Efficacy and safety of tiotropium+olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC) compared with the mono-components was evaluated in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in two replicate, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III trials.Patients received tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 μg or 5/5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg or 5 μg, or olodaterol 5 μg delivered once-daily via Respimat inhaler over 52 weeks. Primary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 3 h (AUC0–3) response, trough FEV1 response and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at 24 weeks.In total, 5162 patients (2624 in Study 1237.5 and 2538 in Study 1237.6) received treatment. Both FDCs significantly improved FEV1 AUC0–3 and trough FEV1 response versus the mono-components in both studies. Statistically significant improvements in SGRQ total score versus the mono-components were only seen for tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 5/5 μg. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between the FDCs and the mono-components.These studies demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and health-related quality of life with once-daily tiotropium+olodaterol FDC versus mono-components over 1 year in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

No abstract

Clinicaltrials.gov registry number: NCT00296829.

Allergic rhinitis is a major chronic respiratory disease because of its prevalence, impacts on quality of life and work/school performance, economic burden, and links with asthma. Family doctors (also known as ‘primary care physicians’ or ‘general practitioners’) play a major role in the management of allergic rhinitis as they make the diagnosis, start the treatment, give the relevant information, and monitor most of the patients. Disease management that follows evidence‐based practice guidelines yields better patient results, but such guidelines are often complicated and may recommend the use of resources not available in the family practice setting. A joint expert panel of the World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca), the International Primary Care Airways Group (IPAG) and the International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG), offers support to family doctors worldwide by distilling the globally accepted, evidence‐based recommendations from the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative into this brief reference guide. This guide provides tools intended to supplement a thorough history taking and the clinician’s professional judgment in order to provide the best possible care for patients with allergic rhinitis. A diagnostic Questionnaire specifically focuses the physician’s attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease. When questionnaire responses suggest a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, a Diagnosis Guide and a simple flowchart then lead the clinician through a series of investigations commonly available in primary care to support the diagnosis. In addition, key aspects of differential diagnosis are illuminated. According to ARIA, allergic rhinitis may be classified as Intermittent or Persistent, and as Mild or Moderate/Severe. The classification of rhinitis determines the treatment necessary, as set out in an ARIA flowchart included in this guide. The guide also includes information about the strength of evidence for efficacy of certain rhinitis treatments, a brief discussion of pediatric aspects, and a glossary of allergic rhinitis medications to assist the clinician in making medication choices for each individual patient. Finally, many patients with allergic rhinitis also have concomitant asthma, and this must be checked. The World Organization of Family Doctors has been delegated by WHO as the group that will be taking primary responsibility for education about chronic respiratory diseases among primary care physicians globally. This document will be a major resource in this educational program.

Summary COPD is a common and under-diagnosed disease which is increasing in prevalence worldwide. A more aggressive and optimistic approach must be adopted towards its management in primary care. This IPCRG Guideline on the management of COPD in primary care is fully consistent with GOLD guidelines. It highlights the goals of COPD treatment and the need for spirometric testing to make the diagnosis. It covers the classification of the disease according to disease severity, non-pharmacologic therapy including smoking cessation, avoidance of risk factors, patient education, pharmacologic therapy including the use of oxygen treatment, the management of exacerbations, the role of pulmonary rehabilitation, and the need for monitoring and ongoing care for COPD patients.

Background: Whether blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are associated with important outcomes in mild asthma is unclear. Methods: This question was explored in a pre-specified analysis of a 52week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial in patients with mild asthma receiving only reliever inhalers, comparing salbutamol 200µg asneeded, maintenance budesonide 200µg twice-daily with salbutamol as needed, and budesonide/formoterol 200/6µg as-needed. Outcomes were compared between patients with blood eosinophils of <0.15, 0.15-<0.3 and ≥0.3x109/L; FeNO of <20, 20-50 and >50ppb; and a composite score based on both. Results: The proportion of patients randomised to as-needed salbutamol having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil sub-group (4.1%, 6.5% and 19.5%; p=0.014). There were no significant interactions between either biomarker and the effect of as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with as-needed salbutamol for either exacerbations or severe exacerbations. However, there were significant interactions between blood eosinophil sub-groups and the effect of maintenance budesonide compared with as needed salbutamol for exacerbations (p<0.001) and severe exacerbations (p<0.001). Maintenance budesonide was more effective than as-needed salbutamol in patients with eosinophils ≥0.3x109/L for exacerbations (odds ratio 0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.33) and severe exacerbations (0.11; 0.03-0.45). This was not the case for eosinophils <0.15x109/L (odds ratio for exacerbations 1.15; 0.51-1.28 and severe exacerbations 5.72; 0.97-33.6). There was no consistent interaction between treatment response and FeNO or the composite score. Conclusions: In patients with mild asthma the effects of as-needed budesonide/formoterol on exacerbations are independent of biomarker profile, whereas the benefits of maintenance inhaled budesonide are greater in patients with high blood eosinophil counts.

Symptom-driven low-dose inhaled corticosteroid–formoterol is safe and effective in mild asthma and has been recommended as one of the preferred treatment regimens at steps 1 and 2 in the 2019 update of the Global Initiative for Asthma. However, there are no data on patient preferences for this regimen.A subgroup of participants in the PRACTICAL study (ACTRN12616000377437), a randomised controlled trial comparing symptom-driven budesonide–formoterol with maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline completed a survey on treatment preferences, satisfaction, beliefs and experience at their final study visit.306 (75%) out of 407 eligible participants completed the survey. Regimen preference was strongly associated with randomised treatment, as were preferences for and beliefs about preventer inhaler use. Combination preventer and reliever as-needed therapy was preferred by 135 (90%, 95% CI 85.2–94.8%) out of 150 who were randomised to as-needed budesonide–formoterol, and by 63 (40%, 95% CI 32.7–48.1%) out of 156 who were randomised to maintenance budesonide. By contrast, twice-daily preventer inhaler with a reliever inhaler as required was preferred by 15 (10%) out of 150 of those randomised to as-needed budesonide–formoterol and 93 (60%) out of 156 of those randomised to maintenance budesonide. Satisfaction with all study inhalers was high. Of patients randomised to as-needed budesonide–formoterol 92% (n=138) were confident using it as a reliever at the end of the study.Although most participants preferred the regimen to which they had been randomised, this association was much stronger for those randomised to budesonide–formoterol as needed, indicating that most patients preferred as-needed corticosteroid–formoterol therapy if they had experienced it.

No abstract