RationaleCOPD has been perceived as being a disease of older men. However, >7 million women are estimated to live with COPD in the USA alone. Despite a growing body of literature suggesting an increasing burden of COPD in women, the evidence is limited.ObjectivesTo assess and synthesize the available evidence among population-based epidemiologic studies and calculate the global prevalence of COPD in men and women.Materials and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis reporting gender-specific prevalence of COPD was undertaken. Gender-specific prevalence estimates were abstracted from relevant studies. Associated patient characteristics as well as custom variables pertaining to the diagnostic method and other important epidemiologic covariates were also collected. A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was performed investigating gender-specific prevalence of COPD stratified by age, geography, calendar time, study setting, diagnostic method, and disease severity.Measurements and main resultsAmong 194 eligible studies, summary prevalence was 9.23% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 8.16%–10.36%) in men and 6.16% (95% CrI: 5.41%–6.95%) in women. Gender prevalences varied widely by the World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease subregions, with the highest female prevalence found in North America (8.07% vs 7.30%) and in participants in urban settings (13.03% vs 8.34%). Meta-regression indicated that age ≥40 and bronchodilator testing contributed most significantly to heterogeneity of prevalence estimates across studies.ConclusionWe conducted the largest ever systematic review and meta-analysis of global prevalence of COPD and the first large gender-specific review. These results will increase awareness of COPD as a critical woman’s health issue.

BackgroundRandomized 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsEighteen 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]).ConclusionThe 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.

The Indacaterol: Switching Non-exacerbating Patients with Moderate COPD From Salmeterol/Fluticasone to Indacaterol (INSTEAD) study investigated the effect of switching patients at low risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations from salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC; inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) regimen) to indacaterol monotherapy (non-ICS regimen).This 26-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase IV study, randomised 581 patients with moderate COPD to indacaterol 150 mg once daily or SFC 50/500 mg twice daily. Patients had been receiving SFC 50/500 mg for o3 months, with no COPD exacerbations for more than a year before the study (patients for whom ICS is not recommended). The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of indacaterol to SFC, measured by trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after 12 weeks (non-inferiority margin of 0.06 L).The primary objective was met, with a mean treatment difference of 9 mL (95% CI -45-26 mL). There were no significant differences between treatments in terms of breathlessness (transition dyspnoea index) or health status (Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire) at weeks 12 or 26, or rescue medication use or COPD exacerbation rates over 26 weeks. Safety profiles of both treatments were as expected.This study demonstrated that patients with moderate COPD and no exacerbations in the previous year can be switched from SFC to indacaterol 150 mg with no efficacy loss. @ERSpublications Moderate COPD patients can switch from salmeterol/fluticasone to indacaterol with no efficacy loss

Short courses of systemic corticosteroids (SCS), both oral and injectable, are very effective for the resolution of acute asthma symptoms, including exacerbations. However, the benefits of SCS, even short courses, must be balanced against the impact of their side-effects. While the adverse consequences of long-term use are widely recognised, there appears to be a perception in the medical community that short courses of SCS are safe. Limited but growing evidence in the literature suggests that even very brief dosing periods (3–7 days) of SCS are enough to cause significantly negative outcomes for patients. Short courses of SCS are associated with increased risk of adverse events including loss of bone density, hypertension and gastrointestinal ulcers/bleeds, in addition to serious impacts on mental health. Strategies to improve asthma control are recommended, including: 1) as-needed combination therapies in mild asthma; 2) risk factor reduction; 3) improving adherence/inhaler technique; 4) earlier initiation of add-on therapies; 5) use of biologics in appropriate patients; 6) development of new therapies to better control the disease; and 7) widespread education of the medical community. We propose that patients and primary care physicians should consider a cumulative SCS dose of 1 g per year as a highly relevant and easy-to-recall threshold.