Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the case against

S. Suissa, P. J. Barnes
European Respiratory Journal 2009 34: 13-16; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00190908
S. Suissa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. J. Barnes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a disease that encompasses emphysema, chronic obstructive bronchitis and small airway obstruction and that is characterised by largely irreversible airflow obstruction, now affects around 10% of the population over the age of 40 yrs 1. The sixth commonest global cause of death in 1990, currently fourth in developed countries, it is expected rise to third place globally by 2020 2. This increase is linked to the trends of its foremost risk factor, tobacco consumption during the twentieth century, and will track the worldwide smoking trends of this century. Besides smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation, the treatment of COPD has previously consisted of bronchodilators early in the disease and oxygen in the late stages. However, because of the presence of inflammation in COPD, short courses of systemic corticosteroids have been used for decades in the treatment of exacerbations, often along with antibiotics. Their side-effects, however, made them unsuitable for the long-term treatment of stable COPD.

In the early 1980s, inhaled formulations of corticosteroids were shown to be highly effective for the treatment of asthma and were readily adopted in COPD with no scientific evidence of their benefit in this indication. This transition from asthma to COPD was so natural to prescribers that a Canadian survey conducted in 1994 found that one-third of patients admitted to hospital for COPD were already using inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) 3, despite the fact that no randomised controlled trials had evaluated their effectiveness in COPD. Today, market research studies estimate that the use of these drugs has increased to the point that they are used by >70% of patients with COPD in the USA and Europe, and are currently given as initial therapy to >50% of patients newly diagnosed with COPD, mostly in combination with a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) 4.

There is now increasing evidence that the use of ICS to treat COPD may have been aggressively promoted around a cascade of scientific inaccuracies regarding their effectiveness. Their current widespread use provides little or no benefit. Indeed, the cost of high doses of ICS in terms of drug costs and the costs of complications is now becoming detrimental. A re-examination of these data, which form the basis for all treatment guidelines, and of emerging evidence is clearly warranted.

THE STUDIES

The earliest randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of ICS in the treatment of COPD were published only in the late 1990s. The first five trials found no improvement in the decline of lung function over time and no reduction in the rate of exacerbation with various ICS compared with placebo, over periods ranging from 6 months to 3 yrs 5–9. Two subsequent randomised trials published in 2000 also found no change in lung function decline over time with ICS, but reported reductions in healthcare utilisation or exacerbation rates 10, 11.

The next wave of randomised controlled trials published from 2002 onwards all involved the evaluation of ICS combined with a LABA, either fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol 12–19. Most of these trials reported significant effects on lung function and reductions in exacerbation rates with the combination therapy, whereas the effects of ICS alone were equivocal. Figure 1⇓ shows the time trends in the use of ICS in COPD, along with the publication timing of the randomised controlled trials that evaluated their effectiveness 4.

Fig. 1—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1—

Proportion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who use any form of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator (LABA), estimated from surveys in the USA and Europe between 2000 and 2007 (—) and extrapolated back to 1990 (---). Below the horizontal axis are the publication dates of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness of ICS alone or in combination with a LABA in COPD. Data from 4.

During this same period, the enthusiasm for ICS in COPD was heightened with a meta-analysis of the early randomised trials, which reported a significant 30% overall reduction in the rate of exacerbation with ICS 20. In addition, a pooled analysis of data from seven trials found a significant 27% reduction in all-cause mortality with ICS compared with placebo 21. Finally, observational studies of large population-based cohorts, formed using healthcare databases, reported highly significant reductions in all-cause mortality of 30–40% with ICS use, alone or in combination with a LABA 22–25.

Thus, clinicians then had available to them what appeared to be a class of drugs that, according to randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses, had only minor effects on lung function but resulted in fewer COPD exacerbations, particularly in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator. In addition, population-based observational studies were indicating that such benefits could be translated to mortality. Moreover, clinical guidelines for the management of COPD were using these trials to recommend the regular use of ICS in more advanced disease. As a result of this popularity, the use of these drugs given as initial therapy to patients with newly diagnosed COPD has been high and has increased substantially in combination with a long-acting bronchodilator (fig. 1⇑). These market research data indicating high utilisation rates of ICS are corroborated by the treatment profiles of patients entering recent randomised trials such as TORCH (Towards a Revolution in COPD Health; 48% ICS use at recruitment in 2000–2002), Optimal (77% in 2003–2005), INSPIRE (Investigating New Standards for Prophylaxis in Reducing Exacerbations; 50% in 2003–2004) and Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT; 61% in 2003–2004), as well as less recent trials such as Inhaled Steroids in Obstructive Lung Disease in Europe (ISOLDE; 54% in 1992–1995) and the Trial of Inhaled Steroids and long-acting β2-agonists (TRISTAN; 51% in 2000) [10, 14, 17–19, 26]. These rates are at odds with treatment guidelines that recommend their use only at the latter stages of the disease (which should include at most around 20% of patients) 2, 4.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE STUDIES

The randomised trials that form the basis for the use of ICS in COPD have several important shortcomings. The first limitation of these trials was the requirement that patients abruptly discontinue their existing ICS use at the time of randomisation. As a result, all trials were actually estimating a mixture of the effect of introducing ICS and of discontinuing ICS. A recent re-analysis of one such trial showed that the effect of ICS on the likelihood of the first exacerbation was significantly protective only among patients who were users of ICS before randomisation but had to discontinue (hazard ratio 0.7; p = 0.03) 27. In contrast, it also showed that there was no effect of ICS in patients who did not use ICS before randomisation (hazard ratio 1.1; p = 0.68) 27. Thus, all trials that have reported a benefit for ICS may have simply shown an effect of abruptly discontinuing high-dose ICS use, which probably leads to side-effects such as relative adrenal insufficiency and other rebound steroid effects.

The second flaw was the incomplete follow-up of patients, who were observed only until discontinuation of the study drug, not the end of planned follow-up. This violates the fundamental intention-to-treat principle of clinical trials. This violation is particularly important because of the very high and early rates of discontinuation in COPD trials. The resulting bias was demonstrated with studies that had incomplete follow-up and that found a significant 27% (p = 0.04) reduction in all-cause mortality with ICS 21 compared with the recent TORCH trial, which followed-up all patients for 3 yrs to identify all deaths for a proper intent-to-treat analysis, that found a non-significant 6% (p = 0.53) increase in mortality with fluticasone propionate 17. The OPTIMAL trial also avoided this bias by identifying exacerbations, the primary outcome, for the entire 1-yr follow-up period and found no benefit of ICS 18. Thus, both studies designed for valid intent-to-treat analyses found no benefit of ICS on their primary outcome measure.

The effect of the absence of intent-to-treat analyses was also noticeable in the analysis of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) decline in all trials including TORCH. In the TORCH trial 17, nearly 18% of patients on placebo did not contribute a single FEV1 value to the analysis of FEV1 decline, compared with only 9% of patients allocated to combination therapy 28. Because these excluded patients probably would have had worse FEV1 values at their initial visit, the slope of decline in the remaining subjects with better FEV1 values at the first visit may have been affected by regression to the mean 29. Such differential exclusion rates can introduce selection bias and may have created the impression of an ICS effect on FEV1 decline.

Another issue with the combination therapy in COPD relates to the effect of each component. A more inclusive data analysis of the TORCH trial data, which used the complete data from the 2×2 factorial study design, evaluated the independent contribution of each component of the combination of salmeterol and fluticasone on mortality and found a reduction in mortality that was entirely due to the salmeterol component (17% reduction in mortality), and none whatsoever attributable to the ICS component (0% reduction) 27, 30.

The meta-analysis of the early randomised trials, which reported a highly significant 30% reduction in exacerbations with ICS, used faulty statistical techniques 31. These produced biased estimates and exaggerated statistical significance, such that the p = 0.07 reported by one study transformed to p = 0.005 by the meta-analysis 20. Although the falsely significant results of this meta-analysis were used as the source of level 1A evidence in recommending the use of ICS in previous COPD treatment guidelines, the latest versions do not 2.

Finally, the observational studies suggesting a reduction in mortality with ICS use were all shown to be flawed with immortal time bias. Through their design, the studies introduced a survival advantage to the ICS users by defining exposure in such a way that they had to be alive to receive their ICS prescription, thus creating immortal time bias: a proper analysis eliminated any apparent protective effect of ICS 32–35.

SAFETY CONCERNS

ICS have been shown to somewhat increase the risk of glaucoma, whereas the risk of osteoporotic fractures is equivocal 36–38. The risk of cataracts and of their extraction was consistently found to be elevated and shown to increase with the dose and duration of ICS use 39–41. Recently, the TORCH study and another large study of ICS identified an elevated risk of pneumonia reported in the trial as a serious adverse event 16, 17. This risk was confirmed and a dose–response effect was demonstrated in a population-based cohort of over 175,000 patients with COPD 42.

WHY DO ICS NOT WORK IN COPD?

Although ICS are very effective in suppressing airway inflammation in patients with asthma, even high doses are ineffective, poorly effective or inconsistent in suppressing inflammatory cells or mediators in patients with COPD, either in induced sputum or in bronchial biopsies 43–48. This cannot be explained by poor access of ICS to the peripheral sites of inflammation because high doses or oral corticosteroids are also ineffective 43. One reason for the corticosteroid resistance in COPD may be the reduced expression and activity of the critical nuclear enzyme histone deacetylase-2 (HDAC2), which is required by corticosteroids to switch off activated inflammatory genes 49, 50. This appears to be the downstream consequence of oxidative and nitrative stress in the lungs of patients with COPD.

Of course COPD is a heterogeneous disease with several different pathological mechanisms, including emphysema, small airway disease and mucous hypersecretion, so it is possible that corticosteroids might work more effectively on some components of disease than on others, but this has so far not been investigated in clinical trials. Patients with COPD who have clinical features of asthma, with greater reversibility of airways obstruction, may show a response to corticosteroids exemplified by a reduction in sputum eosinophils and this probably represents coexistent asthma 51.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of ICS in the treatment of COPD has been rather unorthodox. These drugs, demonstrated as effective for the treatment of asthma, were widely adopted in COPD, a disease for which few treatments were available. Yet this adoption was made in the absence of any scientific evidence of their effectiveness in COPD and with the conviction that their lung-localised delivery made them harmless. The randomised trials conducted to substantiate this adoption were first negative, then ambiguous, and eventually reported beneficial effects but only after a long-acting bronchodilator was added to the ICS. More importantly, these trials had two important flaws that biased their findings, resulting from the discontinuation of existing treatment and the absence of the fundamental intent-to-treat analysis. Two recent trials designed for a proper intent-to-treat analysis of the primary outcomes both found no benefit of ICS in COPD.

Taken together, all trials to date suggest instead that the bronchodilator component of the combination therapy widely used today, and not the ICS component, is effective in COPD. This effect of bronchodilation may in fact explain, notwithstanding the two limitations previously described, why the earliest randomised trials of ICS alone found no benefit, whereas only the subsequent ones evaluating ICS combined with LABAs did start to report important beneficial effects.

The randomised controlled trial is the fundamental scientific pillar in the assessment of the benefit of drugs. The practising clinician justly assumes that results from randomised trials are valid and reliable, particularly when they form the basis for evidence in treatment guideline recommendations. After several inadequately designed or analysed trials, it is now evident that the only two trials that have been correctly performed found no benefit for the ICS component of COPD treatment. It is therefore objectionable that, today, the majority of patients with COPD are subjected to ICS, largely obscured in a single device of combination therapy with a bronchodilator, despite the initial absence of proof of effectiveness and now in the face of proof of absence of effectiveness. With the significant risks that these drugs carry for the estimated 20 million, mostly older, Americans and Europeans with COPD who are using them, as well as millions of others worldwide, it is time to reassess the studies and clinical guidelines that recommend this treatment practice, and urgently so, to prevent serious harm to these patients 52. Moreover, to provide data reliable for clinical practice, future randomised trials in COPD will have to be designed to address the relevant clinical question in the appropriate study population, recognising the different COPD subtypes, with sufficiently extensive and complete follow-up, particularly if the drugs under study seek to modify the course of a disease that takes decades to develop.

Statement of interest

Statements of interest for S. Suissa and P.J. Barnes can be found at www.erj.ersjournals.com/misc/statements.dtl

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Mannino DM, Buist AS. Global burden of COPD: risk factors, prevalence, and future trends. Lancet 2007;370:765–773.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      Rabe KF, Hurd S, Anzueto A, et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;176:532–555.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      Jackevicius CA, Chapman KR. Prevalence of inhaled corticosteroid use among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a survey. Ann Pharmacother 1997;31:160–164.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      Anon. Respiratory Disease Specific Programme 2000–2007. Macclesfield, Adelphi Group Products, 2008
    5. ↵
      Renkema TE, Schouten JP, Koeter GH, et al. Effects of long-term treatment with corticosteroids in COPD. Chest 1996;109:1156–1162.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. Bourbeau J, Rouleau MY, Boucher S. Randomised controlled trial of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1998;53:477–482.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. Paggiaro PL, Dahle R, Bakran I, et al. Multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial of inhaled fluticasone propionate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. International COPD Study Group. Lancet 1998;351:773–780.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. Vestbo J, Sorensen T, Lange P, et al. Long-term effect of inhaled budesonide in mild and moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;353:1819–1823.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      Pauwels RA, Lofdahl CG, Laitinen LA, et al. Long-term treatment with inhaled budesonide in persons with mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who continue smoking. European Respiratory Society study on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1948–1953.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      Burge PS, Calverley PM, Jones PW, et al. Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study of fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the ISOLDE trial. Br Med J 2000;320:1297–1303.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      The Lung Health Study Research Group. Effect of inhaled triamcinolone on the decline in pulmonary function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1902–1909.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      Mahler DA, Wire P, Horstman D, et al. Effectiveness of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination delivered via the Diskus device in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1084–1091.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. Szafranski W, Cukier A, Ramirez A, et al. Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2003;21:74–81.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. Calverley P, Pauwels R, Vestbo J, et al. Combined salmeterol and fluticasone in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:449–456.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. Calverley PM, Boonsawat W, Cseke Z, et al. Maintenance therapy with budesonide and formoterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2003;22:912–919.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      Kardos P, Wencker M, Glaab T, et al. Impact of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus salmeterol on exacerbations in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:144–149.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      Calverley PM, Anderson JA, Celli B, et al. Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:775–789.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      Aaron SD, Vandemheen KL, Fergusson D, 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;146:545–555.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      Wedzicha JA, Calverley PM, Seemungal TA, et al. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      Alsaeedi A, Sin DD, McAlister FA. The effects of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Am J Med 2002;113:59–65.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      Sin DD, Wu L, Anderson JA, et al. Inhaled corticosteroids and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 2005;60:992–997.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      Sin DD, Tu JV. Inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of mortality and readmission in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:580–584.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    23. Soriano JB, Vestbo J, Pride NB, et al. Survival in COPD patients after regular use of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in general practice. Eur Respir J 2002;20:819–825.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. Kiri VA, Pride NB, Soriano JB, et al. Inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two observational designs free of immortal time bias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172:460–464.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      Tkacova R, Toth S, Sin DD. Inhaled corticosteroids and survival in COPD patients receiving long-term home oxygen therapy. Respir Med 2006;100:385–392.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. Tashkin DP, Celli B, Senn S, et al. A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1543–1554.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      Suissa S, Ernst P, Vandemheen KL, et al. Methodological issues in therapeutic trials of COPD. Eur Respir J 2008;31:927–933.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      Celli BR, Thomas NE, Anderson JA, 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;178:332–338.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      Suissa S. Lung function decline in COPD trials: bias from regression to the mean. Eur Respir J 2008;32:829–831.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    30. ↵
      La Vecchia C, Fabbri LM. Prevention of death in COPD. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2211–2212.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      Suissa S. Statistical treatment of exacerbations in therapeutic trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;173:842–846.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      Suissa S. Effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: immortal time bias in observational studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:49–53.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. Suissa S. Inhaled steroids and mortality in COPD: bias from unaccounted immortal time. Eur Respir J 2004;23:391–395.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. Suissa S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007;16:241–249.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      Suissa S. Immortal time bias in pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:492–499.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      Garbe E, LeLorier J, Boivin JF, et al. Inhaled and nasal glucocorticoids and the risks of ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma. JAMA 1997;277:722–727.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. Hubbard RB, Smith CJ, Smeeth L, et al. Inhaled corticosteroids and hip fracture: a population-based case-control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1563–1566.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      Suissa S, Baltzan M, Kremer R, et al. Inhaled and nasal corticosteroid use and the risk of fracture. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;169:83–88.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      Cumming RG, Mitchell P, Leeder SR. Use of inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of cataracts. N Engl J Med 1997;337:8–14.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. Garbe E, Suissa S, LeLorier J. Association of inhaled corticosteroid use with cataract extraction in elderly patients. JAMA 1998;280:539–543.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      Ernst P, Baltzan M, Deschenes J, et al. Low-dose inhaled and nasal corticosteroid use and the risk of cataracts. Eur Respir J 2006;27:1168–1174.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      Ernst P, Gonzalez AV, Brassard P, et al. Inhaled corticosteroid use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;176:162–166.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      Keatings VM, Jatakanon A, Worsdell YM, et al. Effects of inhaled and oral glucocorticoids on inflammatory indices in asthma and COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:542–548.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    44. Culpitt SV, Maziak W, Loukidis S, et al. Effect of high dose inhaled steroid on cells, cytokines, and proteases in induced sputum in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:1635–1639.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    45. Loppow D, Schleiss MB, Kanniess F, et al. In patients with chronic bronchitis a four week trial with inhaled steroids does not attenuate airway inflammation. Respir Med 2001;95:115–121.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. Gan WQ, Man SF, Sin DD. Effects of inhaled corticosteroids on sputum cell counts in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med 2005;5:3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. Hattotuwa KL, Gizycki MJ, Ansari TW, et al. The effects of inhaled fluticasone on airway inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind, placebo-controlled biopsy study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1592–1596.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      Bourbeau J, Christodoulopoulos P, Maltais F, et al. Effect of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate on airway inflammation in COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2007;62:938–943.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    49. ↵
      Ito K, Ito M, Elliott WM, et al. Decreased histone deacetylase activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1967–1976.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      Barnes PJ. Role of HDAC2 in the pathophysiology of COPD. Annu Rev Physiol 2008; [Epub Ahead of Print PMD: 18817512]
    51. ↵
      Brightling CE, Monteiro W, Ward R, et al. Sputum eosinophilia and short-term response to prednisolone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000;356:1480–1485.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      Drummond MB, Dasenbrook EC, Pitz MW, et al. Inhaled corticosteroids in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2008;300:2407–2416.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 34 Issue 1 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 34 (1)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the case against
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the case against
    S. Suissa, P. J. Barnes
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2009, 34 (1) 13-16; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00190908

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the case against
    S. Suissa, P. J. Barnes
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2009, 34 (1) 13-16; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00190908
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • THE STUDIES
      • SHORTCOMINGS OF THE STUDIES
      • SAFETY CONCERNS
      • WHY DO ICS NOT WORK IN COPD?
      • CONCLUSION
      • Statement of interest
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Tiotropium Respimat increases the risk of mortality: pro debate
    • Respimat increases the risk of mortality: con
    • Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: a case in favour
    Show more Pro And Con Editorials

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society