Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • 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
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Cardiac impact of inhaled therapy in the largest randomised placebo-controlled trial in COPD history: have we reached the SUMMIT?

Stefan Andreas, Christer Janson, Maarten van den Berge, Lies Lahousse
ERJ Open Research 2016 2: 00055-2016; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00055-2016
Stefan Andreas
1Cardiology and Pneumology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
2Lung Clinic Immenhausen, Immenhausen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: stefan.andreas@med.uni-goettingen.de
Christer Janson
3Dept of Medical Sciences: Respiratory, Allergy and Sleep Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maarten van den Berge
4University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Dept of Pulmonary Diseases, Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lies Lahousse
5Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
6Dept of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • 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

Abstract

SUMMIT supports the efficiency and cardiovascular safety of LABA and ICS in COPD patients at cardiovascular risk http://ow.ly/p6Is300ffoc

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Although COPD primarily affects the lungs, it has become clear that systemic effects of COPD significantly contribute to its severity and overall mortality. Due to its high prevalence in the older population, and smoking as a shared risk factor, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is of particular importance [1]. Indeed, more patients with COPD die from CVD than from COPD itself [2–5]. Research indicates a number of mechanisms that explain this relationship, including systemic inflammation, physical inactivity, neurohumoural activation, arrhythmias, endothelial dysfunction and a greater fall in pleural pressure during inspiration [6]. Thus, bronchodilation might positively impact on CVD. In line with that reasoning, endothelial function and blood pressure were improved after lung volume reduction surgery in patients with severe COPD [7]. Furthermore, retrospective data from the National Emphysema Treatment Trial suggest that long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) reduce mortality [8]. There are also data suggesting that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may have a beneficial effect on the risk of cardiovascular events in COPD, possibly by decreasing systemic inflammation [9].

Besides the well-characterised positive effects of inhaled therapy, safety issues remain. Both LABA and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), as well as fixed combinations of both, and the combination of ICS and LABA, seem to be safe when used in the appropriate dose in patients with stable CVD [10, 11]. However, the cardiac safety of LABA and LAMA is less evident when used in COPD patients with uncontrolled, substantial or acute CVD [10]. Therefore, the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT), focusing on COPD patients with increased cardiovascular risk, was well positioned to inform us of the cardiovascular safety and effects of ICS and LABA.

Design and endpoints

SUMMIT is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre trial [6]. COPD patients with moderate airflow limitation (≥50% and ≤70% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)) and a history of CVD or increased risk of CVD were randomised 1:1:1:1 to one of four double-blind treatment groups: placebo, fluticasone furoate (FF), vilanterol (VI), or a combination of FF and VI [6]. This was an endpoint-driven study designed to have 90% power to detect a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality with FF/VI compared to placebo [6]. Clinical events were adjudicated meticulously by an endpoint committee. With >16 000 patients included, the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, showed a 12% relative reduction with FF/VI compared to placebo, which was not statistically significant (p=0.137) [12]. The predefined secondary endpoints were 1) the effect of FF/VI compared with placebo on the rate of decline in FEV1, and 2) the effect of FF/VI compared with placebo on a cardiovascular composite endpoint comprised of on-treatment cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina and transient ischaemic attack [6].

Combination therapy reduced the secondary endpoint, rate of FEV1 decline, by 8 mL per year compared with placebo (p=0.019) [12]. When analysing the monotherapy arms, this effect was related to the inhaled corticosteroid use rather than the β2-agonist use (table 1). For the other secondary endpoint, the risk of cardiovascular events was not significantly different between FF/VI and placebo (p=0.478) [12]. It must be kept in mind, however, that these were secondary endpoints and the primary endpoint was negative, thus making inferences problematic.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Main results of the SUMMIT trial

Other prespecified endpoints demonstrated an improvement compared to placebo in the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations (table 1). There was no difference between the treatment groups in pneumonia and other adverse events. Analysis of subgroups such as patients with atrial fibrillation or a myocardial infarction are ongoing and are likely to be available in subsequent publications.

Comments

The SUMMIT trial is the largest COPD randomised, placebo-controlled trial ever. The study investigators report a negative finding, albeit that the direction of effect was as anticipated. SUMMIT was designed to have 90% power to detect a 30% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality on FF/VI compared with placebo [6]. This assumption might have been too optimistic. ClinicalTrials.gov and other resources [6] do not inform us about previous studies that led to this assumption. Two preceding large studies [4, 13] with mortality signals included patients with more severe COPD and less cardiovascular risk, making inferences for SUMMIT challenging.

Physicians are often hesitant to treat airway obstruction with inhaled LABA in patients with CVD [14]. The currently presented data of the large and meticulously controlled SUMMIT trial in a moderately dyspnoeic COPD population at increased cardiovascular risk do not indicate major signals for cardiac safety. These important and timely data should reassure physicians on the use of LABA in moderate COPD patients at cardiovascular risk in general. However, questions on subgroups such as patients with atrial fibrillation or recent myocardial infarction remain, and this clinical relevant information is be eagerly awaited.

By their systemic effects, concurrent use of LABA and LAMA, i.e. dual bronchodilation, might potentially increase cardiovascular effects [10]. Recent phase III studies of dual bronchodilators (some of them using Holter data) did not exhibit conclusive safety signals [10, 15, 16]. However, these trials were smaller than SUMMIT and have not investigated a cohort with increased cardiovascular risk. SUMMIT did not permit tiotropium at baseline but following severe exacerbation, tiotropium could be added. Therefore, SUMMIT provides only limited data on dual bronchodilation and thus is unable to comment on safety issues of LABA plus LAMA.

The improvement in FEV1 and the reduction of moderate and severe exacerbations with FF, VI and FF/VI confirms effects that were seen in previous studies, such as TORCH (Towards a Revolution in COPD Health) and a meta-analysis [4, 16]. Besides, the effect of FF/VI on FEV1 was smaller than in trials evaluating dual bronchodilation [10, 15, 16]. Effects on quality of life were not reported.

SUMMIT is the largest study showing a reduction in the rate of FEV1 decline in a predefined analysis. As discussed above, secondary endpoints in a study with a negative primary endpoint have to be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, clinically, it is reasonable to assume that the two endpoints are independent of each other since a small effect on the rate of FEV1 decline (8mL per year) will not impact mortality. However, it is questionable whether this small difference observed over a relatively short time period (median study exposure 1.8 years) has clinical relevance, especially since recent trials show clinically relevant effects of dual bronchodilation compared to salmeterol plus fluticasone [17]. Further studies might define subgroups where ICS affect disease progression, such as in COPD patients with blood eosinophilia or a Th2 gene expression profile [18–20]. Unfortunately, blood eosinophils were not routinely evaluated in SUMMIT.

Compared to placebo, the combination treatment had no significant effect on the incidence of pneumonia in SUMMIT [12]. This is in contrast with previous studies and a meta-analysis [21, 22]. This contrast might be explained by the different patient characteristics or different inclusion and exclusion criteria (table 2). Lung function was less compromised (higher FEV1) and CVD more common in SUMMIT participants than in previous large COPD cohorts (table 2) [24, 25]. The relatively low dose of the ICS may also have been beneficial because the pneumonia risk is dose dependent [24]. In line with ICS meta-analyses, the phase III COPD studies using FF/VI showed increased pneumonia rates with increasing FF dose [21, 24]. Finally, the relatively short mean follow-up might also have contributed to the observed pneumonia rates in SUMMIT [12, 24].

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Comparison between the three largest randomised placebo-controlled trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) history: SUMMIT, TORCH and UPLIFT

Was the therapy used in SUMMIT the optimal inhaled treatment? A recent trial available only as press release shows a reduction in exacerbations with the dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium as compared to the LABA/ICS salmeterol/fluticasone [17]. The press release does not clarify whether this finding is driven by the reduction of severe, moderate or mild (mainly lung function driven) exacerbations, but it would be interesting to know what the effects of dual bronchodilation in a SUMMIT-like population are. However, given that inhaled therapy in COPD improves convincing clinical endpoints such as lung function, exacerbations, exercise capacity and quality of life, another large placebo-controlled bronchodilator study with mortality as the primary endpoint is unlikely to be performed for ethical and financial reasons [4, 23]. In this regard, it appears that we have reached the summit.

Similar to previous COPD trials, 47% of the SUMMIT patients were active smokers [12]. Smoking cessation is the most effective way to reduce pulmonary as well as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and thus remains of principal importance in COPD treatment [26].

Conclusion

SUMMIT clearly supports the efficiency and cardiovascular safety of LABA and ICS in COPD patients at cardiovascular risk. Subsequent subgroup analysis is likely to provide further important information. Nevertheless, diagnosing and targeting underlying CVD might be a more effective way to address mortality in COPD. Accordingly, β-blockade and angiotensin receptor blockade targeting neurohumoural activation, as is present in COPD, shows promise [3, 27].

Footnotes

  • Support statement: We acknowledge the U4 university network between the Universities of Ghent, Göttingen, Groningen and Uppsala. Lies Lahousse is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Open Funder Registry.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at openres.ersjournals.com

  • Received May 2, 2016.
  • Accepted May 12, 2016.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2016

This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Chen W,
    2. Thomas J,
    3. Sadatsafavi M, et al.
    Risk of cardiovascular comorbidity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3: 631–639.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Anthonisen NR,
    2. Skeans MA,
    3. 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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Decramer M,
    2. Janssens W
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and comorbidities. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1: 73–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Calverley PM,
    2. Anderson JA,
    3. Celli B, et al.
    Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 775–789.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Lahousse L,
    2. Loth DW,
    3. Joos GF, et al.
    Statins, systemic inflammation and risk of death in COPD: the Rotterdam study. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2013; 26: 212–217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Vestbo J,
    2. Anderson J,
    3. Brook RD, et al.
    The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT) study protocol. Eur Respir J 2013; 41: 1017–1022.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Clarenbach CF,
    2. Sievi NA,
    3. Brock M, et al.
    Lung volume reduction surgery and improvement of endothelial function and blood pressure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 307–314.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Horita N,
    2. Miyazawa N,
    3. Morita S, et al.
    Long-acting beta-agonists reduce mortality of patients with severe and very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a propensity score matching study. Respir Res 2013; 14: 62.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Lofdahl CG,
    2. Postma DS,
    3. 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
  10. ↵
    1. Lahousse L,
    2. Verhamme KM,
    3. Stricker BH, et al.
    Cardiac effects of current treatments of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: 149–164.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Dong YH,
    2. Chang CH,
    3. Gagne JJ, et al.
    Comparative cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population-based cohort study. Pharmacotherapy 2016; 36: 26–37.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Vestbo J,
    2. Anderson J,
    3. Brook RD, et al.
    Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with heightened cardiovascular risk (SUMMIT): a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 1817–1826.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Celli B,
    2. Decramer M,
    3. Kesten S, et al.
    Mortality in the 4-year trial of tiotropium (UPLIFT) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180: 948–955.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Viskin S,
    2. Barron HV
    . Beta blockers prevent cardiac death following a myocardial infarction: so why are so many infarct survivors discharged without beta blockers? Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 821–822.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Buhl R,
    2. Maltais F,
    3. Abrahams R, et al.
    Tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination versus mono-components in COPD (GOLD 2–4). Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 969–979.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Oba Y,
    2. Sarva ST,
    3. Dias S
    . Efficacy and safety of long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combinations in COPD: a network meta-analysis. Thorax 2016; 71: 15–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Novartis. FLAME study shows superiority of Novartis’ Ultibro® Breezhaler® over Seretide® in reducing COPD exacerbations. https://www.novartis.com/news/media-releases/flame-study-shows-superiority-novartis-ultibro%C2%AE-breezhaler%C2%AE-over-seretide%C2%AE Date last updated: November 17, 2015.
  18. ↵
    1. Pascoe S,
    2. Locantore N,
    3. Dransfield MT, et al.
    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: 435–442.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Barnes NC,
    2. Sharma R,
    3. Lettis S, et al.
    Blood eosinophils as a marker of response to inhaled corticosteroids in COPD. Eur Respir J 2016.
  19. ↵
    1. Christenson SA,
    2. Steiling K,
    3. van den Berge M, et al.
    Asthma-COPD overlap. Clinical relevance of genomic signatures of type 2 inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191: 758–766.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Dransfield MT,
    2. Bourbeau J,
    3. Jones PW, 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: 210–223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Kew KM,
    2. Seniukovich A
    . Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 3: CD010115.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Tashkin DP,
    2. Celli B,
    3. Senn S, et al.
    A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1543–1554.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Suissa S,
    2. Patenaude V,
    3. Lapi F, et al.
    Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and the risk of serious pneumonia. Thorax 2013; 68: 1029–1036.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Janson C,
    2. Larsson K,
    3. Lisspers KH, et al.
    Pneumonia and pneumonia related mortality in patients with COPD treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid and long acting β2 agonist: observational matched cohort study (PATHOS). BMJ 2013; 346: f3306.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Jimenez-Ruiz CA,
    2. Andreas S,
    3. Lewis KE, et al.
    Statement on smoking cessation in COPD and other pulmonary diseases and in smokers with comorbidities who find it difficult to quit. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 61–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Andreas S,
    2. Anker SD,
    3. Scanlon PD, et al.
    Neurohumoral activation as a link to systemic manifestations of chronic lung disease. Chest 2005; 128: 3618–3624.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 2 Issue 2 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 2 (2)
  • 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.
Cardiac impact of inhaled therapy in the largest randomised placebo-controlled trial in COPD history: have we reached the SUMMIT?
(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
Cardiac impact of inhaled therapy in the largest randomised placebo-controlled trial in COPD history: have we reached the SUMMIT?
Stefan Andreas, Christer Janson, Maarten van den Berge, Lies Lahousse
ERJ Open Research Apr 2016, 2 (2) 00055-2016; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00055-2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Cardiac impact of inhaled therapy in the largest randomised placebo-controlled trial in COPD history: have we reached the SUMMIT?
Stefan Andreas, Christer Janson, Maarten van den Berge, Lies Lahousse
ERJ Open Research Apr 2016, 2 (2) 00055-2016; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00055-2016
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
    • Abstract
    • Background
    • Design and endpoints
    • Comments
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Summary of the clinical guidelines for the management of HAP and VAP
  • Diaphragm pacing and motor neurone disease
Show more Clinical Signpost

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • 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
  • 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

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society