| 1. |
- Sakornsakolpat, Phuwanat, et al.
(författare)
-
Genetic landscape of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease identifies heterogeneous cell-type and phenotype associations
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nature Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1061-4036 .- 1546-1718. ; 51:3, s. 494-505
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the leading cause of respiratory mortality worldwide. Genetic risk loci provide new insights into disease pathogenesis. We performed a genome-wide association study in 35,735 cases and 222,076 controls from the UK Biobank and additional studies from the International COPD Genetics Consortium. We identified 82 loci associated with P < 5 x 10-8; 47 of these were previously described in association with either COPD or population-based measures of lung function. Of the remaining 35 new loci, 13 were associated with lung function in 79,055 individuals from the SpiroMeta consortium. Using gene expression and regulation data, we identified functional enrichment of COPD risk loci in lung tissue, smooth muscle, and several lung cell types. We found 14 COPD loci shared with either asthma or pulmonary fibrosis. COPD genetic risk loci clustered into groups based on associations with quantitative imaging features and comorbidities. Our analyses provide further support for the genetic susceptibility and heterogeneity of COPD.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bjermer, Leif, et al.
(författare)
-
Dual bronchodilator therapy as first-line treatment in maintenance-naïve patients with symptomatic copd : A pre-specified analysis of the emax trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of COPD. - 1176-9106. ; 16, s. 1939-1956
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual-versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: −0.44 [−0.73, −0.16]; maintenance-treated: −0.28 [−0.45, −0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: −0.37 [−0.66, −0.09]; maintenance-treated: −0.25 [−0.41, −0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [−0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [−0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (−0.26 [−1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (−0.58 [−1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms com-pared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bjermer, Leif H., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD : A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Advances in Therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0741-238X .- 1865-8652. ; 38:9, s. 4815-4835
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. Results: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: − 0.42 [− 0.63, − 0.20]; former: − 0.25 − 0.44, − 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: − 0.28 [− 0.49, − 0.06]; former: − 0.29 [− 0.49, − 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. Conclusions: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.
|
|
| 4. |
- Janson, Christer, et al.
(författare)
-
SABINA : An Overview of Short-Acting β2-Agonist Use in Asthma in European Countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Advances in Therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0741-238X .- 1865-8652. ; 37:3, s. 1124-1135
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IntroductionGlobally, individuals with asthma tend to overrely on short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) and underuse inhaled corticosteroids, thereby undertreating the underlying inflammation. Such relief-seeking behavior has been reinforced by long-standing treatment guidelines, which until recently recommended SABA-only use for immediate symptom relief. We aimed to describe the current burden of SABA use among European individuals with asthma within the SABA use IN Asthma (SABINA) program.MethodsPrescription and/or dispensing data during 2006–2017 from electronic medical records and/or national patient registries in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden were analyzed. Individuals aged at least 12 years old with a current asthma diagnosis and no other chronic respiratory conditions were included. Asthma treatment step and severity were based on treatment guidelines in use in each individual country. The proportion of individuals prescribed SABA was measured during a 12-month period. SABA overuse was defined as at least three SABA canisters per year.ResultsMore than one million individuals with asthma were included across five European countries. Overall, the majority of individuals were over 45 years of age, except in Sweden (mean age 27.6 years) where individuals aged over 45 years were excluded to avoid a potential chronic obstructive pulmonary disease co-diagnosis. The study population was predominantly female (55–64%), except in the UK (46%). The prevalence of SABA overuse was 9% in Italy, 16% in Germany, 29% in Spain, 30% in Sweden, and 38% in the UK. In the UK, SABA overuse was greater in individuals with moderate-to-severe asthma versus individuals with mild asthma (58% versus 27%, respectively), while SABA overuse was similar in individuals with both mild (9–32%) and moderate-to-severe (8–31%) asthma in the other European countries.ConclusionsThe findings of this study from the SABINA program show that SABA overuse (at least three canisters per year) is common across Europe, despite the different healthcare and reimbursement policies of each country.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Johansson, Gunnar, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol in the treatment of asthma
- 2006
-
Ingår i: PharmacoEconomics (Auckland). - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1170-7690 .- 1179-2027. ; 24:7, s. 695-708
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with asthma. We compared the cost effectiveness from a societal perspective of this one-inhaler regimen with that of maintenance salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide) plus salbutamol (albuterol) as needed (Seretide) Fixed Combination [SFC]). STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on effectiveness and resource-utilisation data collected prospectively in a randomised, 12-month study performed in 2143 patients in 16 countries. Resource utilisation data were pooled and unit costs (euro, year 2003 values) from Italy, France, the UK and Germany were used to generate estimates of direct and total costs per patient per year and cost per severe exacerbation avoided. METHODS: Adolescents and adults with asthma (n = 2143; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 73% predicted; mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose 884 microg/day) were randomised to SMART or SFC. The effectiveness measure used was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year. Direct costs included medication use (budesonide/formoterol 160microg/4.5microg or salmeterol/fluticasone 50microg/100microg, 50microg/250microg or 50microg/500microg plus salbutamol) and nonmedication-related resource use, including days in hospital, emergency room visits, specialist or primary care physician visits and other healthcare provider contacts. Indirect costs, including the number of days when the patient or their carer was unable to attend to their normal daily activities, were also assessed. The study assumed a European societal perspective (i.e. including direct and indirect costs). RESULTS: Treatment with SMART resulted in significantly fewer severe exacerbations per patient per year compared with SFC (0.24 vs 0.31 events per patient per year; p = 0.0025). Resource use was low in both groups. Medication costs accounted for the majority of the total costs. The increased effectiveness of SMART was achieved at a reduced or similar cost compared with SFC. SMART dominated when German unit costs were applied (i.e. there was a statistically significant reduction in both costs and number of exacerbations). In all other countries, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that there was a reduction in mean total cost per exacerbation avoided; however, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that, compared with SFC, SMART may be cost effective from a societal perspective for the treatment of patients with asthma in Italy, Germany, France and the UK. SMART provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, at no statistically significant increase in cost - or even at a lower cost - compared with SFC plus as-needed reliever salbutamol.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kerwin, Edward M., et al.
(författare)
-
Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD : a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease. - : SAGE Publications. - 1753-4658 .- 1753-4666. ; 14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. Methods: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1–8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1–4 and later time points. Results: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4–8 and were sustained at Weeks 21–24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60–85%) retained their Weeks 1–4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21−24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1–4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21–24. Conclusion: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient’s likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
|
|
| 8. |
- Kerwin, Edward M., et al.
(författare)
-
How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Chronic Respiratory Disease. - 1479-9723. ; 20
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.
|
|
| 9. |
- Krishnan, Jerry A., et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence and characteristics of asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap in routine primary care practices
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of the American Thoracic Society. - 2325-6621. ; 16:9, s. 1143-1150
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Rationale: Adults may exhibit characteristics of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a situation recently described as asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). There is a paucity of information about ACO in primary care. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence and describe characteristics of individuals withACOin primary care practices among patients currently diagnosed with asthma, COPD, or both; and to compare the prevalence and characteristics of ACO among the three source populations. Methods: The Respiratory Effectiveness Group conducted a crosssectional study of individuals ≥40 years old and with ≥2 outpatient primary care visits over a 2-year period in theUKOptimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were classified into one of three source populations based on diagnostic codes: 1) COPD only, 2) both asthma and COPD, or 3) asthma only.ACOwas defined as the presence of all of the following 1) age ≥40 years, 2) current or former smoking, 3) postbronchodilator airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/ forced vital capacity <0.7), and 4) ≥12% and ≥200 ml reversibility in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Results: Among 2,165 individuals (1,015 COPD only, 395 with both asthma and COPD, and 755 asthma only), the overall prevalence of ACO was 20% (95% confidence interval, 18-23%). Patients with ACO had a mean age of 70 years (standard deviation, 11 yr), 60% were men, 73% were former smokers (the rest were current smokers), and 66% were overweight or obese. Comorbid conditions were common in patients with ACO, including diabetes (53%), cardiovascular disease (36%), hypertension (30%), eczema (23%), and rhinitis (21%). The prevalence of ACO was higher in patients with a diagnosis of both asthma and COPD (32%) compared with a diagnosis of COPD only (20%; P<0.001) or asthma only (14%; P<0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics of ACO varied across these three source populations. Conclusions: One in five individuals with a diagnosis of COPD, asthma, or both asthma and COPD in primary care settings have ACO based on the Respiratory Effectiveness Group ACO Working group criteria. The prevalence and characteristics of patients with ACO varies across the three source populations.
|
|
| 10. |
- Maltais, François, et al.
(författare)
-
Applying key learnings from the EMAX trial to clinical practice and future trial design in COPD
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Respiratory Medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 0954-6111. ; 200
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a large, multicentre, multi-national, randomised, double-blind, 24-week trial. EMAX evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual bronchodilator therapy with umeclidinium bromide (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus monotherapy with either UMEC or salmeterol (SAL) in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low exacerbation risk who were not taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). EMAX generated evidence covering a wide range of patient-centred endpoints in COPD in addition to measures of lung function, clinical deterioration and safety. In addition, prospective and post hoc secondary analyses have generated clinically valuable information regarding the effects of baseline patient characteristics on treatment outcomes. Importantly, as concomitant ICS use was not permitted in this study, EMAX compared dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy with LAMA or LABA monotherapy without potential confounding due to concurrent ICS use or withdrawal. EMAX demonstrated beneficial treatment effects of UMEC/VI over UMEC or SAL monotherapy as maintenance treatment across a range of different patient characteristics, with no forfeit in safety. Thus, the trial provided novel insights into the role of LAMA/LABA versus LABA and LAMA monotherapies as maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic COPD at low risk of exacerbations. This article will explore the clinical implications of the main findings to date of the EMAX trial and consider the key learnings this trial offers for future trial design in COPD.
|
|
