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

Steroids in COPD: still up in the air?

D. D. Sin, S. F. P. Man
European Respiratory Journal 2010 35: 949-951; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006710
D. D. Sin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. F. P. Man
  • 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

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have had a wild and controversial rollercoaster ride in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With the success of ICS in asthma and with the advent of the Dutch Hypothesis, suggesting that asthma and COPD had a similar pathogenic origin, there was great hope that ICS would be the saviour for millions of patients suffering from COPD, by palliating symptoms and changing its natural history. Based on this promise, by the mid 1980s, clinicians were routinely recommending ICS therapy to their patients, even though there was an absence of compelling grade A evidence from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating efficacy 1.

By the late 1990s, the promise was shattered by the publication of several seminal RCTs that clearly showed that ICS did not modify the rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and had only a modest effect on symptoms 2–4. These data re-inforced the notion that COPD was a steroid-resistant state and many leading experts in the field concluded that ICS had no role in COPD, except during exacerbations 5. Ostensibly, ICS were dead and buried.

However, the new millennium brought new hope for ICS. Proponents argued that while ICS may not alter the rate of decline in FEV1, it improved patient based outcomes including survival. This optimism was fuelled by several large observational studies and meta-analyses 6–9 that demonstrated a distinct survival benefit for patients who were prescribed ICS. This enthusiasm, however, was dashed in 2007 by the publication of the long-awaited TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) Study, which failed to show an unequivocal survival advantage for patients assigned to a steroid-containing treatment strategy over a 3-yr period 10. ICS were dead and buried for the second time.

Yet almost immediately, ICS was resurrected from the dead, this time on the notion that COPD is an inflammatory disorder with multiple extrapulmonary manifestations, driven largely by a persistent systemic inflammatory process, which worsens during periods of exacerbation 11. Although COPD is associated with many different comorbidities, cardiovascular disorders (CVDs) are of particular importance, as they are the leading causes of hospitalisation and a major contributor of total mortality, accounting for a quarter to a third of all deaths in COPD patients 12. Since systemic inflammation is an important co-factor in the genesis of CVD, it was reasoned that ICS could mitigate the risk of CVD and, thus, reduce the overall health burden of COPD patients by attenuating the inflammatory load. Additional support for this theory came from large epidemiological studies and post hoc analyses of RCTs, showing the possible benefits of ICS in reducing the rate of myocardial infarctions, angina, stroke and heart failure morbidity and mortality in COPD patients 13–16.

In this issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Loke et al. 17 provide fresh data that challenge the notion that ICS reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular deaths in COPD. In this carefully conducted systematic review and meta-analysis, they used data from 23 high-quality RCTs to demonstrate that ICS did not affect the risk of myocardial infarction (relative risk (RR) 0.95; p = 0.68), or cardiovascular death (RR 1.02; p = 0.89). This was a carefully conducted systematic review, performed in accordance with established guidelines 18. The outcome was clearly defined and the studies were rigorously and comprehensively selected. Methodologically, the review was sound. So based on these findings, is this the final chapter in the story of ICS in COPD?

The answer is an emphatic “no”. First, readers should be mindful that none of the trials included in the present meta-analysis was powered specifically on CVD end-points. In most cases, CVDs were captured as safety events. Because these events in general are not collected with the same rigor or comprehensiveness as those related to the primary outcome, subtle (but clinically relevant) differences between treatment and comparator groups may have been missed. Secondly, although there were nearly 20,000 patients in this meta-analysis, only 212 of them (representing 1.1% of the cohort) experienced myocardial infarction. Since this is a far lower rate than what would be expected for a group of ex- and current smokers in their 60s and 70s 19, certain confounding factors such as selection bias (against subjects with significant cardiovascular comorbidity) and case ascertainment bias (i.e. a large number of myocardial infarction events being missed in the trials) may also explain the null findings in the present meta-analysis.

Finally, despite the “negative” opinions of ICS proffered by academics, it is hard to ignore the fact ICS-based therapies are widely used in clinical practice. Indeed, the worldwide sales of fluticasone/salmeterol combination alone topped more than US$7 billion in 2007, making it the third best selling pharmaceutical product in the world, trailing only behind Lipitor® (atorvastatin), which grossed US$12.7 billion and Plavix® (clopidogrel), which grossed US$7.9 billion 20. The worldwide sale of the other commonly used steroid-containing COPD drug, budesonide/formoterol, was US$1.6 billion in 2007. In 2010, the sales of fluticasone/salmeterol combination are expected to exceed US$9 billion 21, likely putting this product at the top of the best seller's list. This begs the obvious question: why are clinicians using ICS for patients with COPD? The sceptics would argue that these data are driven by clever marketing. However, clinicians are not so easily misled. In reality, marketing has only a modest effect on demand for pharmaceutical products 22. A more plausible (and simple) explanation is that clinicians (and patients) use ICS-based therapy for COPD because they work.

Clinicians use pharmaceutical products in COPD for three primary reasons: 1) to provide symptom relief; 2) to reduce the risk of exacerbations; and 3) to increase survival without incurring significant side-effects. In the case of ICS, although their effect on mortality is still disputed, there is unequivocal evidence that they (in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist) reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, reduce exacerbations and increase lung function above and beyond that which can be achieved by long-acting bronchodilators alone 23, 24. At the grass roots level, clinicians have “known” about these effects based on empirical data and clinical experience long before they were validated by large RCTs.

So where does this leave the field? Although ICS-based therapies represent a significant innovation in COPD management, they are far from ideal. Despite “optimal” COPD management, most patients with COPD experience at least one or two exacerbations per year and many go on to have severe exacerbations requiring hospitalisation 25. Globally, COPD mortality continues to climb at an alarming rate, such that by 2030, nearly 9 million people will die annually from COPD (currently 3 million per year) 26. The pipeline for new drugs for COPD is relatively dry compared to those for other major causes of mortality, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer and diabetes (fig. 1⇓). Additionally, in COPD, the only “biomarker” that is widely accepted by regulatory agencies for new drug approval is FEV1. Unfortunately, it is a near impossible hurdle to overcome as COPD by definition is “irreversible” in terms of lung function. Notwithstanding this and other obstacles, ICS-based therapies have been successful in obtaining regulatory approval and, most importantly, reducing the disease burden of patients suffering from COPD. The mechanisms by which ICS enhance patient-based outcomes in COPD are largely unknown and remain “up in the air”. In the past, we have spent an enormous amount of time, money and energy trying to ascertain reasons why ICS should not work in COPD. We propose that it might be more productive to focus on possible mechanisms by which they might work in COPD. This may enable us to identify novel molecules and pathways for new drug and biomarker discoveries. Although there were some limitations, as noted previously, the work by Loke et al. 17 suggests that ICS do not change CVD outcomes in COPD and encourages us to look elsewhere for clues to the ongoing mystery of how steroids work in COPD.

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

New pharmaceutical compounds in current development for select conditions. Only includes compounds in clinical trial or under review by the US Federal Drug and Food Administration. Data obtained from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 27. COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; depres.: depression.

Support statement

D.D. Sin is a senior scholar with the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and is a Canada Research Chair in COPD.

Statement of interest

Statements of interest for both authors can be found at www.erj.ersjournals.com/misc/statements

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      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
    2. ↵
      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
    3. 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
    4. ↵
      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
    5. ↵
      Barnes PJ, Ito K, Adcock IM. Corticosteroid resistance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: inactivation of histone deacetylase. Lancet 2004;363:731–733.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      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
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. ↵
      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
    10. ↵
      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
    11. ↵
      Decramer M, Rennard S, Troosters T, et al. COPD as a lung disease with systemic consequences – clinical impact, mechanisms, and potential for early intervention. COPD 2008;5:235–256.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      Zvezdin B, Milutinov S, Kojicic M, et al. A postmortem analysis of major causes of early death in patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation. Chest 2009;136:376–380.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      Huiart L, Ernst P, Ranouil X, et al. Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of acute myocardial infarction in COPD. Eur Respir J 2005;25:634–639.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. Macie C, Wooldrage K, Manfreda J, et al. Inhaled corticosteroids and mortality in COPD. Chest 2006;130:640–646.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. Lofdahl CG, Postma DS, Pride NB, et al. Possible protection by inhaled budesonide against ischaemic cardiac events in mild COPD. Eur Respir J 2007;29:1115–1119.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      Lee TA, Pickard AS, Au DH, et al. Risk for death associated with medications for recently diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:380–390.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      Loke YK, Kwok CS, Singh S. Risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death associated with inhaled corticosteroids in COPD. Eur Respir J 2010;35:1003–1021.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. ↵
      Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896–1900.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      Anthonisen NR, Skeans MA, Wise RA, et al. The effects of a smoking cessation intervention on 14.5-year mortality: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:233–239.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      Top Selling Drugs for 2007. www.pharmababble.com/top-selling-drugs-for-2007 Date last updated: May 28, 2008. Date last accessed: February 23, 2010
    21. ↵
      Glaxo to Remain the Asthma King. http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/12/news/companies/allergy/index.htm Date last updated: May 15, 2006. Date last accessed: February 23, 2010
    22. ↵
      Leeflang PS, Wieringa JA. Modeling the effects of pharmaceutical marketing. Mark Lett 2009; DOI 10.1007/s11002-009-9092-3
    23. ↵
      Ferguson GT, Anzueto A, Fei R, et al. Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 μg) or salmeterol (50 μg) on COPD exacerbations. Respir Med 2008;102:1099–1108.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      Wouters EF, Postma DS, Fokkens B, et al. Withdrawal of fluticasone propionate from combined salmeterol/fluticasone treatment in patients with COPD causes immediate and sustained disease deterioration: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2005;60:480–487.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      Seemungal TA, Hurst JR, Wedzicha JA. Exacerbation rate, health status and mortality in COPD – a review of potential interventions. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2009;4:203–223.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med 2006;3:e442
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. About PhRMA. www.phrma.org/about_phrma Date last updated: 2010. Date last accessed: January 7, 2010
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 35 Issue 5 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 35 (5)
    • 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.
    Steroids in COPD: still up in the air?
    (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
    Steroids in COPD: still up in the air?
    D. D. Sin, S. F. P. Man
    European Respiratory Journal May 2010, 35 (5) 949-951; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006710

    Citation Manager Formats

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

    Share
    Steroids in COPD: still up in the air?
    D. D. Sin, S. F. P. Man
    European Respiratory Journal May 2010, 35 (5) 949-951; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00006710
    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
      • Support statement
      • Statement of interest
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Addressing the effect of ancestry on lung volume
    • Bronchodilators in bronchiectasis: there is light but it is still too dim
    • Consensus statement on quality standards for managing children with bronchiectasis
    Show more 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 © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society