Risk for death associated with medications for recently diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Hines Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois 60141, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 09/2008; 149(6):380-90.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Concerns exist regarding increased risk for mortality associated with some chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) medications.
To examine the association between various respiratory medications and risk for death in veterans with newly diagnosed COPD.
Nested case-control study in a cohort identified between 1 October 1999 and 30 September 2003 and followed through 30 September 2004 by using National Veterans Affairs inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy, and mortality databases; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services databases; and National Death Index Plus data. Cause of death was ascertained for a random sample of 40% of those who died during follow-up. Case patients were categorized on the basis of all-cause, respiratory, or cardiovascular death. Mortality risk associated with medications was assessed by using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions, health care use, and markers of COPD severity.
U.S. Veterans Health Administration health care system.
32 130 case patients and 320 501 control participants in the all-cause mortality analysis. Of 11 897 patients with cause-of-death data, 2405 case patients had respiratory deaths and 3159 case patients had cardiovascular deaths.
All-cause mortality; respiratory and cardiovascular deaths; and exposure to COPD medications, inhaled corticosteroids, ipratropium, long-acting beta-agonists, and theophylline in the 6 months preceding death.
Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for all-cause mortality were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.83) for inhaled corticosteroids, 1.11 (CI, 1.08 to 1.15) for ipratropium, 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.96) for long-acting beta-agonists, and 1.05 (CI, 0.99 to 1.10) for theophylline. Ipratropium was associated with increased cardiovascular deaths (OR, 1.34 [CI, 1.22 to 1.47]), whereas inhaled corticosteroids were associated with reduced risk for cardiovascular death (OR, 0.80 [CI, 0.72 to 0.88]). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.
Current smoking status and lung function were not measured. Misclassification of cause-specific mortality is unknown.
The possible association between ipratropium and elevated risk for all-cause and cardiovascular death needs further study.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current guidelines limit regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to a specific subgroup of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in whom the forced expiratory volume in 1 s is <60% of predicted and who have frequent exacerbations. In these patients, there is evidence that ICS reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve lung function and quality of life. However, a review of the literature suggests that the evidence available may be interpreted to favour or contradict these observations. It becomes apparent that COPD is a heterogeneous condition. Clinicians therefore need to be aware of the heterogeneity as well as having an understanding of how ICS may be used in the context of the specific subgroups of patients with COPD. This review argues for and against the use of ICS in COPD by providing an in-depth analysis of the currently available evidence.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 08/2014; 78(2):282-300. DOI:10.1111/bcp.12334 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tiotropium is prescribed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 μg once daily) or Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler (5 μg once daily). The recent TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat(®) (TIOSPIR™) study demonstrated that both exhibit similar safety profiles. This analysis provides an updated comprehensive safety evaluation of tiotropium(®) using data from placebo-controlled HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials. Pooled analysis of adverse event (AE) data from tiotropium HandiHaler(®) 18 μg and Respimat(®) 5 μg randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trials in patients with COPD (treatment duration ≥4 weeks). Incidence rates, rate ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials, both together and separately. In the 28 HandiHaler(®) and 7 Respimat(®) trials included in this analysis, 11,626 patients were treated with placebo and 12,929 with tiotropium, totaling 14,909 (12,469 with HandiHaler(®); 2,440 with Respimat(®)) patient-years of tiotropium exposure. Mean age was 65 years, and mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.16 L (41% predicted). The risk (RR [95% CI]) of AEs (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]) and of serious AEs (SAEs) (0.94 [0.89, 0.99]) was significantly lower in the tiotropium than in the placebo group (HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) pooled results), and there was a numerically lower risk of fatal AEs (FAEs) (0.90 [0.79, 1.01]). The risk of cardiac AEs (0.93 [0.85, 1.02]) was numerically lower in the tiotropium group. Incidences of typical anticholinergic AEs, but not SAEs, were higher with tiotropium. Analyzed separately by inhaler, the risks of AE and SAE in the tiotropium groups remained lower than in placebo and similarly for FAEs. This analysis indicates that tiotropium is associated with lower rates of AEs, SAEs, and similar rates of FAEs than placebo when delivered via HandiHaler(®) or Respimat(®) (overall and separately) in patients with COPD.
    International Journal of COPD 01/2015; 10:239. DOI:10.2147/COPD.S75146
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tiotropium is a long-acting inhaled anticholinergic agent that is widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It was initially launched as the tiotropium HandiHaler formulation, but this was followed by a newer version based on a potentially more efficient drug delivery device, known as Respimat. This Respimat formulation is available worldwide but has not yet succeeded in gaining regulatory approval in the USA. In the past few years, the adverse effects profile of tiotropium has come under close scrutiny owing to concerns about the possibility of urinary and cardiovascular adverse effects. These concerns appeared to have been alleviated following the publication of data from the Understanding Potential Long-Term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial, which was a large trial of 4 years' duration. This trial did not show any excess myocardial infarction, renal or urinary adverse events with tiotropium compared with placebo. However, the risk of urinary retention has been in the spotlight again following publication of two observational studies reporting a significantly increased risk of urinary retention in men recently started on inhaled anticholinergics, especially when prostatic hyperplasia coexists. More recently, a meta-analysis of mortality data for the tiotropium Respimat formulation raised the possibility of an increased risk of death, including death from cardiovascular causes. It is unclear if the more efficient drug delivery offered by the Respimat device is hitting a different part of the dose-toxicity curve. In the absence of any evidence of superior clinical efficacy with tiotropium Respimat compared with tiotropium HandiHaler, some experts have argued that there is no compelling reason to choose the Respimat formulation given the new uncertainties about its safety profile.
    06/2012; 3(3):123-31. DOI:10.1177/2042098612438388


Available from