Refine
Document Type
- Article (10)
Language
- English (10)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Keywords
- COPD (4)
- Acute bronchitis (1)
- Acute cough (1)
- Ambroxol (1)
- Asthma and allergic disorders (1)
- Bronchitis severity scale (1)
- Bronchodilator agents (1)
- CAT (1)
- COPD assessment test (1)
- COPD course and therapy (1)
Introduction: DACCORD is an observational, non-interventional study being conducted in German primary and secondary care centres. The study aims to describe the impact of disease (including exacerbations) and treatments over 2 years on ‘real-life’ patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Materials and methods: Patients had a clinical and spirometry diagnosis of COPD, were aged ≥40 years and, on recruitment, were initiating or changing COPD maintenance medication. The only exclusion criteria were asthma and randomised clinical trial participation. Exacerbations data were collected every 3 months. COPD medication, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were recorded at baseline and after 1 and 2 years.
Results: A total of 6122 patients were recruited, 3137 (51.2%) of whom completed the 2-year visit. The mean age of these patients was 65.6 years, 59% were male, 69% had mild or moderate airflow limitation, and their mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) total score was 20.3. Overall, there was a trend towards decreasing COPD exacerbation rates over the 2-year follow-up period, with rates of 0.390 during Year 1 and 0.347 during Year 2. Rates were lower in patients with no exacerbation during the 6 months prior to entry (0.263 and 0.251 during Years 1 and 2, respectively), with 51.6% of patients having no exacerbation during the 6 months prior to entry and over the 2-year follow-up. Approximately 50% of the overall population experienced a clinically relevant improvement from baseline in CAT total score at Year 1 and 2. When assessed by treatment class (or classes), persistence to medication was high (77.8% in Year 1 and 71.4% in Year 2).
Conclusions: Overall, the 2-year follow-up data from DACCORD suggest that for most patients with COPD exacerbations are a rare event. For the majority of patients, the focus should be on managing symptoms, and the impact that these symptoms have on their daily lives. Even for those patients who do exacerbate, although prevention of exacerbations is an important factor, management of symptoms should be a key consideration. DACCORD also suggests that COPD disease progression is not inevitable – providing patients are receiving pharmacological treatment.
Background: Treatment of asthma does not always comply with asthma guidelines (AG). This may be rooted in direct or indirect resistance on the doctors’ and/or patients’ side or be caused by the healthcare system. To assess whether patients’ concepts and attitudes are really an implementation barrier for AG, we analysed the patients’ perspective of a “good asthma therapy” and contrasted their wishes with current recommendations.
Methods: Using a qualitative exploratory design, topic centred focus group (FG) discussions were performed until theoretical saturation was reached. Inclusion criteria were an asthma diagnosis and age above 18. FG sessions were recorded audio-visually and analysed via a mapping technique and content analysis performed according to Mayring (supported by MAXQDA®). Participants’ speech times and the proportion of time devoted to different themes were calculated using the Videograph System® and related to the content analysis.
Results: Thirteen men and 24 women aged between 20 and 77 from rural and urban areas attended five FG. Some patients had been recently diagnosed with asthma, others years previously or in childhood. The following topics were addressed: (a) concern about or rejection of therapy components, particularly corticosteroids, which sometimes resulted in autonomous uncommunicated medication changes, (b) lack of time or money for optimal treatment, (c) insufficient involvement in therapy choices and (d) a desire for greater empowerment, (e) suboptimal communication between healthcare professionals and (f) difficulties with recommendations conflicting with daily life. Primarily, (g) participants wanted more time with doctors to discuss difficulties and (h) all aspects of living with an impairing condition.
Conclusions: We identified some important patient driven barriers to implementing AG recommendations. In order to advance AG implementation and improve asthma treatment, the patients’ perspective needs to be considered before drafting new versions of AG. These issues should be addressed at the planning stage.
Trial registration: DRKS00000562 (German Clinical Trials Registry).
Background: No observational studies have evaluated the "real-world" effectiveness of dual bronchodilation comprising a long-acting β2-agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist vs that of triple therapy (long-acting β2-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus inhaled corticosteroid) in COPD.
Materials and methods: DACCORD is a non-interventional, observational clinical study that recruited patients following COPD maintenance therapy initiation or change in maintenance therapy between or within therapeutic class. Given the non-interventional nature of the study, the decision to initiate or change medication had to be made by the patients’ physicians prior to inclusion in DACCORD. We used a matched-pairs analysis to compare disease progression in two patient groups: those receiving dual bronchodilation vs those receiving triple therapy (each group n=1,046).
Results: In two subgroups of patients matched according to a broad range of demographic and disease characteristics, over 1 year, fewer patients receiving dual bronchodilation exacerbated than those receiving triple therapy (15.5% vs 26.6%; P<0.001), with a greater improvement from baseline in COPD Assessment Test total score at 1 year (mean±SD -2.9±5.8 vs -1.4±5.5; P<0.001). When analyzed according to prior therapy, the highest rate of exacerbations was in patients on triple therapy prior to the study who remained on triple therapy. Those changing from mono-bronchodilator to dual bronchodilation had the greatest COPD Assessment Test total score improvement.
Conclusion: In this "real-life" cohort of patients with COPD, most of whom had not exacerbated in the 6 months prior to entry, triple therapy did not seem to improve outcomes compared with dual bronchodilation in terms of either exacerbations or health status. Our analyses clearly demonstrate the potential impact of prior medication on study results, something that should be taken into account when interpreting the results even of controlled clinical trials.
Introduction: The 2017 update to the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy document includes recommendations for treatment intensification or step-down in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although recognises that limited supporting information is available.
DACCORD is an ongoing observational, non-interventional study, recruiting patients following COPD maintenance treatment change or initiation, a subset of whom were receiving a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) on entry. Since there were no requirements in terms of prior medication (and no washout before commencing LABA/LAMA FDC), this provides an opportunity to generate "real world" data to test the GOLD 2017 recommendations.
Methods: To reduce heterogeneity, the current analyses include patients receiving indacaterol/glycopyrronium at baseline, and who, prior to the study, were receiving no COPD maintenance medication ("none"), LABA or LAMA monotherapy ("mono"), LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS; "LABA/ICS"), or triple therapy ("triple"). At the baseline visit, data collected included: demographic and disease characteristics; COPD Assessment Test (CAT); and exacerbations in the 6 months prior to entry. At 3, 6, 9 and 12 months data on exacerbations were collected, with CAT recorded at 3 and 12 months.
Results: A total of 2724 patients were included in the baseline analyses: 795, 954, 598 and 377 in the "none", "mono", "LABA/ICS" and "triple" subgroups, respectively. There were no clinically relevant differences in baseline demographics between the four groups. In terms of disease characteristics, the "triple" group had the highest proportion of patients with a disease duration of more than 1 year since diagnosis and with severe/very severe airflow limitation, but a similar percentage of non-exacerbators compared to the "none" group.
Over the 1-year follow-up, the majority of patients in all four subgroups did not exacerbate (exacerbation rates 0.16, 0.19, 0.21, and 0.26 in the "none", "mono", "LABA/ICS" and "triple" groups, respectively). At 12 months, 61.4%, 65.0%, 71.0% and 52.4% of patients had a clinically relevant improvement in CAT score.
Conclusions: Overall, the results support the GOLD recommendations in suggesting that a switch from a mono-bronchodilator or LABA plus ICS to LABA/LAMA FDC is a valid treatment option for patients with COPD. The results also validate the use of a LABA/LAMA FDC as initial maintenance treatment for COPD, and provide first "real world" evidence to support the newly added "step down" recommendation (from triple to LABA/LAMA FDC).
Purpose: DINO and DACOTA were prospective, noninterventional studies assessing the health status and quality of life of patients with COPD newly treated with roflumilast 500 µg once-daily add-on therapy.
Patients and methods: Patients were evaluated over 6 months. Clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores were recorded at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. In DACOTA, post-bronchodilator FEV1 was recorded at each time point.
Results: Of 5,462 and 3,645 patients recruited into DINO and DACOTA, respectively, 3,274 patients in DINO and 916 patients in DACOTA completed the 6-month visit. Almost all patients had severe or very severe airway obstruction; mean baseline CCQ total score was 3.9 in DINO and 3.7 in DACOTA. Overall, 33.8% of patients in DACOTA and 30.6% in DINO discontinued treatment prematurely. Significant and clinically relevant improvements in CCQ total scores were observed in both studies (mean change from baseline of 1.36 in DINO and 0.91 in DACOTA at Month 6 [all P<0.001]). Changes in CAT total score from baseline to Month 6 indicated that the average clinical impact of COPD was reduced from a severe (score: 21–30) to a moderate (score: 11–20) impairment. In DACOTA, mean change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 was 202 mL (P<0.001). Diarrhea, nausea, and weight decrease were the most frequently reported adverse drug reactions.
Conclusion: In real-life clinical practice, roflumilast treatment as an add-on therapy is associated with clinically relevant improvements in health status and quality of life.
Background: The objective of the FAVOR study was to evaluate the effect of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus tiotropium on peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and also to investigate patient satisfaction and treatment preference.
Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation (FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of <0.70), those with a COPD assessment test score of ≥10, and those who were maintained on tiotropium HandiHaler® therapy prior to enrollment were recruited for the study, and randomized (1:1) to receive either 4 weeks open-label IND/GLY (110/50 µg) once daily followed by 4 weeks of tiotropium (18 µg) once daily or vice versa. The primary endpoint was FEV1 1 h post-inhalation after 4 weeks of treatment. Other endpoints included patient’s and physician’s preference for treatment, patient’s satisfaction evaluated using a study-specific questionnaire and the abbreviated Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and safety and tolerability.
Results: Eighty-seven out of 88 randomized patients completed the study and showed significantly higher FEV1 1 h post-inhalation after 4 weeks of treatment with IND/GLY versus tiotropium (treatment difference =0.081 L; p=0.0017). IND/GLY was preferred over tiotropium among the patients (69.4% versus 30.6%, p=0.0004) and the physicians (81.6% versus 18.4%, p<0.0001). A higher proportion of the patients stated they were very satisfied or satisfied with IND/GLY versus tiotropium with regard to dyspnea reduction (79.3% versus 58.0%, respectively) and reduction of dyspnea on exertion (72.4% versus 43.2%, respectively). Patients treated with IND/GLY showed significant improvement in Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication domain scores versus tiotropium. IND/GLY demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile.
Conclusion: This study indicated that, beyond FEV1, important patient-reported outcomes improved with the open-label dual bronchodilator IND/GLY when compared with tiotropium. This study suggests that individual patients felt the lung function benefits with IND/GLY compared with tiotropium, which, in turn, may also have contributed to the preference for IND/GLY.
Practical considerations when prescribing a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for patients with COPD
(2018)
COPD is characterized by persistent airflow limitation, progressive breathlessness, cough, and sputum production. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are one of the recommended first-choice therapeutic options for patients with COPD, and several new agents have been developed in recent years. A literature search identified 14 published randomized, placebo-controlled studies of the efficacy and safety of LAMAs in patients with COPD, with improvements seen in lung function, exacerbations, breathlessness, and health status. A greater weight of evidence currently exists for glycopyrronium (GLY) and tiotropium than for umeclidinium and aclidinium, especially in terms of exacerbation reductions. To date, there have been few head-to-head clinical studies of the different LAMAs. Available data indicate that GLY and aclidinium have similar efficacy to tiotropium in terms of improving lung function, dyspnea, exacerbations, and health status. Overall, evidence demonstrates that currently available LAMAs provide effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for patients with COPD. Delivery devices for the different LAMAs vary, which may affect individual patient’s adherence to and preference for treatment. Subtle differences between individual therapeutic options may be important to individual patients and the final treatment choice should involve physician’s and patient’s experiences and preferences.
Background: There are no validated standardised clinical procedures for severity measurement of acute bronchitis in children. The "BSS-ped", a short version of the physician-rated assessment scale BSS (Bronchitis Severity Scale), can fill this gap, if it is valid.
Objective: To examine the scale´s validity.
Methods: Investigations were planned according to classical clinical-psychometric validity criteria including a formal competence evaluation of the scale´s authors and statistical analyses of data from 78 patients aged 1-6 and diagnosed with "acute bronchitis". Cross-validation was provided by analysis of data from 70 children with matching age, sex and diagnosis. All children were examined three times (day 0, 3-5 and 7) using the BSS-ped in addition to other clinical and psychometric monitoring procedures.
Results: The evidently high level of expertise of the scale’s authors substantiates pronounced content validity and relevance of the BSS-ped and its items. The validity criterion, i.e. to reflect the unidimensional severity of acute bronchitis and its change using the BSS-ped score, was fulfilled. There were substantial correlations with other scales measuring the current health-related quality of life, as well as satisfaction and success of treatment. Severity change prognoses for acute bronchitis under placebo and an active substance were correct. The BSS-ped was found to be a feasible instrument because it can be repeated at short intervals (minute range) without any special technical aids or extended training.
Conclusion: The BSS-ped is a valid procedure for measuring the severity of acute bronchitis in children.
Background: Ambroxol relieves cough symptoms based on its secretagogue, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-bacterial, anti-viral, immunomodulatory and local anesthetic effects. The present study was designed to explore differential patient profiles and efficacy against acute respiratory symptoms of four formulations registered as over-the-counter medicines.
Methods: Nine hundred sixty-five pharmacy customers purchasing one of four branded ambroxol formulations (extended release capsules, adult syrup, pediatric syrup and soft pastilles) filled a questionnaire including a patient-adapted version of the Bronchitis Severity Scale, several questions on degree of impairment by acute cough, time to onset of symptom relief and duration of treatment. Data on pediatric syrup users were entered by their parents. Based on the exploratory character of the study, no hypothesis-testing statistical analysis was applied.
Results: Users of the pediatric syrup and the pastilles reported somewhat less severe baseline symptoms. The patient-adapted Bronchitis Severity Scale proved feasible as a self-administered tool. Among BSS items, ambroxol formulations improved chest pain while coughing to the largest and sputum to smallest degree (− 75% vs. -40%). Reported efficacy was comparable among formulations with minor differences in favor of the pediatric syrup. Time to onset of symptom relief was less than 60 min in more than 90% of patients and occurred prior to known systemic tmax. Time to onset was the parameter with the greatest differences between formulations, being reported fastest with pastilles and pediatric syrup and, as expected, slowest with extended release capsules. All ambroxol formulations were well tolerated.
Conclusions: We conclude that over-the-counter formulations of ambroxol exhibit comparable user profiles and efficacy. Differences in speed of onset of symptom relief may involve not only those in systemic pharmacokinetics but also local anesthetic effects of immediate release formulations. Differences between pediatric and adult syrup may in part reflect reporting bias.
