The position of the fixed combination of indacaterol, glycopyrronium, and mometasone furoate in the management of bronchial asthma. The Report of Expert Panel of Russian Respiratory Society

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-74
Author(s):  
Z. R. Aisanov ◽  
S. N. Avdeev ◽  
A. S. Belevskiy ◽  
A. A. Vizel' ◽  
A. V. Emel'yanov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Bronchial Asthma ◽  
Biological Therapy ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Mometasone Furoate ◽  
Inhalation Therapy ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Glycopyrronium Bromide ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Long Acting

Achieving the control of bronchial asthma (BA) in real clinical practice remains an unresolved problem, despite the expansion of therapeutic options in this area. Guidelines about when and for whom should a particular treatment be used continue to develop. Increasing of inhaled corticosteroid dose (ICS) in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) does not always lead to the desired result, although a combined LABA-ICS inhaler could improve the course of asthma and increase adherence. The addition of tiotropium bromide to LABA-ICS requires the use of two inhalers. The targeted biological therapy is associated with the complexity of phenotyping and is possible only in specialized medical centers. Mometasone furoate, indacaterol acetate, and glycopyrronium bromide in fixed doses were combined in Breezhaler® inhaler for asthma maintenance therapy once per day. This way of treatment helps to realize full potential of maintenance inhalation therapy of bronchial asthma and to simplify the achievement of control over the disease in routine clinical practice.

scholarly journals Tiotropium bromide: additional options for the treatment of bronchial asthma

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-74
Author(s):  
O M Kurbacheva ◽  
M E Dyneva
Keyword(s):  
Bronchial Asthma ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Biological Properties ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Tiotropium Bromide ◽  
Inhalation Therapy ◽  
Global Initiative For Asthma ◽  
Successful Control ◽  
Global Initiative ◽  
Long Acting

Bronchial asthma (BA) is one of the most common chronic diseases, characterized by airway inflammation and bronchospasm. Symptoms of BA are wheezing, shortness of breath, a feeling of constriction in the chest and cough, the frequency and severity of which vary greatly over time. Today studies of BA phenotypes allow selecting treatment depending on the particular pathogenesis of each phenotype individually, thereby helping to achieve control, which is the main goal of BA therapy. However, it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of airway innervation, since an increased parasympathetic tone is characteristics of all BA phenotypes and plays an important role in the development of bronchoconstriction and inflammation. Therefore, tiotropium bromide, which is a long-acting blocker of muscarinic cholinergic receptors, is one of the main bronchodilators in the treatment of BA. It blocks bronchoconstriction, hypersecretion and swelling of the mucous membrane of the airway, which in turn prevents the progression of inflammation, and the prolonged action of tiotropium bromide, which allows it to be used once a day helps to achieve control of asthma in addition to basic inhalation therapy - inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) long-acting P2-agonists (LABA). According to GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma), tiotropium bromide is recommended as an additional treatment, starting from step 4, and in accordance with the Russian Federal Clinical Guidelines for Bronchial Asthma - from step 3. Currently, according to clinical studies, much is known about the mechanisms of action and biological properties of tiotropium bromide, which made it possible to substantiate the needs for its administration to patients with BA regardless of its phenotype. This strategy will contribute to a more successful control of BA considering risk factors and comorbidity, thereby reducing needs of increasing ICS dose.

scholarly journals Combined therapy with inhaled glucocorticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists in patients with bronchial asthma: the problem of choice

2021 ◽  
pp. 52-59
Author(s):  
A. I. Sinopalnikov
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Bronchial Asthma ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Pathological Condition ◽  
New Combination ◽  
Fluticasone Furoate ◽  
Combination Drug ◽  
Optimal Drug ◽  
Long Acting

Bronchial asthma remains one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases. The apparent heterogeneity of BA underlies the concept of phenotype-specific or patient-centered therapy. However, in real clinical practice, BA continues to be regarded as a rather homogeneous pathological condition and its treatment in the vast majority of cases retains an empirical approach, the basis of which are inhaled glucocorticosteroids, usually in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists. Since this group of drugs is very representative, the physician is faced with the question of choosing the optimal drug. The basis of evidence-based medicine is a hierarchical classification, where systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials are considered the highest level of evidence. Because randomized clinical trials are conducted in carefully selected highly selected patient populations, they have little relevance to patients encountered in everyday clinical practice. In contrast, pragmatic randomized clinical trials assess the clinical efficacy of the investigational agent in a large, unselected population in which patients with comorbidities are included. In this context, the Salford Lung Study (SLS) is of particular interest. It was conducted before the registration of a new combination drug containing the modern ICS fluticasone furoate and the long-acting beta2-agonist vilanterol. The SLS results indicated not only that the use of fluticasone furoate with vilanterol provides better control of BA compared to continued "conventional therapy" (ICS ± LABAs) in symptomatic patients, but also leads to a consistent improvement in the surrogate parameters of quality of life.

The new prospects of the inhalation therapy for bronchial asthma

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-484
Author(s):  
S. N. Avdeev ◽  
Z. R. Aisanov
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Bronchial Asthma ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Fixed Combination ◽  
Inhalation Therapy ◽  
International Literature ◽  
Dosing Regimen ◽  
Muscarinic Antagonist ◽  
Long Acting

Based on the latest new international literature data, the article considers the possibilities of fixed combinations of long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist and inhaled corticosteroids in achieving the control of bronchial asthma (BA). Clinical advantages for a fixed combination of indacaterol, glycopyrronium and mometasone furoate one dosing regimen in the therapy of BA are presented based on the results of recently completed randomized clinical trials IRIDIUM and ARGON.

Experience in clinical practice with new long-acting insulins in type 2 diabetes (T2D)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Molina Vega ◽  
Araceli Munoz Garach ◽  
Miguel Damas Fuentes ◽  
Carmen Hernandez Garcia ◽  
Cristina Diaz Perdigones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Long Acting

scholarly journals Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

Liver Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Yusuke Kawamura ◽  
Kiyoshi Hasegawa ◽  
Ryosuke Tateishi ◽  
Kazuya Kariyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Consensus Statements

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC.

CP-078 Optimisation of biological therapy in established rheumatoid arthritis patients in real life clinical practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A34.2-A34
Author(s):  
M Cárdenas ◽  
P Font ◽  
S De la Fuente ◽  
MC Castro-Villegas ◽  
M Romero-Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Biological Therapy ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Established Rheumatoid Arthritis

scholarly journals Is the use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by patients with COPD associated with a higher risk of acute coronary syndrome in real-world clinical practice?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000840
Author(s):  
Lianne Parkin ◽  
Sheila Williams ◽  
David Barson ◽  
Katrina Sharples ◽  
Simon Horsburgh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Treatment Intensification ◽  
Cardiovascular Comorbidity ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundCardiovascular comorbidity is common among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and there is concern that long-acting bronchodilators (long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta2 agonists (LABAs)) may further increase the risk of acute coronary events. Information about the impact of treatment intensification on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk in real-world settings is limited. We undertook a nationwide nested case–control study to estimate the risk of ACS in users of both a LAMA and a LABA relative to users of a LAMA.MethodsWe used routinely collected national health and pharmaceutical dispensing data to establish a cohort of patients aged >45 years who initiated long-acting bronchodilator therapy for COPD between 1 February 2006 and 30 December 2013. Fatal and non-fatal ACS events during follow-up were identified using hospital discharge and mortality records. For each case we used risk set sampling to randomly select up to 10 controls, matched by date of birth, sex, date of cohort entry (first LAMA and/or LABA dispensing), and COPD severity.ResultsFrom the cohort (n=83 417), we identified 5399 ACS cases during 281 292 person-years of follow-up. Compared with current use of LAMA therapy, current use of LAMA and LABA dual therapy was associated with a higher risk of ACS (OR 1.28 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.44)). The OR in an analysis restricted to fatal cases was 1.46 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.91).ConclusionIn real-world clinical practice, use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by people with COPD is associated with a higher risk of ACS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document