1Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada;
2Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux (CIUSSS) de l’Estrie-CHUS, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada;
3CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'Ile-de-Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
Background Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) pharmacotherapy, and several long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) are currently available. Recognizing real-life frequencies of adverse reactions enables clinicians to give appropriate counseling to COPD patients on these medications.
Objective The main objective of this study was to assess frequencies of common adverse reactions of inhaled bronchodilators among COPD patients.
Design This was a cross-sectional study.
Participants Subjects registered in a database and followed up at pulmonary clinics for their COPD.
Main measures Subjects were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding the frequency of common adverse reactions that can be associated with LAMA and LABA.
Key results A total of 226 COPD patients were included and assigned to one of these three groups: LAMA + LABA (n = 182), LABA (n = 26), and LAMA (n = 18). The proportion of subjects in each group who reported to have experienced at least on adverse reaction in the week preceding the interview was 83.3%, 88.5%, and 95.6%, respectively. The most common adverse reaction that occurred “most of the time” or “always” in patients having LAMA and LABA was dry mouth (56%), followed by dry throat (32.4%) and muscle cramps (26.4%).
Conclusion Adverse reactions in users of inhaled bronchodilators that are not necessarily attributed to the medication itself are common in real-life practice. In COPD, monitoring of adverse reactions is important as they influence quality of life and adherence to medication.
Contexte Les bronchodilatateurs inhalés sont le pilier de la pharmacothérapie de la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (MPOC), et plusieurs antagonistes muscariniques à longue durée d'action (AMLA) et bêta-2 agonistes à longue durée d'action (BALA) sont actuellement disponibles. Reconnaître les fréquences réelles des effets indésirables permet aux cliniciens de donner des conseils appropriés aux patients atteints de MPOC sur ces médicaments.
Objectif L'objectif principal de cette étude était d'évaluer la fréquence des effets indésirables courants des bronchodilatateurs inhalés chez les patients atteints de MPOC.
Devis Il s'agissait d'une étude transversale.
Participants Sujets enregistrés dans une base de données et suivis dans des cliniques externes de pneumologie pour leur MPOC.
Principales mesures Les sujets ont été invités à remplir un questionnaire concernant la fréquence des effets indésirables courants pouvant être associés à l'AMLA et au BALA.
Principaux résultats Au total, 226 patients atteints de MPOC ont été inclus et répartis à l'un de ces trois groupes : AMLA + BALA (n = 182), BALA (n = 26) et AMLA (n = 18). La proportion de sujets dans chaque groupe qui ont déclaré avoir ressenti au moins un effet indésirable au cours de la semaine précédant l'entretien était de 83,3 %, 88,5 % et 95,6 %, respectivement. L'effet indésirable le plus fréquent survenu « la plupart du temps » ou « toujours » chez les patients sous AMLA et BALA était la sécheresse de la bouche (56 %), suivie de la sécheresse de la gorge (32,4 %) et des crampes musculaires (26,4 %).
Conclusion Les effets indésirables chez les utilisateurs de bronchodilatateurs inhalés qui ne sont pas nécessairement attribués au médicament lui-même sont fréquents en pratique courante. Dans la MPOC, la surveillance des effets indésirables est importante car ils influencent la qualité de vie et l'adhésion au traitement.
Key words: adverse reactions, chronic obstructive lung disease, inhaled bronchodilators, long-acting antimuscarinics, long-acting beta-agonists
Corresponding Author: Marie-France Beauchesne: firstname.lastname@example.org
Submitted: 25 February 2022; Accepted: 8 June 2022; Published: 16 August 2022
All articles published in DPG Open Access journals
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent disease associated with significant morbidity.1 Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay of pharmacotherapy, including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA).1 Several LAMA and LABA are currently available and the selection between them is mostly based on patient’s preference for an inhalation device. Newer long-acting bronchodilators have different pharmacokinetic properties, which might influence response to therapy (including adverse reactions), but this has not been studied specifically. Clinical trials report various incidences of adverse reactions to inhaled bronchodilators. For instance, dry mouth was reported in up to 8.9 % of patients having LAMA.2–11 Probably, the prevalence of comorbidities is higher in practice than in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which can influence the occurrence of adverse reactions (e.g., dry mouth in users of tricyclic antidepressants). For example, Scichilone et al. reported that more than 80% of COPD patients would not be eligible for inclusion in RCTs because of comorbidities, among other reasons, which underlines the importance of collecting “real-life” data.12 Adverse reactions influence COPD outcomes such as quality of life, adherence to medication, and effectiveness of medication, and identifying the most common adverse events is important in the process of shared decision--making.1 In a previous published study, we found that adverse reactions were frequent among 154 COPD patients having inhaled bronchodilators, but we did not describe polypharmacy, and the study included only a few patients on the more recent LAMA and LABA (e.g., only eight patients were having glycopyrronium, one patient had umeclidinium, and two patients were prescribed vilanterol).13 In order to overcome previous limitations and increase the sample size, we pursued the study and combined results of previous and newly recruited patients. The main objective of this study was to describe the frequency of common adverse reactions in users of inhaled bronchodilators among COPD patients in the context of real-life clinical practice.
A cross-sectional study was conducted to describe the frequency of common adverse reactions in COPD patients. The methodology of this study was the same as adopted in Rodrigue et al.,13 with the exception that we added descriptive data on the number of different classes of medications prescribed to COPD patients.
Subjects included in this study were selected from the Registre de Données en Santé Pulmonaire “RESP” database, which is a prospective registry of adults with a diagnosis of asthma and COPD confirmed by a respirologist, who are followed in two outpatients respiratory clinics in the province of Quebec, Canada. Data on demographic and clinical variables are collected in this database. Subjects who are registered have agreed to be contacted to participate in subsequent research projects. For some patients in the RESP database, information on medication dispensed in community pharmacies can also be collected from the “reMed” database. “reMed” database contains information related to drug prescription claims, updated every 2 weeks, and stored longitudinally for a sample of Quebec residents having a public (since 2016) or private (since 2008) drug insurance.
Subjects’ inclusion criteria for this project were as follows: registration in the “RESP” database, having a diagnosis of COPD confirmed by a respirologist, and prescription of LAMA and/or LABA. Patients on other COPD medications (e.g., inhaled corticosteroids) were also included. Patients who were unable to provide their consent or who did not speak English or French were excluded from the study.
Eligible COPD patients received an invitation letter by mail to participate in this project. The letter included two consent forms: one to be kept by the subject and the other to be signed and returned by mail to the research team. After 1–2 weeks of sending the letter, subjects were contacted by phone to give further explanation on the project. Subjects who gave their verbal consent were invited to complete the questionnaire on adverse reactions at this time, or later (an appointment was provided). Only interviews of the subjects who returned the signed consent form were included in the analysis. The first part of the study was conducted between January and October 2015, included a sample of 154 patients, and published in 2016.13 For the second part of the study, a sample of subjects was recruited from January to April 2019.
The questionnaire included a list of adverse reactions commonly associated with the use of inhaled bronchodilators in COPD patients. It was pretested among five COPD patients to ensure the clarity of questions. First, the patients were asked to identify their current inhaler medications, and whether any changes were opted during the last 6 months. Then, we questioned subjects about the occurrence of common adverse reactions, most specifically tremors, nervousness, palpitations, muscle cramps, headache, constipation, unpleasant sensation in the mouth, dryness in the mouth, and dry throat during the previous week. We also asked about the occurrence of urinary retention and blurred vision during the last month. Subjects had to report the frequency of adverse reactions on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, and 5 = always). Subjects were also asked in a simple open-ended question whether the occurrence of adverse reactions prevented them from completing daily activities.
Characteristics collected to describe participants were retrieved from the “RESP” database, and measured at the time of recruitment in the database. More specifically, the characteristics included age, gender, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), level of education, work status, drug insurance, prior participation in a rehabilitation program, oxygen supplementation, and level of dyspnea according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea scale. From the “reMed” database, we measured the number of classes of medications filled during the 3 months preceding the interview by using the first four digits of the anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system (ATC) codes. We then calculated the number of patients who used at least five different classes of medications (including respiratory medications) based on previous definitions of polypharmacy or studies applying this definition.14,15
Descriptive statistics were estimated to report subjects’ characteristics and frequency of adverse reactions. Number, percentage, and 95% confidence interval (CI) of subjects with adverse reactions “most of the time” or “always” were estimated for patients having LAMA+LABA, only LAMA without LABA, and only LABA without LAMA. Statistical analyses were completed by a statistician using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
The study was approved by the research and ethics committees of the CIUSSS du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal and the CIUSSS de l’Estrie-CHUS.
Overall, 360 subjects from the RESP database were eligible (242 in the first, and 118 in the second sample), and 226 patients were included in the present study (Figure 1). A total of 72 patients recruited in 2019 were added to the initial sample of 154 subjects.13 In all, 54 of the 72 (75%) newly recruited patients were having a more recent LAMA and/or LABA (i.e., aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium by mist inhaler, umeclidinium, indacaterol, or vilanterol; data not shown). Characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. The mean age of 226 patients included in the project was about 70 years, most were ex-smokers, and less than 40% had participated in a rehabilitation program. Most of the participants were having LAMA+LABA (Table 1). Many subjects were also having an inhaled corticosteroid, and most of the patients filled at least five different classes of medications during the 3 months preceding the interview. Frequency of adverse reactions is presented in Table 2; dry mouth was the most common adverse reaction in 38–56% of patients, followed by dry throat, muscle cramps, and unpleasant sensation in the mouth. Palpitations and headache were less common but were present in about 20% of patients (Table 2). Almost all patients reported to have at least on adverse reaction during the week ahead of the interview, and about 10% outlined that it prevented them from completing daily activities (Table 2).
Table 1. Characteristics of subjects treated with inhaled long-acting bronchodilators
|LAMA+ LABA n = 182||LAMA n = 18||LABA n = 26|
|Mean age (years) at the time of recruitment in RESP database ± SD||71.1 ± 8.7||72.6 ± 8.8||75.2 ± 7.5|
|Males, n (%)||86 (47.2)||7 (38.9)||11 (44.4)|
|Smoking status at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Current smoker||40 (22.0)||3 (16.7)||4 (15.4)|
|Ex-smoker||134 (73.6)||13 (72.2)||20 (76.9)|
|Nonsmoker||8 (4.4)||2 (11.1)||1 (3.8)|
|Missing||0 (0.0)||0 (0.0)||1 (3.9)|
|Body mass index at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Underweight (≤18.5 kg/m2)||7 (3.9)||1 (5.6)||2 (7.7)|
|Normal (18.6–24.9 kg/m2)||61 (33.5)||2 (11.1)||6 (33.5)|
|Overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2)||54 (29.7)||11 (61.1)||6 (23.1)|
|Obesity (≥30.0 kg/m2)||53 (29.1)||4 (22.2)||11 (42.3)|
|Missing||7 (3.8)||0 (0.0)||1 (3.8)|
|Level of education at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|No diploma||60 (33.0)||6 (33.3)||10 (38.5)|
|High school||57 (31.3)||8 (44.4)||7 (26.9)|
|CEGEP||31 (17.0)||0 (0.0)||3 (11.5)|
|University||31 (17.0)||4 (22.2)||5 (19.2)|
|Missing||3 (1.6)||0 (0.0)||1 (3.8)|
|Work status at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Worker||32 (17.6)||3 (16.7)||2 (7.7)|
|Retired||125 (68.7)||15 (83.3)||19 (73.1)|
|Other||24 (13.2)||0 (0.0)||4 (15.4)|
|Missing||1 (0.6)||0 (0.0)||1 (3.8)|
|Drug insurance at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Public||42 (23.6)||6 (33.3)||4 (15.4)|
|Private||137 (75.3)||12 (66.7)||21 (80.8)|
|Missing||2 (1.1)||0 (0.0)||1 (3.8)|
|Participated in a respiratory rehabilitation program in the year before recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Yes||52 (28.6)||5 (27.8)||10 (38.5)|
|No||114 (62.6)||11 (61.1)||14 (53.8)|
|Missing||16 (8.8)||2 (11.1)||2 (7.7)|
|Oxygen supplementation at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Yes||28 (15.4)||0 (0.0)||2 (7.7)|
|No||139 (76.4)||16 (88.9)||22 (84.6)|
|Missing||15 (8.2)||2 (11.1)||2 (7.7)|
|MRC dyspnea scale at the time of recruitment in RESP database, n (%)|
|Grade 0||14 (7.7)||2 (11.1)||3 (11.5)|
|Grade 1||55 (30.2)||8 (44.4)||5 (19.2)|
|Grade 2||31 (17.0)||2 (11.1)||5 (19.2)|
|Grade 3||23 (14.6)||2 (11.1)||6 (23.1)|
|Grade 4||43 (23.6)||1 (5.6)||4 (15.4)|
|Missing||16 (8.8)||3 (16.7)||3 (11.5)|
|Mean FEV1, % of predicted pre-bronchodilator therapy in the year before recruitment in RESP database ± SD|
|(n, available number)||52.1 ± 16.3 (164)||67.7 ± 11.4 (18)||63.3 ± 29.7 (22)|
|Treatment regimen at the interview, n (%)|
|LABA||16 (8.8)||NA||7 (26.9)|
|Salmeterol||3 (1.7)||NA||4 (15.4)|
|Formoterol||11 (6.0)||NA||2 (7.7)|
|Indacaterol||2 (1.1)||NA||1 (3.8)|
|LAMA||175 (96.1)||18 (100.0)||NA|
|Tiotropium||145 (79.7)||15 (83.3)||NA|
|Glycopyrronium||14 (7.7)||3 (16.7)||NA|
|Aclidinium bromide||12 (6.6)||0 (0.0)||NA|
|Any ICS†||168 (92.3)||2 (11.1)||23 (88.5)|
|ICS/LABA/LAMA||1 (0.6)||NA||0 (0.0)|
|Fluticasone/uméclidinium/vilantérol||1 (0.6)||NA||0 (0.0)|
|ICS/LABA||161 (88.5)||NA||20 (76.9)|
|Fluticasone/salmeterol||91 (50.0)||NA||8 (30.8)|
|Budesonide/formoterol||54 (29.7)||NA||9 (34.6)|
|Mometasone/formoterol||11 (6.0)||NA||1 (3.8)|
|Fluticasone/vilanterol||7 (3.9)||NA||2 (7.7)|
|ICS||15 (8.2)||2 (11.1)||4 (15.4)|
|Budesonide||1 (0.6)||1 (5.6)||1 (3.8)|
|Fluticasone||7 (3.9)||0 (0.0)||1 (3.8)|
|Ciclesonide||7 (3.9)||1 (5.6)||2 (7.7)|
|Other respiratory medications‡||76 (41.8)||7 (38.9)||12 (46.2)|
|Prescription filled in the 3 months preceding the interview (n patients with available data), n (%)||178||18||25|
|LAMA+LABA||156 (87.6)||2 (11.1)||5 (20.0)|
|LAMA (without LABA)||10 (5.7)||15 (83.3)||0 (0.0)|
|LABA (without LAMA)||3 (1.7)||0 (0.0)||18 (72.0)|
|Without LABA and LAMA||9 (5.1)||1 (5.6)||2 (8.0)|
|Number of classes of medication filled in the 3 months preceding the interview, n (%)|
|0–4||22 (12.4)||1 (5.6)||6 (24.0)|
|≥5||156 (87.6)||17 (94.4)||19 (76)|
|Mean delay between recruitment in RESP database and the interview, days ± SD||641 ± 683||378 ± 342||399 ± 290|
|Subjects reporting a change in their inhaled bronchodilator therapy in the last 6 months, n (%; 95% CI)||28 (15.4; 10.1–20.6)||4 (22.2; 3.0–41.4)||4 (15.4; 1.5–29.3)|
*Two patients from the LAMA+LABA group were treated with tiotropium soft mist inhaler.
†Patients can be prescribed more than one ICS.
‡Includes respiratory medications such as phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and oral corticosteroids.
LAMA, long-acting muscarinic antagonists; LABA, long-acting beta-2 agonists; ICS, inhaled corticosteroids; CI, confidence interval; CEGEP, Collège d’enseignement general et professionnel; FEV1, Forced Expiratory Volume; MRC, Medical Research Council.
Table 2. Frequency of adverse reactions, N = 226
|LAMA+LABA N = 182||LAMA N = 18||LABA N = 26|
|AEs in the week before the interview|
|Any AE, n (%, 95% CI)||174 (95.6; 92.6–98.6)||15 (83.3; 66.1–100.0)||23 (88.5; 76.2–100.0)|
|Any AE according to the number of classes of medications, n/n evaluable* (%; 95% CI)|
|0–4 classes||34/37 (91.9; 83.1–100.0)||5/5 (100; 100.0–100.0)||6/8 (75.0; 45.0–100.0)|
|Five and more classes||140/145 (96.6; 93.6–99.5)||10/13 (76.9; 54.0–99.6)||17/18 (94.4; 83.9–100.0)|
|Dry mouth, n (%; 95% CI)||102 (56.0; 48.8–63.3)||7 (38.9; 16.4–61.4)||13 (50.0; 30.8–69.2)|
|Dry throat, n (%; 95% CI)||59 (32.4; 25.6–39.2)||5 (27.8; 7.1–48.5)||10 (38.5; 19.8–57.2)|
|Muscle cramps, n (%; 95% CI)||48 (26.4; 20.0–32.8)||2 (11.1; 0.0–25.6)||5 (19.2; 4.1–34.4)|
|Unpleasant sensation in the mouth, n (%; 95% CI)||45 (24.7; 18.5–31.0)||4 (22.2; 3.0–41.4)||5 (19.2; 4.1–34.4)|
|Nervousness, n (%; 95% CI)||33 (18.1; 12.5–23.7)||1 (5.6; 0.0–16.1)||4 (15.4; 1.5–29.3)|
|Constipation, n (%; 95% CI)||28 (15.9; 10.6–21.3)||2 (11.1; 0.0–25.6)||4 (15.4; 1.5–29.3)|
|Tremors, n (%; 95% CI)||29 (15.9; 10.6–21.2)||0||5 (19.2; 4.1–34.4)|
|Palpitations, n (%; 95% CI)||22 (12.1; 7.4–16.8)||0||4 (15.4; 1.5–29.3)|
|Headache, n (%; 95% CI)||22 (12.1; 7.4–16.8)||1 (5.6; 0.0–16.1)||3 (11.5; 0.0–23.8)|
|AE during the last month|
|Any AE, n (%; 95% CI)||176 (96.7; 94.1–99.3)||15 (83.3; 66.1–100.0)||23 (88.5; 76.2–100.0)|
|Patients with AE that prevents them from completing a daily activity, n (%; 95% CI)||23 (12.6; 7.–17.5)||0||2 (7.7; 0.0–17.9)|
|Blurred vision, n (%; 95% CI)||21 (11.5; 6.9–16.2)||1 (18.0; 0.0–16.1)||6 (23.1; 6.9–39.3)|
|Urinary retention, n (%; 95% CI)||15 (8.2; 4.2–12.1)||2 (11.1; 0.0–25.6)||2 (7.7; 0.0–17.9)|
LAMA, long-acting muscarinic antagonists; LABA, long-acting beta-2 agonists; AE, adverse reaction; CI, confidence interval.
*n/n, number of subjects that match the characteristic over the number of evaluable subjects.
Figure 1. Selection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients.
Most COPD patients experienced adverse events and 10% of them reported that this limited their daily activities. When comparing results of this combined analysis to the ones published in 2016,13 the findings were generally the same. However, the more recent results have demonstrated a slightly higher percentage of tremors (15.9% vs. 11.2%) and a lower percentage of unpleasant sensation in the mouth (24.7% vs. 29.3%).13 These changes could be explained by a matter of chance rather than the inclusion of more recent long-acting bronchodilators. Our project was not intended to compare the prevalence of adverse reactions between medications of the same class. Combining the two samples had the advantages of increasing the sample size and generalization of results to the current practice, for which newer LAMA and LABA were prescribed.
The percentage of adverse reactions observed was higher than the estimates of previous RCTs. In fact, in clinical trials on LAMA, LABA, or both, the incidence of adverse effects was up to 6.7% for tremors,2,3,16 3.3% for nervousness,2 3.3% for palpitations,17–19 4.3% for muscle cramps,7–11,19–23 9% for headache,3,5,7–9,11,19,20,21,23,24-26–33 8.9% for dry mouth,2–11 and less than 0.1% for urinary retention.34 Deterioration of COPD was the most common adverse event in RCTs, occurring in up to 77.3% of patients, but we did not study the occurrence of this outcome in our study.2,3,5,7–11,16,19,20–29,31,32,34–36 Considering “dry mouth” as an example, its frequency in our study was up to 56%, which was about six times more frequent than what was observed in clinical trials. The higher incidence of adverse effects in our study could be explained by the fact that participant characteristics were different compared to the characteristics found in RCTs in terms of comorbidities and use of concomitant medication. Furthermore, our design did not include a control group. In addition, there was a probability of having responder bias, since patients who experienced adverse reactions were more likely to participate in the study. Probability of a confirmation bias was also encountered because we specifically asked about the occurrence of adverse reactions. Users of both LAMA and LABA had more severe disease, which could have also influenced the frequency of adverse reactions.
Our study was limited by the measurement of some characteristics (i.e., age, smoking status, BMI, level of education, work status, drug insurance, participation in a rehabilitation program, oxygen supplementation, level of dyspnea, and forced expiratory volume (FEV1)) at the time of recruitment in the RESP database, which does not necessarily reflect current status. Furthermore, we included patients having other COPD medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids, that could have influenced the incidence of adverse reactions. In addition, we did not compare users of additional anticholinergics or adrenergic drugs with nonusers, which could have influenced the incidence of adverse effects. There was also a response bias, since participants were given a set list of adverse reactions to choose from, which naturally lead to higher percentage. Strengths of this study were the inclusion of COPD patients with a diagnosis confirmed by a respirologist, use of a pretested questionnaire, and access to drug claims data and its conduct under real-life conditions.
Adverse reactions are very common in COPD patients on inhaled bronchodilators for which many of them are on at least five different classes of medications, which could impact their daily activities. Even if adverse reactions were frequent, the patients were still using the prescribed medication at the time of completing the questionnaire. Further studies could investigate association between occurrence of adverse reactions, adherence to medication, and quality of life in COPD patients.
This study was funded by AstraZeneca. RESP database was funded by the Réseau Québécois de recherche sur les médicaments and the Réseau de recherche en santé respiratoire du Québec from the Fonds de recherche santé Québec, the Fondation de l’Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, Merck Frost Canada Inc., and Novartis Canada Ltd. Study sponsors had no role in the conduct of the study.
The first part of the study was presented at the following meetings:
Rodrigue C, Beauchesne MF, Savaria F, Forget A, Lemière C, Larivée P, Blais L. Effets secondaires des bronchodilatateurs à longue action chez les patients souffrant de la MPOC. Congrès Québécois en Santé Respiratoire (CQSR), November 13, 2015, Lévis, Canada.
Rodrigue C, Beauchesne MF, Savaria F, Lemière C, Larivée P, Blais L. Effets secondaires des agents anticholinergiques et des bêta-2 agonistes à longue action chez les patients souffrant de Maladie Pulmonaire Obstructive Chronique. Rendez-vous de la Recherche, Université de Montréal, Décember 3, 2015, Montréal, Canada.
Rodrigue C, Savaria F, Beauchesne MF, Larivée P, Lemière C, Blais L. Effets secondaires des agents anticholinergiques et des bêta-2 agonistes à longue action chez les patients souffrant de maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique. Colloque Annuel 2015 du Réseau Québécois de Recherche sur les Médicaments (RQRM), June 2, 2015, Québec, Canada.
All authors contributed to the designing of the project, analysis of the results, and writing of this paper. Hajar Kalakeche, Claudie Rodrigue, and Amélie Forget were more specifically involved in data collection and statistical analyses.
Hajar Kalakeche, Claudie Rodrigue, and Amélie Forget had no conflict of interest to declare.
Lucie Blais received funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and TEVA. Marie-France Beauchesne also received funding from AstraZeneca plc.
1. Vogelmeier CF, Agusti A, Anzueto A, Barnes P, et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive lung disease. 2021 Report. [cited
2. Ferguson GT, Reisner C, Pearle J, DePetrillo P, Maes A, Martin UJ. Cardiovascular safety profile of a fixed-dose combination of glycopyrrolate and formoterol fumarate delivered via metered dose inhaler using co-suspension delivery technology. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2018;49:67–74. 10.1016/j.pupt.2018.01.007
3. Reisner C, Pearle J, Kerwin EM, St Rose E, Darken P. Efficacy and safety of four doses of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate delivered via a metered dose inhaler compared with the monocomponents in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:1965–77. 10.2147/COPD.S166455
4. Beeh KM, EMirova A, Prunier H, Snaotor D, Nandeuil MA. Dose-response of an extrafine dry powder inhaler formulation of glycopyrronium bromide: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study (GlycoNEXT). Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:1701–11. 10.2147/COPD.S168493
5. Kerwin E, Donohue JF, Goodin T, Tosiello R, Wheeler A, Ferguson GT. Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS (nebulized glycopyrrolate) in moderate-to-very-severe COPD: Results from the glycopyrrolate for obstructive lung disease via electronic nebulizer (GOLDEN) 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials. Respir Med. 2017;132:238–50. 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.07.011
6. Kerwin EM, Spangenthal S, Kollar C, St Rose E, Reisner C. A phase IIb randomized, chronic-dosing, incomplete block, cross-over study of glycopyrronium, delivered via metered dose inhaler, compared with a placebo and an active control in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Respir Res. 2018;19(1):38. 10.1186/s12931-018-0739-6
7. Vestbo J, Papi A, Corradi M, et al. Single inhaler extra fine triple therapy versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRINITY): A double--blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10082):1919–29. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30188-5
8. Buhl R, Gessner C, Schuermann W, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with the free combination of once-daily tiotropium plus twice-daily formoterol in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD (QUANTIFY): A randomised, non-inferiority study. Thorax. 2015;70(4):311–9. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206345
9. Frith PA, Thompson PJ, Ratnavadivel R, et al. Glycopyrronium once-daily significantly improves lung function and health status when combined with salmeterol/fluticasone in patients with COPD: The GLISTEN study—a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2015;70(6):519–27. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206670
10. Martinez FJ, Rabe KF, Ferguson GT, et al. Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol metered dose inhaler formulated using co-suspension delivery technology in patients with COPD. Chest. 2017;151(2):340–57. 10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.028
11. Singh D, Schroder-Babo W, Cohuet G, et al. The bronchodilator effects of extra fine glycopyrronium added to combination treatment with beclometasone dipropionate plus formoterol in COPD: A randomised crossover study (the TRIDENT study). Respir Med. 2016;114:84–90. 10.1016/j.rmed.2016.03.018
12. Scichilone N, Basile M, Battaglia S, Bellia V. What proportion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outpatients is eligible for inclusion in randomized clinical trials? Respir Int Rev Thor Dis. 2014;87(1):11–7. 10.1159/000355082
13. Rodrigue C, Beauchesne MF, Savaria F, et al. Adverse events among COPD patients treated with long-acting anticholinergics and B2-agonists in an outpatient respiratory clinic. Respir Med 2016;113:65–73. 10.1016/j.rmed.2016.02.002
14. McMillan J, Nino-Canon L, Campbell S, Gill MJ. Potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults (≥50 years) living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): A cross-sectional study: Polypharmacy in HIV. [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 20]. Can J Gen Int Med. 2022 Feb 5;17(1):1–10. Available from: https://www.cjgim.ca/index.php/csim/article/view/521
15. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey G.E. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriat. 2017;17(1):230. 10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2
16. Zheng J, de Guia T, Wang-Jairaj J, et al. Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (50/25 mcg; 100/25 mcg; 200/25 mcg) in Asian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(6):1191–200. 10.1185/03007995.2015.1036016
17. Koch A, Watz H, Maleki-Yazdi MR, et al. Comprehensive assessment of the safety of olodaterol 5 mcg in the Respimat device for maintenance treatment of COPD: Comparison with the long-acting beta-2 agonist formoterol. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017;27(1):60. 10.1038/s41533-017-0059-1
18. Halpin DM, Dahl R, Hallmann C, Mueller A, Tashkin D. Tiotropium hand inhaler and respimat in COPD: A pooled safety analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:239–59. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206260.387
19. Yamagata E, Soutome T, Hashimoto K, Mihara K, Tohda Y. Long-term (52 weeks) safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(5):967–73. 10.1185/03007995.2016.1140029
20. Girodet PO, Jasnot JY, LeGros V, Decuypère L, Cao W, Devouassoux G. Efficacy and safety of indacaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease aged over 65 years: A pooled analysis. Respir Med. 2017;128:92–101. 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.05.010
21. Calverley PM, Eriksson G, Jenkins CR, et al.. Early efficacy of budesonide/formoterol in patients with moderate-to-very--severe COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:13–25. 10.2147/COPD.S114209
22. Donohue JF, Soong W, Wu X, Shrestha P, Lei A. Long-term safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination: Results of a randomized 1-year trial in patients with COPD. Respir Med. 2016;116:41–8. 10.1016/j.rmed.2016.05.007
23. Vogelmeier C, Zhong N, Humphries MJ, et al. Indacaterol/ glycopyrronium in symptomatic patients with COPD (GOLD B and GOLD D) versus salmeterol/fluticasone: ILLUMINATE/LANTERN pooled analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11(1):3189–97. 10.2147/COPD.S116786
24. Aalbers R, Maleki-Yazdi MR, Hamilton A, et al. Randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study for tiotropium when added to olodaterol, administered via the respimat inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adv Ther. 2015;32(9):809–22. 10.1007/s12325-015-0239-8
25. D'Urzo A, Rennard S, Kerwin E, et al. A randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term extension study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium/formoterol or monotherapy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2017;125:39–48. 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.02.008
26. Hanania NA, Tashkin DP, Kerwin EM, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of glycopyrrolate/formoterol metered dose inhaler using novel co-suspensionTM delivery technology in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Med. 2017;126:105–15. 10.1016/j.rmed.2017.03.015
27. Mahler DA, Gifford AH, Satti A, et al. Long-term safety of glycopyrrolate: A randomized study in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD (GEM3). Respir Med. 2016;115:39–45. 10.1016/j.rmed.2016.03.015
28. D’Urzo AD, Kerwin EM, Chapman KR, et al. Safety of inhaled glycopyrronium in patients with COPD: A comprehensive analysis of clinical studies and post-marketing data. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10(1):1599–612. 10.2147/COPD.S81266
29. Ichinose M, Nishimura M, Akimoto M, et al. Tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in Japanese patients with COPD: Results from the DYNAGITO study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:2271–78. 10.2147/COPD.S191099; 10.2147/COPD.S169941
30. Maleki-Yazdi MR, Singh D, Anzueto A, Tombs L, Fahy WA, Naya I. Assessing short-term deterioration in maintenance-naive patients with COPD receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol and tiotropium: A pooled analysis of three randomized trials. Adv Ther. 2017;33(12):2188–99. 10.1007/s12325-016-0430-6
31. Donohue JF, Worsley S, Zhu C-Q, Hardaker L, Church A. Improvements in lung function with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with moderate--to-severe COPD and infrequent exacerbations. Respir Med. 2015;109(7):870–81. 10.1016/j.rmed.2015.04.018
32. Siler TM, Kerwin E, Sousa AR, Donald A, Ali R, Church A. Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium added to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results of two randomized studies. Respir Med. 2015;109(9):1155–63. 10.1016/j.rmed.2015.06.006
33. Beeh KM, Kirsten AM, Tanase AM, et al. Indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate provides sustained improvements in lung function compared with salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD: Results from a phase II randomized, double-blind 12-week study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:3923–36. 10.2147/COPD.S179293
34. Lipson DA, Barnhart F, Brealey N, et al. Once-daily single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy in patients with COPD. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(18):1671–80. 10.1056/NEJMoa1713901
35. Bai C, Ichinose M, Lee SH, et al. Lung function and long-term safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in East Asian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:3329–39. 10.2147/COPD.S137719
36. Derom E, Brusselle GG, Joos GF. Efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol fixed-dose combination in COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11(1):3163–77. 10.2147/COPD.S92840