Long-term inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and a recent hospitalised exacerbation: The ICSLIFE pragmatic, randomised controlled study

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
{"title":"Long-term inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and a recent hospitalised exacerbation: The ICSLIFE pragmatic, randomised controlled study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejim.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently have cardiovascular comorbidities, increasing the risk of hospitalised COPD exacerbations (H-ECOPDs) or death. This pragmatic study examined the effects of adding an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting bronchodilator(s) (LABDs) in patients with COPD and cardiac comorbidities who had a recent H-ECOPD.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients &gt;60 years of age with COPD and ≥1 cardiac comorbidity, within 6 months after discharge following an H-ECOPD, were randomised to receive LABD(s) with or without ICS, and were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the time to first rehospitalisation and/or all-cause death.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The planned number of patients was not recruited (803/1032), limiting the strength of the conclusions. In the intention-to-treat population, 89/403 patients (22.1 %) were rehospitalised or died in the LABD group (probability 0.257 [95 % confidence interval 0.206, 0.318]), vs 85/400 (21.3 %) in the LABD+ICS group (0.249 [0.198, 0.310]), with no difference between groups in time-to-event (hazard ratio 1.116 [0.827, 1.504]; <em>p</em><span> = 0.473). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lower in patients receiving LABD(s)+ICS, with relative reductions of 19.7 % and 27.4 %, respectively (9.8 % vs 12.2 % and 4.5 % vs 6.2 %), although the groups were not formally statistically compared for these endpoints. Fewer patients had adverse events in the LABD+ICS group (43.0 % vs 50.4 %; </span><em>p</em> = 0.013), with 4.9 % vs 5.4 % reporting pneumonia adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results suggest addition of ICS to LABDs did not reduce the time-to-combined rehospitalisation/death, although it decreased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. ICS use was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events, particularly pneumonia.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50485,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":"128 ","pages":"Pages 104-111"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620524002838","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently have cardiovascular comorbidities, increasing the risk of hospitalised COPD exacerbations (H-ECOPDs) or death. This pragmatic study examined the effects of adding an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting bronchodilator(s) (LABDs) in patients with COPD and cardiac comorbidities who had a recent H-ECOPD.

Methods

Patients >60 years of age with COPD and ≥1 cardiac comorbidity, within 6 months after discharge following an H-ECOPD, were randomised to receive LABD(s) with or without ICS, and were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the time to first rehospitalisation and/or all-cause death.

Results

The planned number of patients was not recruited (803/1032), limiting the strength of the conclusions. In the intention-to-treat population, 89/403 patients (22.1 %) were rehospitalised or died in the LABD group (probability 0.257 [95 % confidence interval 0.206, 0.318]), vs 85/400 (21.3 %) in the LABD+ICS group (0.249 [0.198, 0.310]), with no difference between groups in time-to-event (hazard ratio 1.116 [0.827, 1.504]; p = 0.473). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were lower in patients receiving LABD(s)+ICS, with relative reductions of 19.7 % and 27.4 %, respectively (9.8 % vs 12.2 % and 4.5 % vs 6.2 %), although the groups were not formally statistically compared for these endpoints. Fewer patients had adverse events in the LABD+ICS group (43.0 % vs 50.4 %; p = 0.013), with 4.9 % vs 5.4 % reporting pneumonia adverse events.

Conclusions

Results suggest addition of ICS to LABDs did not reduce the time-to-combined rehospitalisation/death, although it decreased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. ICS use was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events, particularly pneumonia.
慢性阻塞性肺病、心血管疾病和近期住院加重期患者的长期吸入皮质类固醇治疗:ICSLIFE 实用随机对照研究。
简介:慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)患者经常合并心血管疾病,这增加了慢性阻塞性肺病住院加重(H-ECOPD)或死亡的风险。这项实用性研究探讨了在长效支气管舒张剂(LABDs)的基础上添加吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)对近期发生过 H-ECOPD 的 COPD 和心脏病患者的影响:年龄大于 60 岁、患有慢性阻塞性肺病且合并有≥1 种心脏疾病的患者,在 H-ECOPD 出院后 6 个月内,随机接受含或不含 ICS 的 LABD,并随访 1 年。主要结果是首次再入院和/或全因死亡的时间:结果:未招募到计划的患者人数(803/1032),限制了结论的力度。在意向治疗人群中,LABD 组有 89/403 例患者(22.1%)再次入院或死亡(概率为 0.257 [95% 置信区间为 0.206, 0.318]),而 LABD+ICS 组有 85/400 例患者(21.3%)(概率为 0.249 [0.198, 0.310]),两组患者的死亡时间无差异(危险比为 1.116 [0.827, 1.504];P = 0.473)。接受LABD(s)+ICS治疗的患者全因死亡率和心血管死亡率较低,相对降幅分别为19.7%和27.4%(9.8% vs 12.2%和4.5% vs 6.2%),但两组患者在这些终点上没有进行正式的统计学比较。LABD+ICS组发生不良事件的患者较少(43.0% vs 50.4%;p = 0.013),其中4.9% vs 5.4%报告了肺炎不良事件:结果表明,在LABDs基础上加用ICS并不能缩短合并再入院/死亡的时间,但能降低全因死亡率和心血管死亡率。使用 ICS 与不良事件(尤其是肺炎)风险增加无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Internal Medicine
European Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
364
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Internal Medicine serves as the official journal of the European Federation of Internal Medicine and is the primary scientific reference for European academic and non-academic internists. It is dedicated to advancing science and practice in internal medicine across Europe. The journal publishes original articles, editorials, reviews, internal medicine flashcards, and other relevant information in the field. Both translational medicine and clinical studies are emphasized. EJIM aspires to be a leading platform for excellent clinical studies, with a focus on enhancing the quality of healthcare in European hospitals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信