COPD : a stepwise or a hit hard approach?

Rev Port Pneumol. 2016;22(4):214---221 www.revportpneumol.org SPECIAL ARTICLE COPD: A stepwise or a hit hard approach? A.J. Ferreiraa,b, A. Reisc, N. Marc¸al d, P. Pintoe,f, C. Bárbarae,f,∗, on behalf of the GI DPOC-Grupo de Interesse na Doenc¸a Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crónica aPulmonology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra, Portugal bFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Portugal cPulmonology Department, Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu, EPE, Portugal dPulmonology Department, Hospital de Vila Franca de Xira, Portugal eChest Department, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Lisbon, Portugal fEnvironmental Health Institute (ISAMB), Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Portugal Received 22 August 2015; accepted 27 December 2015 Available online 27 February 2016 KEYWORDS COPD; Stepwise; Hit hard; Step-up; ICS withdrawal; Bronchodilators; ICS Abstract Current guidelines differ slightly on the recommendations for treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients, and although there are some undisputed recommendations, there is still debate regarding the management of COPD. One of the hindrances to deciding which therapeutic approach to choose is late diagnosis or misdiagnosis of COPD. After a proper diagnosis is achieved and severity assessed, the choice between a stepwise or ‘‘hit hard’’ approach has to be made. For GOLD A patients the stepwise approach is recommended, whilst for B, C and D patients this remains debatable. Moreover, in patients for whom inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended, a step-up or ‘‘hit hard’’ approach with triple therapy will depend on the patient’s characteristics and, for patients who are being over-treated with ICS, ICS withdrawal should be performed, in order to optimize therapy and reduce excessive medications. This paper discusses and proposes stepwise, ‘‘hit hard’’, step-up and ICS withdrawal therapeutic approaches for COPD patients based on their GOLD group. We conclude that all approaches have benefits, and only a careful patient selection will determine which approach is better, and which patients will benefit the most from each approach. © 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-nd/4.0/). ∗Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (C. Bárbara). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rppnen.2015.12.012 2173-5115/© 2016 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Published by Elsevier Espa˜ na, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). COPD: A stepwise or a hit hard approach? 215 Introduction Current guidelines differ slightly on the recommendations for treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients, mainly because patient stratification is not consensual across guidelines.1 --- 5 Although there are some undisputed recommendations, such as smoking cessation, physical activity programs, and influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, there is still debate regarding the management of COPD.6---12 The therapeutic approach proposed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), and based solely on the GOLD classification of COPD,2is not entirely satisfactory, given the variability within GOLD groups, namely regarding hospitalizations and mortality.13 However, therapy has to be based on some classification system, and the GOLD classification is the most widely accepted, even with its caveats. One of the hindrances to deciding which therapeutic approach to choose is late diagnosis or misdiagnosis of COPD. Patients who are not diagnosed at the early stages of the disease cannot receive the early treatment which has been shown to be beneficial.6,11,14 On the other hand, patients misdiagnosed with asthma or Asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS), will be overtreated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and are likely to see no improvement in their symptom burden. In fact, two recent analyses showed that, in current clinical practice, ICS are being prescribed inappropriately,15,16 and that thousands of patients may be overtreated. After a proper diagnosis is achieved, and severity assessed, the choice for a stepwise or ‘‘hit hard’’ approach has to be made, and if for GOLD A patients the stepwise approach is recommended,2for B, C and D patients this remains debatable.17 The argument for the stepwise approach is to not overtreat patients, but some patients may benefit from a ‘‘hit hard’’ approach, with the aim of maximal bronchodilation.12,13,18---20 In patients who will benefit from dual bronchodilation, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta-agonist (LAMA/LABA) fixed-dose combination is advantageous.11,12,21---24 Also, in patients for whom ICS is recommended, a step-up or ‘‘hit hard’’ approach with triple therapy will depend on the patient’s characteristics.2,4,5,17 For patients who are being overtreated with ICS, ICS withdrawal should be performed, in order to optimize therapy and reduce excessive medications.21,22,25---28 However, this raises another question: how to decide when a patient is being overtreated? There are currently no reliable or accurate biomarkers of response to therapy and disease progression, so the decision concerning ICS withdrawal must be based on the available objective tests and subjective instruments.2 Results from a recent UK Primary Care Setting retrospective study showed that, 24 months after COPD diagnosis and prescription of initial therapy, several treatment strategies are used: switch in medication, stepwise, step-up and ICS withdrawal,28 suggesting that here is an unmet clinical need to refine therapy beyond GOLD and other international and national guidelines. This paper discusses and proposes stepwise and ‘‘hit hard’’ therapeutic approaches for COPD patients based on their GOLD group. An alternative treatment approach, based on phenotypes, is addressed elsewhere.29 We suggest two subgroups for GOLD A and GOLD B patients, with different therapeutic approaches. Finally, we conclude that, in COPD, therapy should be tailored to the patient, taking into consideration co-morbidities, presence of hyperinflation, history of chronic bronchitis, levels of physical activity, and each individual patient characteristics. GOLD A patients It is difficult to identify asymptomatic GOLD A patients with no exacerbations, given that they have no reason to seek medical help. Spirometric screening of asymptomatic individuals is not supported by evidence, although in individuals over 40 years old and with a smoking history of >10 pack years, spirometry may be performed with the aim of early diagnosis.1Indeed, some of these patients are identified during screenings, but many of those who are not eligible for screening (e.g., non-smokers), may remain undiagnosed.11 Also, these patients tend to underestimate their symptoms and adapt their daily activities by exercise self-limitation,1 hence reporting to be asymptomatic. These unidentified patients cannot receive the early treatment, which has been shown to be beneficial.6,11,14 Identification of GOLD A patients Besides screening, these patients are mainly identified in four situations: (a) in clinical visits for other causes or complaints; (b) when they are subjected to tests for nonrespiratory reasons; (c) in the emergency room due to an acute episode; or (d) during pre-surgery testing. Once identified, it is imperative not to lose these patients to follow-up, as they will eventually evolve to other GOLD group and therapy will have to be adjusted. A correct diagnosis is of the utmost importance, since it leads to both undertreatment and overtreatment (e.g., COPD diagnosed as asthma). We suggest an active case-finding approach for the identification of GOLD A patients. We further propose that these patients are flagged whenever they are diagnosed and, thereafter, that they are managed by their general practitioner, in close cooperation with a pulmonologist. Recommended therapeutic approach for GOLD A patients Given that these patients are often excluded from Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs), there are no systematic data available on which therapy should be used or how they will respond.6Should they be treated? When? With which medication and how? How will they progress with or without therapy? A study based on the ECLIPSE cohort showed that, at 3 years follow-up, 57% of patients initially assigned to GOLD A remained in the A group, whilst the remaining 43% progressed to other GOLD groups.13 Based on this study, all GOLD A patients should receive treatment. Current guidelines generally recommend for these patients smoking cessation, physical activity programs, and influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. Also, the use of a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) or a short-acting 216 A.J. Ferreira et al. muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) as needed is mostly consensual, although LABA or LAMA may be used as alternative therapies.1 --- 5 Some authors speculate that early intervention with long-acting bronchodilators may improve patientreported outcomes.11 However, one major issue with these patients is compliance to long-term drugs,6and patient education is fundamental in delaying COPD evolution. In GOLD A patients, both phenotype3,6,30 and comorbidities1 --- 5 should be taken into account when choosing between a LABA or a LAMA, with the aim of achieving the best outcomes and delaying disease progression. Both LAMAs and LABAs have shown similar profiles regarding FEV1and dyspnea improvement, exercise tolerance, exacerbations reduction and safety.21,23,24,26,31---40 However, there is some evidence that LAMAs may delay lung function decline34,35 and decrease all-cause mortality,34 and may be more effective than LABAs in preventing exacerbations.41 Despite this, and although LABAs do not seem to influence mortality,42 two studies showed superiority in providing better symptomatic improvement than a LAMA.43,44 These data suggest that LAMAs should be preferred for patients at higher risk of exacerbations, whilst LABAs would be better for symptomatic control, although it depends on the individual clinical response of each patient. If a LABA is chosen, indacaterol may be preferable to other commercially available LABAs since, besides having all the above mentioned advantages of LABAs, it is the only once-daily LABA with studies designed to investigate exacerbations45,46 and proved able to reduce them, although in moderate to severe patients.39,40 However, evidence is still too scarce to propose a recommendation between a LABA and a LAMA. Also, the financial aspect should not be disregarded when choosing between a LABA or a LAMA, as some patients may not be able to afford some therapies and respond well to more affordable alternatives. Dual bronchodilation is not an option for these patients. Finally, given the heterogeneity of COPD, even patients classified as belonging to the A group show a large variability. We propose that group A patients need to be sub-divided into two groups, AX1 and AX2, and the therapeutic approach should be based on this subdivision --- Table 1. We further recommend that, if a LABA is chosen, indacaterol may be preferable as it also reduces the rate of exacerbations. We also recommend that therapy should be tailored to the patient, taking into consideration co-morbidities, Table 1 Proposed division of GOLD A patients in two subgroups and respective therapeutic approaches. Sub-group characteristics Therapeutic approach AX1: FEV1> 80%; no worsening of FEV1in annual assessment SABA or SAMA only SOS AX2: 50% < FEV1< 80%; and/or worsening of FEV1in annual assessment LABA or LAMA FEV1--- forced expiratory volume in 1 second; SABA --- short acting ␤2-agonist; SAMA --- short acting muscarinic antagonist; LABA --- long acting ␤2-agonist; LAMA --- long acting muscarinic antagonist. presence of hyperinflation, history of chronic bronchitis, levels of physical activity and adverse effects of each drug. Finally, all COPD patients should be offered a completely free smoking cessation program, including consultations and therapy. GOLD B patients Current guidelines generally recommend for these patients smoking cessation, physical activity programs, influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, and pulmonary rehabilitation.1 --- 5 All guidelines agree that bronchodilators are the baseline therapy for all stages of COPD, but the choice of which bronchodilator to use is left to the physician.12 Also, most guidelines generally recommend a stepwise approach, and dual bronchodilation only when one bronchodilator is not sufficient to provide satisfactory symptom relief.12 GOLD recommends LAMA or LABA as the first choice medication and LAMA + LABA as the alternative choice.2If indeed the choice is a stepwise approach, then which long-acting bronchodilator should be used, a LABA or a LAMA? As already discussed above, evidence is still too scarce to propose a recommendation. On the other hand, Agusti and Fabbri defend the ‘‘hit hard’’ approach with dual bronchodilation for GOLD B patients,17 and there are several arguments in favor of this approach. Group B and C patients show a similar risk of all-cause mortality,13 suggesting that a more aggressive treatment approach should be used in these patients. Also, many patients receiving long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy continue to experience significant symptoms,18 and dual bronchodilation provides better symptomatic relief,12,23,24 improves FEV1in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD,23,24,47 and improves health status.23 Moreover, reduction of hyperinflation, as achieved with maximal (dual) bronchodilation, increases exercise tolerance,12,31 and higher levels of physical activity are associated with a better functional status48 and reduced risk of hospitalizations and mortality,49 even at levels as low as the equivalent to walking or cycling 2 h/week.50 Also, it has been reported that objectively measured physical activity is the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with COPD.51 Therefore, it can be speculated that dual bronchodilation will have both shortand long-term beneficial effects in COPD patients. In patients who will benefit from dual bronchodilation, LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations are expected to become the new standard in COPD treatment.9In GOLD 2 or 3 patients, with or without a history of exacerbations, dual bronchodilation with oncedaily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) has clinically meaningful improvements in symptomatic parameters versus a salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC)21,22 and tiotropium,23 and is superior to treatment with its monocomponents, indacaterol and glycopyrronium,23 suggesting the existence of synergistic activity between the LABA and the LAMA.11 IND/GLY also provided superior improvements in patient-reported dyspnea and lung function versus placebo and tiotropium.24 Moreover, indacaterol and glycopyrronium show a very fast and long-lasting (about 24 h) relaxation of airway smooth muscle.12 There are several potential advantages and beneficial effects of having a combination of LABA + LAMA on the same device.52 COPD: A stepwise or a hit hard approach? 217 Table 2 Proposed division of GOLD B patients in two subgroups and respective therapeutic approaches. Sub-group characteristics Therapeutic approach BX1: mMRC = 2; AND FEV1> 70%; AND no cardiovascular co-morbidities a) if not medicated, initiate LABA or LAMA BX2: mMRC > 2; OR FEV1< 70%; OR with cardiovascular co-morbidities LABA + LAMA (‘‘hit hard’’ approach) + rehabilitation with exercise training mMRC --- modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale; FEV1 --- forced expiratory volume in 1 second; LABA --- long acting ␤2agonist; LAMA --- long-acting muscarinic antagonist. Finally, given the heterogeneity of COPD, even patients classified as belonging to the B group show large variability. We propose that group B patients need to be sub-divided into two groups, BX1 and BX2, and the therapeutic approach should be based on this subdivision --- Table 2. We further recommend that, when the treatment of choice is dual bronchodilation, a combination of LABA + LAMA on the same device is preferable. GOLD C and D patients In addition to all general recommendations for GOLD B patients,1 --- 5 guidelines suggest: LAMA and/or LABA, with or without ICS,1,2,4 with ICS recommended for patients with frequent exacerbations that are not adequately controlled by long-acting bronchodilators;2,4 a stepwise or step-up approach, or immediate triple therapy, depending on frequency of exacerbations;5no recommendation for ICS on the non-exacerbator patient phenotype.3Agusti & Fabbri propose a stepwise or step-up approach depending on dyspnea and risk of exacerbations, respectively.17 A recent analysis showed that, in current clinical practice, however, group D patients are more frequently prescribed triple therapy, regardless of pulmonary function and risk of exacerbations,16 which is contrary to what the guidelines recommend. Regarding dual bronchodilation, several randomized clinical trials in GOLD 2 to 4 patients, with or without a history of exacerbations, showed that dual bronchodilation with IND/GLY improves symptoms,21---24,37 and prevents moderate to severe COPD exacerbations.37 In the SHINE,23 BLAZE24 and SPARK37 studies, patients already on ICS therapy at baseline maintained the ICS during the study, whereas in the ILLUMINATE21 and LANTERN22 studies patients on ICS therapy before study start underwent a washout period. Taken together, these data suggest that dual bronchodilation is an appropriate treatment option for patients with severe and very severe COPD. C and D subgroups Therapeutic options have to consider the three C and D subgroups: Table 3 Proposed therapeutic approach for C and D patients. C/D Sub-group Therapeutic approach C1 LAMA D1 LAMA + LABA C2 LABA + ICS D2 LABA + ICS + LAMA C3, D3 LABA + ICS + LAMA C1, D1 --- patients at high risk due to poor function; C2, D2 --- patients at high risk due to exacerbations; C3, D3 --- patients at high risk due to both poor function and exacerbations; LABA --- long acting ␤2-agonist; LAMA --- long-acting muscarinic antagonist; ICS - inhaled corticosteroid. - C1, D1 (high risk due to poor function) - C2, D2 (high risk due to exacerbations) - C3, D3 (high risk due to both poor function and exacerbations) We propose that the therapeutic approach is based on these subgroups --- Table 3. When the treatment of choice is dual bronchodilation, a combination of LABA + LAMA on the same device is preferable. For C1 and D1 patients, a stepwise or ‘‘hit hard’’ approach should be decided depending on symptoms, with the ‘‘hit hard’’ approach recommended in strongly symptomatic patients. For C2, D2, C3 and D3 patients, a step-up approach or immediate triple therapy should be decided depending on the frequency of exacerbations. We suggest the patient to be re-assessed every 3 months during a one year period after initiation of ICS (spirometry, the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), inflammation, symptoms). We further recommend that, if there were no exacerbations during 12 months, COPD was stable, and assessed parameters are within the expected range, withdrawal of ICS could be considered. ICS Although ICS are not indicated for patients without exacerbations,2---5,17 ICS/LABA or even triple therapy is widely prescribed in real-life management of COPD, even in patients with mild or moderate COPD severity. Both General Practitioners and specialists in respiratory medicine often use triple therapy even for patients who are not suffering from severe COPD.8Although the reasons for this are unclear, we speculate that this is mainly due to the generalized idea that a patient taking ICS will be more controlled than a patient who is not on ICS therapy, and will not exacerbate or decompensate. This is not true. In fact, patients who do not need ICS therapy will be overmedicated, will not benefit from triple therapy, and will suffer all the possible adverse events of ICS, namely pneumonia. A recent review from UK general practice showed that, in 2009, patients in all GOLD stages were receiving triple therapy.15 The question of whether the less severe patients were frequent exacerbators, and thus being treated according to the current guidelines, remained unanswered. Another recent analysis confirmed that, in current clinical practice, ICS are indeed used inappropriately.16 218 A.J. Ferreira et al. These reports indicate that ICS prescription does not follow the current guidelines and thousands of patients may be overtreated. Withdrawal from ICS If patients are indeed being overtreated, then they will not only be subjected to the ICS’ numerous side effects but they will also not benefit from the ICS, rendering the risk/benefit ratio of the ICS too high to justify its use. A systematic review from 2011 on trials with withdrawal of ICS found no evidence that withdrawing patients from ICS in routine practice led to important deterioration of outcomes, namely frequency of exacerbations and exercise tolerance. Only one of the included trials reported a significant decline in lung function.53 The ILLUMINATE21 and the LANTERN22 studies showed that, in GOLD 2 and 3 patients with or without one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year, ICS can be safely withdrawn, and once-daily IND/GLY provided significant, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus twice-daily SFC. In addition, IND/GLY provided significant symptomatic benefit and was superior to SFC in achieving bronchodilation and reducing the rate of exacerbations. Another study in which ICS therapy was either switched or withdrawn, in patients with moderate to severe COPD, showed that ICS can be safely discontinued, and the addition of fluticasone---salmeterol to tiotropium may improve lung function and decrease hospitalizations, but does not affect rates of exacerbations.26 The OPTIMO study,27 a real-life study, showed that ICS may be withdrawn, provided appropriate therapy with bronchodilators is maintained, but the WISDOM study54 showed that ICS withdrawal had no effect on exacerbations but led to a decrease in pulmonary function. The different results from the OPTIMO and WISDOM studies may lie in one simple fact: in the OPTIMO27 study patients had an average FEV1≈71% predicted, being probably non-exacerbator GOLD B patients, and therefore did not need ICS, whilst the WISDOM54 study patients had much more severe airway limitation (FEV1≈34% predicted, GOLD 3 and 4), probably fitting the criteria for ICS use, and were thus affected by withdrawal. Another explanation for these results lies in the design of the WISDOM study, where even patients who had never been on ICS, received an ICS-containing triple therapy for 6 weeks before randomization. Moreover, the OPTIMO study explicitly excludes patients with a ‘‘history of asthma’’, whilst the WISDOM study excludes patients with a ‘‘current diagnosis of asthma’’, which makes it possible for patients with ACOS to be included in the WISDOM study. A very recent UK Primary Care Setting retrospective study shows that, in newly diagnosed COPD patients, withdrawal from ICS is common after 12 or 24 months of therapy initiation.28 Unfortunately, and although included patients were classified as GOLD 1 to 4, treatment approaches used were not stratified by GOLD stage. Regardless all available evidence, there is a generalized concern among physicians that, if a patient is withdrawn from ICS, that patient will decompensate or exacerbate. Even if the patient is re-assessed and does not have indications for ICS, the reluctance to withdraw remains. This concern stems mainly from the results of the TORCH19,20,42 trial, which convinced the community of physicians that ICS improves several outcomes, slows disease progression and reduces moderate-to-severe exacerbations, even if failing to show a beneficial effect of ICS on all-cause mortality rates. However, in light of more recent data, as presented above, there is no evidence-based reason for such a concern. Another hindrance to deciding whether to withdraw from ICS or not is misdiagnosis, e.g. COPD misdiagnosed as asthma, or suspicion of the ACOS phenotype. The only way to overcome this hindrance is to attain a proper diagnosis. Finally, patients prefer to be withdrawn from ICS due to the general perception that corticosteroids are ‘‘dangerous’’ --- and indeed they can be, if not properly prescribed. We recommend that A and B patients without exacerbations, who are overtreated with ICS, should be withdrawn from ICS in order to optimize therapy and reduce excessive medications, provided they are not ACOS, and kept on close surveillance. C and D patients without exacerbations should also be withdrawn from ICS, with re-assessments recommended every 3 months during a one year period. How to withdraw from ICS? The two options are withdrawal of ICS with or without tapering off. The UK Primary Care Setting retrospective study does not specify how withdrawal from ICS was achieved.28 Both the ILLUMINATE study21 and the LANTERN study22 mention a washout period of up to 7 days, but also do not specify if this period was with or without tapering off. Aaron et al. also do not specify how ICS was discontinued.26 The OPTIMO study27 does not mention how ICS was withdrawn, but the WISDOM study54 does specify that ICS was tapered off over a 12 week period. Given the lack of concrete data, we can only speculate that if a patient does not need ICS, then there is no need to taper off. In addition, as it is a non-systemic medication, there is no scientific rationale for tapering off. We recommend that patients with no exacerbations during 12 months and who are stable should be withdrawn from ICS. Tapering off is not necessary and ICS should be withdrawn in a single step. We suggest GOLD A and B patients be re-assessed every 6 months, and Gold C and D patients every 3 months, during a one year period after ICS withdrawal (spirometry, mMRC, inflammation, symptoms). We further recommend that, in C and D patients, if there were exacerbations during 6 months, or if pulmonary function consistently decreases, there should be a step-up with ICS. Which patients will benefit from ICS? There is a need for biomarkers of response to therapy and disease progression, so that the moment of therapeutic adjustments can be determined in a timely way. Some biomarkers of disease activity and progression have been proposed,55,56 but much more research needs to be done before these are clinically applicable, and can guide personalized management of COPD patients. Perhaps the most promising available marker is sputum eosinophilia, and most recently also blood eosinophilia.57 COPD patients with sputum eosinophilia > 3% seem to respond better to both ICS COPD: A stepwise or a hit hard approach? 219 and systemic corticosteroids.10,58---61 As for circulating levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), results from different studies are controversial, and CRP may not be a suitable biomarker in COPD, due to its low specificity and high variability.58 We recognize that there are currently no accurate biomarkers to guide therapy in COPD. We propose that CAT should be used in all consultations, in order to monitor therapeutic response, given it is a predictor of exacerbations. ICS class, dose and pneumonia The consensus is that ICS use increases the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD,1,2,4,20---22,36,62 and even a recent ICS, fluticasone furoate, has been associated with an increased pneumonia risk and deaths from pneumonia in COPD patients.62---64 However, some studies find a very small difference in the risk of pneumonia with ICS.21,22,26 These dissimilar results may stem from the fact that some studies are too short for patients to develop pneumonia, and/or that several ICS classes and doses are used in different studies. Both fluticasone and budesonide have been reported to increase the risk of pneumonia,64---67 but results concerning a dose effect range from no difference between fluticasone and budesonide,65 to fluticasone being associated with a higher, dose dependent risk, when compared to budesonide,66 to fluticasone not being dose dependent, while budesonide shows a significant difference between the two commonly used doses.67 The general dose-effect of ICS on pneumonia risk has been confirmed in a large USA retrospective cohort study, but the use of several ICS classes precludes any conclusion regarding specific ICS class-related dose-effect.68 Results concerning the true effect of different ICS classes and doses on the risk of pneumonia remain inconclusive. More studies are needed to allow an evaluation of whether different classes of ICS are associated with different pneumonia risk in COPD patients. Given the controversy surrounding ICS therapy in COPD patients, we suggest that a withdrawal or step-up approach should take into account the above recommendations but be tailored to the patient, taking into consideration each individual patient characteristics. Conclusions Both stepwise and ‘‘hit hard’’ approaches have benefits. Only a careful patient selection will determine which approach is better, and which patients will benefit the most from each approach. In COPD, therapy should be tailored to the patient, taking into consideration co-morbidities, presence of hyperinflation, history of chronic bronchitis, levels of physical activity, and each individual patient characteristics. Ethical responsibilities Protection of human and animal subjects. The authors declare that no experiments were performed on humans or animals for this study. Confidentiality of data. The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article. Right to privacy and informed consent. The authors declare that no patient data appear in this article. Conflict of interest The authors declare collaborating and receiving fees from pharmaceutical companies other than Novartis either through participation in advisory board or consultancy meetings, congress symposia, clinical trial conduct or investigator-initiated trials. Role of funding source Funding for this paper was provided by Novartis Portugal. Funding was used to access all necessary scientific bibliography and cover meeting expenses. Novartis Portugal had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the paper and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Novartis Portugal for the funding for this paper, which was used to access all necessary scientific bibliography and cover meeting expenses. References 1. Direcc¸ão Geral de Saúde. Norma nr 028/2011 - Diagnóstico e Tratamento da Doenc¸a Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crónica. In: Portugal. 2013. 2. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Revised 2015); 2015. 3. Miravitlles M, Soler-Cataluna JJ, Calle M, Molina J, Almagro P, Quintano JA, et al. Spanish guideline for COPD (GesEPOC). Update 2014. Arch Bronconeumol. 2014;50 Suppl. 1:1---16. 4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults in primary and secondary care (partial update); 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/ guidance/CG101 5. O’Donnell DE, Aaron S, Bourbeau J, Hernandez P, Marciniuk DD, Balter M, et al. Canadian Thoracic Society recommendations for management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease --- 2007 update. Can Respir J. 2007;14 Suppl. B:5B---32B. 6. Rabe KF, Wedzicha JA. Controversies in treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet. 2011;378:1038---47. 7. Cazzola M, Segreti A, Rogliani P. Comparative effectiveness of drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Drugs Today (Barc). 2012;48:785---94. 8. Cazzola M, Matera MG. Triple combinations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease --- is three better than two? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15:2475---8. 9. de Miguel-Diez J, Jimenez-Garcia R. Considerations for new dual-acting bronchodilator treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2014;23:453---6. 10. Leigh R, Pizzichini MM, Morris MM, Maltais F, Hargreave FE, Pizzichini E. Stable COPD: predicting benefit from high-dose inhaled corticosteroid treatment. Eur Respir J. 2006;27:964---71. 11. Patalano F, Banerji D, D’Andrea P, Fogel R, Altman P, Colthorpe P. Addressing unmet needs in the treatment of COPD. Eur Respir Rev. 2014;23:333---44. 220 A.J. Ferreira et al. 12. Nardini S, Camiciottoli G, Locicero S, Maselli R, Pasqua F, Passalacqua G, et al. COPD: maximization of bronchodilation. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2014;9:50. 13. Agusti A, Edwards LD, Celli B, Macnee W, Calverley PM, Mullerova H, et al. Characteristics, stability and outcomes of the 2011 GOLD COPD groups in the ECLIPSE cohort. Eur Respir J. 2013;42:636---46. 14. Decramer M, Cooper CB. Treatment of COPD: the sooner the better? Thorax. 2010;65:837---41. 15. James GD, Donaldson GC, Wedzicha JA, Nazareth I. Trends in management and outcomes of COPD patients in primary care, 2000---2009: a retrospective cohort study. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2014;24:14015. 16. Vestbo J, Vogelmeier C, Small M, Higgins V. Understanding the GOLD 2011 Strategy as applied to a real-world COPD population. Respir Med. 2014;108:729---36. 17. Agusti A, Fabbri LM. Inhaled steroids in COPD: when should they be used? Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2:869---71. 18. Dransfield MT, Bailey W, Crater G, Emmett A, O’Dell DM, Yawn B. Disease severity and symptoms among patients receiving monotherapy for COPD. Prim Care Respir J. 2011;20:46---53. 19. Celli BR, Thomas NE, Anderson JA, Ferguson GT, Jenkins CR, Jones PW, et al. Effect of pharmacotherapy on rate of decline of lung function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178:332---8. 20. Jenkins CR, Jones PW, Calverley PM, Celli B, Anderson JA, Ferguson GT, et al. Efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate by GOLD stage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analysis from the randomised, placebo-controlled TORCH study. Respir Res. 2009;10:59. 21. Vogelmeier CF, Bateman ED, Pallante J, Alagappan VK, D’Andrea P, Chen H, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with twice-daily salmeterol-fluticasone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ILLUMINATE): a randomised, double-blind, parallel group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:51---60. 22. Zhong N, Wang C, Zhou X, Zhang N, Patalano F, Humphries M. Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with twicedaily salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) in patients with COPD: the LANTERN study. In: Poster presented at the European Respiratory Society Annual Congress. 2014. 23. Bateman ED, Ferguson GT, Barnes N, Gallagher N, Green Y, Henley M, et al. Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 versus single bronchodilator therapy: the SHINE study. Eur Respir J. 2013;42:1484---94. 24. Mahler DA, Decramer M, D’Urzo A, Worth H, White T, Alagappan VK, et al. Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 reduces patientreported dyspnoea in COPD: the BLAZE study. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:1599---609. 25. De Coster DA, Jones M. Tailoring of corticosteroids in COPD management. Curr Respir Care Rep. 2014;3:121---32. 26. Aaron SD, Vandemheen KL, Fergusson D, Maltais F, Bourbeau J, Goldstein R, et al. Tiotropium in combination with placebo, salmeterol, or fluticasone-salmeterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:545---55. 27. Rossi A, Guerriero M, Corrado A. Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids can be safe in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation: a real-life study on the appropriateness of treatment in moderate COPD patients (OPTIMO). Respir Res. 2014;15:77. 28. Wurst KE, Punekar YS, Shukla A. Treatment evolution after COPD diagnosis in the UK primary care setting. PLOS ONE. 2014;9:e105296. 29. Fragoso E, André S, Boleo-Tomé JP, Areias V, Munhá J, Cardoso J. Understanding COPD: a vision on phenotypes, comorbidities and treatment approach; 2016 [accepted for publication in Rev Port Pneumol]. 30. Hurst JR, Vestbo J, Anzueto A, Locantore N, Mullerova H, Tal-Singer R, et al. Susceptibility to exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;363: 1128---38. 31. Beeh KM, Korn S, Beier J, Jadayel D, Henley M, D’Andrea P, et al. Effect of QVA149 on lung volumes and exercise tolerance in COPD patients: the BRIGHT study. Respir Med. 2014;108:584---92. 32. Decramer M, Celli B, Kesten S, Lystig T, Mehra S, Tashkin DP. Effect of tiotropium on outcomes in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (UPLIFT): a prespecified subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1171---8. 33. Johansson G, Lindberg A, Romberg K, Nordstrom L, Gerken F, Roquet A. Bronchodilator efficacy of tiotropium in patients with mild to moderate COPD. Prim Care Respir J. 2008;17: 169---75. 34. Tashkin DP, Celli B, Senn S, Burkhart D, Kesten S, Menjoge S, et al. A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1543---54. 35. Troosters T, Celli B, Lystig T, Kesten S, Mehra S, Tashkin DP, et al. Tiotropium as a first maintenance drug in COPD: secondary analysis of the UPLIFT trial. Eur Respir J. 2010;36:65---73. 36. Wedzicha JA, Calverley PM, Seemungal TA, Hagan G, Ansari Z, Stockley RA. The prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations by salmeterol/fluticasone propionate or tiotropium bromide. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177:19---26. 37. Wedzicha JA, Decramer M, Ficker JH, Niewoehner DE, Sandstrom T, Taylor AF, et al. Analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with the dual bronchodilator QVA149 compared with glycopyrronium and tiotropium (SPARK): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:199---209. 38. Roche N, Chanez P. Bronchodilator combinations for COPD: real hopes or a new Pandora’s box? Eur Respir J. 2013;42:1441---5. 39. Wedzicha JA, Buhl R, Lawrence D, Young D. Monotherapy with indacaterol once daily reduces the rate of exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: post-hoc pooled analysis of 6 months data from three large phase III trials. Respir Med. 2015;109:105---11. 40. Decramer ML, Chapman KR, Dahl R, Frith P, Devouassoux G, Fritscher C, et al. Once-daily indacaterol versus tiotropium for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (INVIGORATE): a randomised, blinded, parallel-group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:524---33. 41. Vogelmeier C, Hederer B, Glaab T, Schmidt H, Rutten-van Molken MP, Beeh KM, et al. Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1093---103. 42. Calverley PM, Anderson JA, Celli B, Ferguson GT, Jenkins C, Jones PW, et al. Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:775---89. 43. Buhl R, Dunn LJ, Disdier C, Lassen C, Amos C, Henley M, et al. Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2011;38:797---803. 44. Donohue JF, Fogarty C, Lotvall J, Mahler DA, Worth H, Yorgancioglu A, et al. Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182:155---62. 45. Ferguson GT, Feldman GJ, Hofbauer P, Hamilton A, Allen L, Korducki L, et al. Efficacy and safety of olodaterol once daily delivered via Respimat(R) in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two replicate 48-week studies. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014;9:629---45. 46. ZuWallack R, Allen L, Hernandez G, Ting N, Abrahams R. Efficacy and safety of combining olodaterol Respimat((R)) and tiotropium HandiHaler((R)) in patients with COPD: results of COPD: A stepwise or a hit hard approach? 221 two randomized, double-blind, active-controlled studies. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014;9:1133---44. 47. Mahler DA, D’Urzo A, Bateman ED, Ozkan SA, White T, Peckitt C, et al. Concurrent use of indacaterol plus tiotropium in patients with COPD provides superior bronchodilation compared with tiotropium alone: a randomised, double-blind comparison. Thorax. 2012;67:781---8. 48. Garcia-Aymerich J, Serra I, Gomez FP, Farrero E, Balcells E, Rodriguez DA, et al. Physical activity and clinical and functional status in COPD. Chest. 2009;136:62---70. 49. Garcia-Aymerich J, Lange P, Serra I, Schnohr P, Anto JM. Timedependent confounding in the study of the effects of regular physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an application of the marginal structural model. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18:775---83. 50. Garcia-Aymerich J, Lange P, Benet M, Schnohr P, Anto JM. Regular physical activity reduces hospital admission and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population based cohort study. Thorax. 2006;61:772---8. 51. Waschki B, Kirsten A, Holz O, Muller KC, Meyer T, Watz H, et al. Physical activity is the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with COPD: a prospective cohort study. Chest. 2011;140:331---42. 52. Ferreira J, Drummond M, Pires N, Reis G, Alves C, RobaloCordeiro C. Optimal treatment sequence in COPD: can a consensus be found? Rev Port Pneumol. 2016;22:39---49. 53. Nadeem NJ, Taylor SJ, Eldridge SM. Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in individuals with COPD --- a systematic review and comment on trial methodology. Respir Res. 2011;12:107. 54. Magnussen H, Disse B, Rodriguez-Roisin R, Kirsten A, Watz H, Tetzlaff K, et al. Withdrawal of inhaled glucocorticoids and exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1285---94. 55. Shaw JG, Vaughan A, Dent AG, O’Hare PE, Goh F, Bowman RV, et al. Biomarkers of progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). J Thorac Dis. 2014;6:1532---47. 56. Ji J, von Scheele I, Bergstrom J, Billing B, Dahlen B, Lantz AS, et al. Compartment differences of inflammatory activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Res. 2014;15:104. 57. Pascoe S, Locantore N, Dransfield MT, Barnes NC, Pavord ID. Blood eosinophil counts, exacerbations, and response to the addition of inhaled fluticasone furoate to vilanterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a secondary analysis of data from two parallel randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3:435---42. 58. Lock-Johansson S, Vestbo J, Sorensen GL. Surfactant protein D, Club cell protein 16, Pulmonary and activation-regulated chemokine. C-reactive protein, and Fibrinogen biomarker variation in chronic obstructive lung disease. Respir Res. 2014;15:147. 59. Siva R, Green RH, Brightling CE, Shelley M, Hargadon B, McKenna S, et al. Eosinophilic airway inflammation and exacerbations of COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:906---13. 60. Brightling CE, Monteiro W, Ward R, Parker D, Morgan MD, Wardlaw AJ, et al. Sputum eosinophilia and short-term response to prednisolone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1480---5. 61. Brightling CE, McKenna S, Hargadon B, Birring S, Green R, Siva R, et al. Sputum eosinophilia and the short term response to inhaled mometasone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2005;60:193---8. 62. Ernst P, Saad N, Suissa S. Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the clinical evidence. Eur Respir J. 2015;45:525---37. 63. Dransfield MT, Bourbeau J, Jones PW, Hanania NA, Mahler DA, Vestbo J, et al. Once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate and vilanterol versus vilanterol only for prevention of exacerbations of COPD: two replicate double-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:210---23. 64. McKeage K. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol: a review of its use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Drugs. 2014;74:1509---22. 65. Nannini LJ, Lasserson TJ, Poole P. Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CDS Rev. 2012;9:CD006829. 66. Suissa S, Patenaude V, Lapi F, Ernst P. Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and the risk of serious pneumonia. Thorax. 2013;68:1029---36. 67. Kew KM, Seniukovich A. Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CDS Rev. 2014;3:CD010115. 68. Yawn BP, Li Y, Tian H, Zhang J, Arcona S, Kahler KH. Inhaled corticosteroid use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the risk of pneumonia: a retrospective claims data analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2013;8:295---304.