow-up. Data were obtained from an administrative healthcare claims database. The primary outcome was the risk of first exacerbation. A sensitivity analysis was conducted in a propensity-score matched population. Results: The population consisted of 14,046 COPD patients; 11,329 (80.6%) initiated LABA/ICS and 2717 (19.4%) LABA/LAMA. The matched population included 1650 patients in each arm. During follow-up, 69.6% patients in the LABA/ICS group and 64.4% in the LABA/LAMA group presented an exacerbation. The mean time to the first exacerbation was 6.03 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.94-6.12) for LABA/ICS and 6.4 months (95%CI: 6.21-6.59) for LABA/LAMA; p<0.001. The time to scalation to triple therapy was also significantly prolonged in LABA/LAMA. Similar results were obtained in the matched population. LABA/LAMA was associated with a significantly lower risk of exacerbations and escalation to triple therapy compared to LABA/ICS, except in patients with frequent exacerbations and high blood eosinophils in which no differences were observed in the time to first exacerbation. Conclusion: Initiation of treatment with LABA/LAMA was associated with a lower risk of exacerbation and escalation to triple therapy compared to LABA/ICS in the majority of patients with COPD in primary care.
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety Profile of Triple Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD: A Meta-Analysis and IBiS Score

Paola Rogliani,Josuel Ora,Francesco Cavalli,Mario Cazzola,Luigino Calzetta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154491

2022-08-01

Abstract:Background: Triple fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy is recommended in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing frequent exacerbations and/or symptoms not controlled by dual FDCs. Since no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared the different inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (ICS/LABA/LAMA) FDCs, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of the current available ICS/LABA/LAMA FDCs in COPD. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed by connecting beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium bromide or glycopyrrolate (BDP/FOR/GLY), budesonide (BUD)/GLY/FOR, and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) FDCs via ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA FDCs arms. The safety and efficacy profiles were investigated, and the Implemented Bidimensional Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (IBiS) was carried out. Protocol registration: CRD42022301189. Results: Data from 21,809 COPD patients were extracted from the ETHOS, IMPACT, KRONOS, and TRILOGY studies. No significant (p > 0.05) differences were detected across the triple FDCs with respect to the risk of exacerbation, trough forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), transition dyspnea index (TDI), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), risk of serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular (CV) SAEs, pneumonia, and all-cause mortality. According to IBiS score, BDP/FOR/GLY 200/12/25 µg twice daily (BID) was the FDC reporting the best combined efficacy/safety profile (area 41.41%), although FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg once daily (QD) showed the greatest efficacy profile (50.54%). The protection against mortality related to the dose of ICS. Conclusions: All triple FDCs are effective and safe in COPD regardless of the regimen of administration (twice daily vs. once daily), with no relevant difference in the risk of CV SAEs and pneumonia.
Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Usman Maqsood,Terence N Ho,Karen Palmer,Fiona JR Eccles,Mohammed Munavvar,Ran Wang,Iain Crossingham,David JW Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012930.pub2

IF: 8.4

2019-10-07

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses. We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD. We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication. We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment. Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables. We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0. -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Immunoperoxidase localization of carcinoembryonic antigen in benign and malignant colorectal tumors and related mucosa.

R. Stenger,A. Chabon,F. Primus,W. Wolff

Abstract:
The efficacy and safety of three types of combination therapies in patients with moderate to very severe COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhou Ruirui,Wang Liqun,Sun Tong,Wu Ziyang,Xie Xiaohui

2019-01-01

Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract:Inhaled drugs,including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs),long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs),are the main therapeutic options for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of LAMA+LABA+ICS,LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS therapies.The Pubmed,Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy (moderate-to-severe exacerbations,lung function and quality of life) and safety (adverse events (AEs),severe adverse events (SAEs),withdrawals due to AEs,deaths and pneumonia) of LAMA+LABA+ICS,LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS in COPD patients.Two investigators independently searched eligible studies and extracted relevant information.The data were analyzed using the Review Manager software,and the quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.A total of 27 studies were included,and majority of the studies showed low risk of bias.Moderate-to-severe exacerbations were lower after LAMA+LABA+ICS therapy compared with the LABA+ICS (RR =0.66;95％ CI:0.59-0.74) and LAMA+LABA therapies (RR =0.88;95％ CI:0.82-0.94).Lung function was significantly improved after LAMA+LABA+ICS compared with LAMA+ICS treatment.FEV 1,peak FEV 1 and trough FEV 1 were significantly increased by 100 mL,150 mL and 120 mL,respectively,in LAMA+LABA+ICS therapy compared with LAMA+ICS.In addition,LAMA+LABA therapy resulted in increased FEV1,peak FEV1 and trough FEV1 by 80 mL,90 mL and 70 mL,respectively,compared with LAMA+ICS.SGRQ-total score was used to assess quality of life of COPD patients,which indicated that LAMA+LABA+ICS therapy was associated with slightly greater decrease compared with LABA+ICS (MD =-1.33;95％ CI:-2.35 to-0.30).No significant differences were found across all three treatment combinations in term of AEs,SAEs,withdrawals due to AEs and deaths.However,the risk of pneumonia was higher in the triple therapy group than that in the LABA+ICS (RR =1.16;95％ CI:1.01-1.33) or LAMA+LABA (RR =1.31;95％ CI:1.06-1.62) groups,and significantly lower in the LAMA+LABA group compared with LABA+ICS (RR =0.64;95％ CI:0.54-0.76).LAMA+LABA+ICS therapy offered greater efficacy and.comparable safety compared with the LAMA+LABA or LABA+ICS therapies.However,triple therapy could increase the risk of pneumonia compared with LAMA+LABA or LABA+ICS therapies.People who have higher risk of pneumonia should carefully consider the use of triple therapy.LAMA+LABA therapy offered greater efficacy and lower risk of pneumonia to LABA+ICS therapy.Collectively,LAMA+LABA therapy might be a better choice than LABA+ICS.
LD side-pumped Tm,Ho:LuLf pulse laser

L. Qiao,X. Hou,Shijiang Shu,Weibiao Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CLEOPR.2009.5292580

2009-10-30

Abstract:An acousto-optical (AO) Q-swithed Tm,Ho:LuLiF laser at 2 µm range has been obtained in a ring resonator by three LDAs side-pumped. The laser energy is 30 mJ per pulse with the pulse width of 417ns.
Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 mcg versus twice daily combination therapies in COPD - mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

Gillian Stynes,Henrik Svedsater,Jaro Wex,Sally Lettis,David Leather,Emanuela Castelnuovo,Michelle Detry,Scott Berry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-015-0184-8

2015-02-15

Abstract:Background: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 mcg is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) treatment approved in the United States, Canada and Europe for the long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes. Methods: Data from 33 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABAs, of ≥8 weeks' duration in patients ≥12 years of age with COPD, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for three efficacy outcomes. Lung function, assessed by change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), was the outcome of primary interest (n = 28 studies). Secondary objectives were assessment of annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (n = 15) and patient-reported health status, measured by change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score (n = 20). Overall, 25 different treatments were included in the MTC; we report findings, including probabilities of non-inferiority, for comparisons of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) 500/50 mcg and budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FORM) 400/12 mcg. Results: For FEV1, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated >99% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg using a 50 mL margin. For annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated 73% and 77% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg, respectively, using a 10% rate ratio margin. For SGRQ Total score, the corresponding probabilities of non-inferiority were 99% and 98%, respectively, on a 2-unit margin. Significant covariate effects were identified: increased age was associated with deterioration in FEV1 and reduced exacerbation frequency; shorter study duration was associated with reduced exacerbation frequency. Conclusions: FF/VI 100/25 mcg was comparable with corresponding doses of FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on lung function and health status outcomes. Non-inferiority on moderate/severe exacerbation rate was not demonstrated to the same degree of confidence, though observed rates were similar. Model limitations include a weak treatment network for the exacerbation analysis and variability across the included studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of FF/VI 100/25 mcg on lung function and health status in COPD is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.
Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies

Swetha R Palli,Bin Xie,Benjamin Chastek,Caitlin A Elliott,Lindsay G S Bengtson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.20514

Abstract:BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).
A Pooled Analysis of Mortality in Patients with COPD Receiving Dual Bronchodilation with and without Additional Inhaled Corticosteroid

Marc Miravitlles,Katia Verhamme,Peter M A Calverley,Michael Dreher,Valentina Bayer,Asparuh Gardev,Alberto de la Hoz,Jadwiga Wedzicha,David Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S350167

2022-03-11

Abstract:Background: Recent 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. Objective: We 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. Methods: Data 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. Results: After 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. Conclusion: This 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.
Umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

Chunjuan Zhai,Fen Wang,Ruie Xu,Xia Sun,Wenbin Ma,Li Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae054

2024-04-23

Abstract:Purpose: Umeclidinium plus vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta2-agonist (LAMA/LABA), recently approved as once-daily maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI compared with fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/SAL). Methods: A systematic search was conducted by a trained medical research librarian across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) for randomized controlled trials comparing UMEC/VI with FP/SAL in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), trough FEV1. The secondary outcomes were other lung functions, symptoms, quality of life, and safety. Results: Three studies with 2119 patients were included in the meta-analysis. UMEC/VI showed improvement in 0-24 h wm FEV1 (mean difference (MD) 0.08 L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01, moderate quality) and trough FEV1 (MD 0.09 L, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.11, P < 0.01, moderate quality) in comparison with FP/SAL. UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved all other lung functions compared with FP/SAL. However, there were no significant differences between UMEC/VI and FP/SAL in rescue-medication use, symptomatic endpoints, and health outcomes. UMEC/VI also demonstrated fewer drug-related adverse effects (risk ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.82, P = 0.01, low quality). Conclusions: UMEC/VI, when compared with FP/SAL, demonstrated significant improvements in lung functions with fewer drug-related adverse effects. However, the conclusion was limited by the scarcity of studies and long-term trials.
Real-world comparative effectiveness of three single-inhaler dual bronchodilators for the treatment of COPD

Jiaying Li,Sophie Dell'Aniello,Pierre Ernst,Samy Suissa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00538-2023

2023-08-03

Abstract:Background: Single-inhaler dual bronchodilators are now recommended as initial treatment of COPD for patients with multiple exacerbations or with moderate or severe dyspnoea. It is unclear whether there are differences in effectiveness among commonly used dual bronchodilators. Methods: We identified a cohort of COPD patients, aged ≥40 years, treated during 2017-2020, from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a real-world practice setting. Inhaled corticosteroid-naïve patients initiating vilanterol-umeclidinium (VIL-UME) were compared with those initiating olodaterol-tiotropium (OLO-TIO) or indacaterol-glycopyrronium (IND-GLY) dual bronchodilators primarily on the incidence of moderate and severe COPD exacerbation over 1 year, and corresponding hazard ratios (HRs), after adjustment by propensity score weighting. Results: The cohort included 15 224 initiators of VIL-UME, 5536 initiators of OLO-TIO and 5059 initiators of IND-GLY. The HR of a moderate or severe exacerbation with VIL-UME was 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.97) compared with OLO-TIO and 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.03) compared with IND-GLY. The risk of severe exacerbation was not different for VIL-UME when compared with OLO-TIO (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) and IND-GLY (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86-1.28). All-cause mortality was lower with VIL-UME compared with IND-GLY (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98), but not compared with OLO-TIO (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.04). Conclusion: In a real-world setting of COPD treatment, the three dual bronchodilator combinations were similarly effective on the risk of a severe exacerbation of COPD. However, the VIL-UME and IND-GLY combinations may confer slightly superior effectiveness than OLO-TIO on the risk of moderate or severe exacerbation. The potential lower mortality with VIL-UME warrants further investigation.

[Hearing loss].

Serum levels of immunoglobulin and complement in giant-cell arteritis.

LABA/LAMA versus LABA/ICS fixed-dose combinations in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a modeling analysis of literature aggregate data

[On the immunochemistry of the O antigens of Enterobacteriaceae. V. The antigen factors in isolated Salmonella O antigens].

Impact of ICS/LABA and LABA/LAMA FDCs on functional and clinical outcomes in COPD: A network meta-analysis

LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Injuries to the inferior vena cava and their management.

Direct selected multireference configuration interaction calculations for large systems using localized orbitals.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study

A Comparison of the Real-Life Clinical Effectiveness of the Leading Licensed ICS/LABA Combination Inhalers in the Treatment for COPD

Effectiveness of Treatment With Dual Bronchodilation (LABA/LAMA) Compared With Combination Therapy (LABA/ICS) for Patients With COPD: A Population-Based Study

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety Profile of Triple Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD: A Meta-Analysis and IBiS Score

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Immunoperoxidase localization of carcinoembryonic antigen in benign and malignant colorectal tumors and related mucosa.

The efficacy and safety of three types of combination therapies in patients with moderate to very severe COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

LD side-pumped Tm,Ho:LuLf pulse laser

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 mcg versus twice daily combination therapies in COPD - mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies

A Pooled Analysis of Mortality in Patients with COPD Receiving Dual Bronchodilation with and without Additional Inhaled Corticosteroid

Umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

Real-world comparative effectiveness of three single-inhaler dual bronchodilators for the treatment of COPD