Introduction We report the results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) in patients with COPD. Methods This was a randomized, two-period crossover open-label study in symptomatic patients with COPD [age 40 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of 70% or less and 50% or more of predicted normal values, and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score of 2 or greater] not receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomized to receive UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg once daily) via a multidose dry powder inhaler (ELLIPTA) followed by TIO/OLO (5/5 µg once daily) via a soft mist inhaler (Respimat), each for 8 weeks with an interim 3-week washout or vice versa. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at week 8 with a noninferiority margin of − 50 mL in the per-protocol (PP) population. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed. Results In total, 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat population and 227 were included in the PP population. UMEC/VI treatment was noninferior in the PP population and superior in the intent-to-treat population to TIO/OLO treatment with regard to trough FEV₁ at week 8 [FEV₁ change from baseline 180 mL vs 128 mL; difference 52 mL (95% confidence interval 28–77 mL); p < 0.001]. Patients receiving UMEC/VI had twofold increased odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful increase (100 mL or more) from baseline in trough FEV₁ at week 8 compared with patients receiving TIO/OLO (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.34–3.14). Adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the UMEC/VI group and in 31% of patients in the TIO/OLO group. Conclusion In this first direct comparison of two once-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations, superiority was observed for the primary end point of trough FEV₁ at week 8 with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO in patients with symptomatic COPD. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. These findings confirm the results of previous indirect LAMA/LABA comparisons, and show that an efficacy gradient exists within the LAMA/LABA class. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02799784. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.

Preventing the occurrence of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is a major therapeutic goal. We hypothesise that persistently increased levels of exhaled nitric oxide (F_eNO) during follow-up can identify a group of COPD patients at higher risk of AECOPD.To test this hypothesis, we measuredF_eNOlevels (HypAirF_eNO®, Medisoft; Sorinnes, Belgium) prospectively in 226 clinically stable COPD outpatients at recruitment and during follow-up (at 6 and 12 months). Patients were stratified according to the number of visits withF_eNO≥20 ppb.F_eNOwas <20 ppb in all three visits in 44.2% of patients, 29.6% in visit 1 and 26.1% in visit 2 or 3. These three groups suffered progressively higher AECOPD rates during follow-up (0.67, 0.91 and 1.42, respectively, p<0.001). After adjusting for potential confounding variables (log-rank test), the hazard ratio for AECOPD was higher in the latter group (1.579 (95% CI 1.049–2.378), p=0.029). Likewise, time to first moderate and severe AECOPD was shorter in these patients. Finally, there was no relationship betweenF_eNOlevels and circulating eosinophils.PersistentF_eNOlevels ≥20 ppb in clinically stable COPD outpatients are associated with a significantly higher risk of AECOPD.

Background: It has recently been proposed that the concept of clinical control in COPD may be useful for deciding treatment in COPD, but the original control criteria (OCC) were considered too restrictive. Objective: Define and subsequently validate “modified” control criteria (MCC) of COPD. Method: Prospective observational study in COPD patients with a 1-year follow-up. Control was defined as the presence of low clinical impact and clinical stability. To evaluate clinical impact, the following clinical parameters were assessed: the degree of dyspnea, use of rescue medication, physical activity, and sputum color. Stability was assessed by clinical changes and exacerbations in the last 3 months. The COPD assessment test score and their changes were also evaluated as alternative control criteria. To define the MCC, adjustment for disease severity using BODEx index (MCC-B) or FEV₁ (MCC-F) was evaluated, and the best cutoff point was established. Time to first combined event (emergency visit, hospitalization, or death) was analyzed to evaluate the predictive capacity of risk of the OCC, MCC-B, and MCC-F. Results: We included 265 patients, 224 (83.9%) men, with a mean age (±SD) of 68±9 years and FEV₁ of 58%±17%. The proportion of controlled patients was higher using clinical MCC-B or MCC-F (61.5% and 59.6%) than OCC (27.5%). Similar percentages were found using COPD assessment test scores. The time to the first combined event was significantly greater in controlled patients using MCC criteria (P<0.001, all cases). The predictive capacity of risk was similar in MCC-B (c-statistic [C]=0.639) and MCC-F (C=0.637) and higher than OCC (C=0.589). Conclusions: The new MCC identified a higher number of controlled COPD patients. These patients have a better quality of life and lower risk of poor outcomes. The concept of control and the new MCC could be a useful tool to optimize therapy.

COPD is a typical example of chronic disease. As such, treatment adherence tends to be as low as between 30% and 50%, with specific issues in COPD due to the use of inhaled therapies. Decreased adherence in COPD is associated with worse outcomes, with increased risk for exacerbations and long-term mortality. Factors that impact adherence are multiple, some related to patient, some related to clinicians and finally some related to healthcare system. Among clinician factors, prescription of simplified treatment regimens delivered by an inhaler adapted to the patient’s characteristics is crucial. Although it has been observed a huge improvement in the design and usability of inhaler devices for COPD in the last two centuries, there is still a clear gap in this field. Smart inhalers as well as simplified treatment regimens could improve adherence and therefore improve long-term outcomes in COPD. Plain Language Summary: Treatment adherence in COPD is crucial as in many other chronic diseases, with specific issues due to inhaled route, and many factors involved. Low adherence in COPD has been linked to an increased risk of exacerbations and future mortality. Many interventions have been developed to improve treatment adherence in COPD. This review summarizes the current knowledge and future prospects for this important aspect of COPD treatment.