Distribution and outcomes of a phenotype-based approach to guide COPD management: Results from the CHAIN cohort

Rationale: The Spanish guideline for COPD (GesEPOC) recommends COPD treatment according to four clinical phenotypes: non-exacerbator phenotype with either chronic bronchitis or emphysema (NE), asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS), frequent exacerbator phenotype with emphysema (FEE) or frequent exacerbator phenotype with chronic bronchitis (FECB). However, little is known on the distribution and outcomes of the four suggested phenotypes. Objective: We aimed to determine the distribution of these COPD phenotypes, and their relation with one-year clinical outcomes. Methods: We followed a cohort of well-characterized patients with COPD up to one-year. Baseline characteristics, health status (CAT), BODE index, rate of exacerbations and mortality up to one year of follow-up were compared between the four phenotypes. Results: Overall, 831 stable COPD patients were evaluated. They were distributed as NE, 550 (66.2%); ACOS, 125 (15.0%); FEE, 38 (4.6%); and FECB, 99 (11.9%); additionally 19 (2.3%) COPD patients with frequent exacerbations did not fulfill the criteria for neither FEE nor FECB. At baseline, there were significant differences in symptoms, FEV1 and BODE index (all p<0.05). The FECB phenotype had the highest CAT score (17.1±8.2, p<0.05 compared to the other phenotypes). Frequent exacerbator groups (FEE and FECB) were receiving more pharmacological treatment at baseline, and also experienced more exacerbations the year after (all p<0.05) with no differences in one-year mortality. Most of NE (93%) and half of exacerbators were stable after one year. Conclusions: There is an uneven distribution of COPD phenotypes in stable COPD patients, with significant differences in demographics, patient-centered outcomes and health care resources use

Mortality prediction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease comparing the GOLD 2015 and GOLD 2019 staging: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

In 2019, The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) modified the grading system for patients with COPD, creating 16 subgroups (1A-4D). As part of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative, we aim to compare the mortality prediction of the 2015 and 2019 COPD GOLD staging systems. We studied 17 139 COPD patients from the 3CIA study, selecting those with complete data. Patients were classified by the 2015 and 2019 GOLD ABCD systems, and we compared the predictive ability for 5-year mortality of both classifications. In total, 17139 patients with COPD were enrolled in 22 cohorts from 11 countries between 2003 and 2017; 8823 of them had complete data and were analysed. Mean +/- SD age was 63.9 +/- 9.8 years and 62.9% were male. GOLD 2019 classified the patients in milder degrees of COPD. For both classifications, group D had higher mortality. 5-year mortality did not differ between groups B and C in GOLD 2015; in GOLD 2019, mortality was greater for group B than C. Patients classified as group A and B had better sensitivity and positive predictive value with the GOLD 2019 classification than GOLD 2015. GOLD 2015 had better sensitivity for group C and D than GOLD 2019. The area under the curve values for 5-year mortality were only 0.67 (95% CI 0.66-0.68) for GOLD 2015 and 0.65 (95% CI 0.63-0.66) for GOLD 2019. The new GOLD 2019 classification does not predict mortality better than the previous GOLD 2015 system

Mortality prediction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease comparing the GOLD 2015 and GOLD 2019 staging: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

In 2019, The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) modified the grading system for patients with COPD, creating 16 subgroups (1A–4D). As part of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative, we aim to compare the mortality prediction of the 2015 and 2019 COPD GOLD staging systems. We studied 17 139 COPD patients from the 3CIA study, selecting those with complete data. Patients were classified by the 2015 and 2019 GOLD ABCD systems, and we compared the predictive ability for 5-year mortality of both classifications. In total, 17 139 patients with COPD were enrolled in 22 cohorts from 11 countries between 2003 and 2017; 8823 of them had complete data and were analysed. Mean±sd age was 63.9±9.8 years and 62.9% were male. GOLD 2019 classified the patients in milder degrees of COPD. For both classifications, group D had higher mortality. 5-year mortality did not differ between groups B and C in GOLD 2015; in GOLD 2019, mortality was greater for group B than C. Patients classified as group A and B had better sensitivity and positive predictive value with the GOLD 2019 classification than GOLD 2015. GOLD 2015 had better sensitivity for group C and D than GOLD 2019. The area under the curve values for 5-year mortality were only 0.67 (95% CI 0.66–0.68) for GOLD 2015 and 0.65 (95% CI 0.63–0.66) for GOLD 2019

What pulmonologists think about the asthma–COPD overlap syndrome

Background: Some patients with COPD may share characteristics of asthma; this is the so-called asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). There are no universally accepted criteria for ACOS, and most treatments for asthma and COPD have not been adequately tested in this population. Materials and methods: We performed a survey among pulmonology specialists in asthma and COPD aimed at collecting their opinions about ACOS and their attitudes in regard to some case scenarios of ACOS patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire and attended a face-to-face meeting with the Metaplan methodology to discuss different aspects of ACOS. Results: A total of 26 pulmonologists with a mean age of 49.7 years participated in the survey (13 specialists in asthma and 13 in COPD). Among these, 84.6% recognized the existence of ACOS and stated that a mean of 12.6% of their patients might have this syndrome. In addition, 80.8% agreed that the diagnostic criteria for ACOS are not yet well defined. The most frequently mentioned characteristics of ACOS were a history of asthma (88.5%), significant smoking exposure (73.1%), and postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ,0.7 (69.2%). The most accepted diagnostic criteria were eosinophilia in sputum (80.8%), a very positive bronchodilator test (69.2%), and a history of asthma before 40 years of age (65.4%). Up to 96.2% agreed that first-line treatment for ACOS was the combination of a long-acting β2-agonist and inhaled steroid, with a long-acting antimuscarinic agent (triple therapy) for severe ACOS. Conclusion: Most Spanish specialists in asthma and COPD agree that ACOS exists, but the diagnostic criteria are not yet well defined. A previous history of asthma, smoking, and not fully reversible airflow limitation are considered the main characteristics of ACOS, with the most accepted first-line treatment being long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroids

Large-scale external validation and comparison of prognostic models: an application to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: External validations and comparisons of prognostic models or scores are a prerequisite for their use in routine clinical care but are lacking in most medical fields including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our aim was to externally validate and concurrently compare prognostic scores for 3-year all-cause mortality in mostly multimorbid patients with COPD. Methods: We relied on 24 cohort studies of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment consortium, corresponding to primary, secondary, and tertiary care in Europe, the Americas, and Japan. These studies include globally 15,762 patients with COPD (1871 deaths and 42,203 person years of follow-up). We used network meta-analysis adapted to multiple score comparison (MSC), following a frequentist two-stage approach; thus, we were able to compare all scores in a single analytical framework accounting for correlations among scores within cohorts. We assessed transitivity, heterogeneity, and inconsistency and provided a performance ranking of the prognostic scores. Results: Depending on data availability, between two and nine prognostic scores could be calculated for each cohort. The BODE score (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) had a median area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 [1st quartile-3rd quartile = 0.655-0.733] across cohorts. The ADO score (age, dyspnea, and airflow obstruction) showed the best performance for predicting mortality (difference AUC(ADO) - AUC(BODE) = 0.015 [95% confidence interval (CI) = - 0.002 to 0.032]; p = 0.08) followed by the updated BODE (AUCBODE updated - AUCBODE = 0.008 [95% CI = -0.005 to +0.022]; p = 0.23). The assumption of transitivity was not violated. Heterogeneity across direct comparisons was small, and we did not identify any local or global inconsistency. Conclusions: Our analyses showed best discriminatory performance for the ADO and updated BODE scores in patients with COPD. A limitation to be addressed in future studies is the extension of MSC network meta-analysis to measures of calibration. MSC network meta-analysis can be applied to prognostic scores in any medical field to identify the best scores, possibly paving the way for stratified medicine, public health, and research

Severe Asthma Standard-of-Care Background Medication Reduction With Benralizumab: ANDHI in Practice Substudy

peer reviewedBackground: The phase IIIb, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled ANDHI double-blind (DB) study extended understanding of the efficacy of benralizumab for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. Patients from ANDHI DB could join the 56-week ANDHI in Practice (IP) single-arm, open-label extension substudy. Objective: Assess potential for standard-of-care background medication reductions while maintaining asthma control with benralizumab. Methods: Following ANDHI DB completion, eligible adults were enrolled in ANDHI IP. After an 8-week run-in with benralizumab, there were 5 visits to potentially reduce background asthma medications for patients achieving and maintaining protocol-defined asthma control with benralizumab. Main outcome measures for non–oral corticosteroid (OCS)-dependent patients were the proportions with at least 1 background medication reduction (ie, lower inhaled corticosteroid dose, background medication discontinuation) and the number of adapted Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step reductions at end of treatment (EOT). Main outcomes for OCS-dependent patients were reductions in daily OCS dosage and proportion achieving OCS dosage of 5 mg or lower at EOT. Results: For non–OCS-dependent patients, 53.3% (n = 208 of 390) achieved at least 1 background medication reduction, increasing to 72.6% (n = 130 of 179) for patients who maintained protocol-defined asthma control at EOT. A total of 41.9% (n = 163 of 389) achieved at least 1 adapted GINA step reduction, increasing to 61.8% (n = 110 of 178) for patients with protocol-defined EOT asthma control. At ANDHI IP baseline, OCS dosages were 5 mg or lower for 40.4% (n = 40 of 99) of OCS-dependent patients. Of OCS-dependent patients, 50.5% (n = 50 of 99) eliminated OCS and 74.7% (n = 74 of 99) achieved dosages of 5 mg or lower at EOT. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate benralizumab's ability to improve asthma control, thereby allowing background medication reduction. © 202

Management of eosinophil-associated inflammatory diseases: the importance of a multidisciplinary approach

Elevated eosinophil counts in blood and tissue are a feature of many pathological processes. Eosinophils can migrate and accumulate in a wide variety of tissues and, by infiltrating a target organ, can mediate the development of several inflammatory diseases. The normalization of eosinophilia is a common biomarker of a treatable trait and can also be used as a prognostic and predictive biomarker since it implies a reduction in type 2 inflammation that contributes to disease pathogenesis. Biological therapies targeting this cell type and its proinflammatory mediators have been shown to be effective in the management of a number of eosinophilic diseases, and for this reason they constitute a potential common strategy in the treatment of patients with various multimorbidities that present with type 2 inflammation. Various biological options are available that could be used to simultaneously treat multiple target organs with a single drug, bearing in mind the need to offer personalized treatments under the umbrella of precision medicine in all patients with eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs). In addition to reviewing these issues, we also discuss a series of perspectives addressing the management of EAD patients from a multidisciplinary approach, with the collaboration of health professionals from different specialties who manage the different multimorbidities that frequently occur in these patients. We examine the basic principles of care that this multidisciplinary approach must cover and present a multidisciplinary expert opinion regarding the ideal management of patients with EADs, from diagnosis to therapeutic approach and follow-up