Expert Statement:Pneumothorax Associated with One-Way Valve Therapy for Emphysema: 2020 Update

For selected patients with advanced emphysema, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with one-way valves can lead to clinically relevant improvements of airflow obstruction, hyperinflation, exercise capacity, and quality of life. The most common complication of this procedure is pneumothorax with a prevalence of up to +/- 34% of the treated patients. Patients who develop a pneumothorax also experience meaningful clinical benefits once the pneumothorax is resolved. Timely resolution of a post-valve treatment pneumothorax requires skilled and adequate pneumothorax management. This expert panel statement is an updated recommendation of the 2014 statement developed to help guide pneumothorax management after valve placement. Additionally, mechanisms for pneumothorax development, risk assessment, prevention of pneumothorax, and outcomes after pneumothorax are addressed. This recommendation is based on a combination of the current scientific literature and expert opinion, which was obtained through a modified Delphi method

Four patients with a history of acute exacerbations of COPD: implementing the CHEST/Canadian Thoracic Society guidelines for preventing exacerbations

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0

Evidence of mycobacterial disease in COPD patients with lung volume reduction surgery; the importance of histological assessment of specimens: a cohort study

Background Patients with COPD are at risk of non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection (NTM). This study examined the histology of lung tissue from COPD patients following lung volume reduction with particular focus on evidence of mycobacterial infection. Methods Retrospective histological study of 142 consecutive lung volume reduction surgical specimens (126 separate patients) at Royal Brompton Hospital between 2000 – 2013, with prospectively collected preoperative data on exacerbation rate, lung function and body mass index. Results 92% of patients had at least one other histological diagnosis in addition to emphysema. 10% of specimens had histological evidence of mycobacterial infection, one with co-existent aspergilloma. Mycobacteria were only identified in those patients with granulomas that were necrotising. These patients had higher exacerbation rates, lower TLCO and FEV1. Conclusion A proportion of severe COPD patients will have evidence of mycobacterial infection despite lack of clinical and radiological suspicion. This may have implications for long-term management of these patients

Clinical Significance of Bronchodilator Responsiveness Evaluated by Forced Vital Capacity in COPD: SPIROMICS Cohort Analysis.

ObjectiveBronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) is prevalent in COPD, but its clinical implications remain unclear. We explored the significance of BDR, defined by post-bronchodilator change in FEV1 (BDRFEV1) as a measure reflecting the change in flow and in FVC (BDRFVC) reflecting the change in volume.MethodsWe analyzed 2974 participants from a multicenter observational study designed to identify varying COPD phenotypes (SPIROMICS). We evaluated the association of BDR with baseline clinical characteristics, rate of prospective exacerbations and mortality using negative binomial regression and Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsA majority of COPD participants exhibited BDR (52.7%). BDRFEV1 occurred more often in earlier stages of COPD, while BDRFVC occurred more frequently in more advanced disease. When defined by increases in either FEV1 or FVC, BDR was associated with a self-reported history of asthma, but not with blood eosinophil counts. BDRFVC was more prevalent in subjects with greater emphysema and small airway disease on CT. In a univariate analysis, BDRFVC was associated with increased exacerbations and mortality, although no significance was found in a model adjusted for post-bronchodilator FEV1.ConclusionWith advanced airflow obstruction in COPD, BDRFVC is more prevalent in comparison to BDRFEV1 and correlates with the extent of emphysema and degree of small airway disease. Since these associations appear to be related to the impairment of FEV1, BDRFVC itself does not define a distinct phenotype nor can it be more predictive of outcomes, but it can offer additional insights into the pathophysiologic mechanism in advanced COPD.Clinical trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01969344T4

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) Trial: Fibrinogen Levels Predict Risk of Moderate or Severe Exacerbations

Background: Fibrinogen is the frst qualifed prognostic/predictive biomarker for exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial investigated futicasone furoate/umeclidinium/ vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacer‑ bations. This analysis used IMPACT trial data to examine the relationship between fbrinogen levels and exacerbation outcomes in patients with COPD. Methods: 8094 patients with a fbrinogen assessment at Week 16 were included, baseline fbrinogen data were not measured. Post hoc analyses were performed by fbrinogen quartiles and by 3.5 g/L threshold. Endpoints included on-treatment exacerbations and adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Results: Rates of moderate, moderate/severe, and severe exacerbations were higher in the highest versus lowest fibrinogen quartile (0.75, 0.92 and 0.15 vs 0.67, 0.79 and 0.10, respectively). The rate ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for exacerbations in patients with fibrinogen levels ≥ 3.5 g/L versus those with fibrinogen levels \u3c 3.5 g/L were 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) for moderate exacerbations, 1.08 (1.00, 1.15) for moderate/severe exacerbations, and 1.30 (1.10, 1.54) for severe exacerbations. There was an increased risk of moderate/severe exacerbation (hazard ratio [95% CI]: highest vs lowest quartile 1.16 [1.04, 1.228]; ≥ 3.5 g/L vs \u3c 3.5 g/L: 1.09 [1.00, 1.16]) and severe exacerbation (1.35 [1.09, 1.69]; 1.27 [1.08, 1.47], respectively) with increasing fibrinogen level. Cardiovascular AESIs were highest in patients in the highest fibrinogen quartile. Conclusions: Rate and risk of exacerbations was higher in patients with higher fbrinogen levels. This supports the validity of fbrinogen as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations, and highlights the potential use of fbrinogen as an enrichment strategy in trials examining exacerbation outcomes

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD:results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial

BACKGROUND: This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy. METHODS: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death. RESULTS: Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10-11% and 1-3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855)

ERS statement: A core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the management of COPD exacerbations

Clinical trials evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of COPD assess heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically relevant or more important to patients. We have developed a core outcome set, a consensus-based minimum set of important outcomes that we recommend are evaluated in all future clinical trials on exacerbations management, to improve their quality and comparability. COPD exacerbations outcomes were identified through methodological systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with 86 patients from 11 countries globally. The most critical outcomes were prioritised for inclusion in the core outcome set through a two-round Delphi survey completed by 1063 participants (256 patients, 488 health professionals and 319 clinical academics) from 88 countries in five continents. Two global, multi-stakeholder, virtual consensus meetings were conducted to 1) finalise the core outcome set and 2) prioritise a single measurement instrument to be used for evaluating each of the prioritised outcomes. Consensus was informed by rigorous methodological systematic reviews. The views of patients with COPD were accounted for at all stages of the project. Survival, treatment success, breathlessness, quality of life, activities of daily living, the need for a higher level of care, arterial blood gases, disease progression, future exacerbations and hospital admissions, treatment safety and adherence were all included in the core outcome set. Focused methodological research was recommended to further validate and optimise some of the selected measurement instruments. The panel did not consider the prioritised set of outcomes and associated measurement instruments to be burdensome for patients and health professionals to use

Core outcome set for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force study protocol.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of COPD exacerbations evaluate heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically important and patient relevant. This limits their usability and comparability. A core outcome set (COS) is a consensus-based minimum set of clinically important outcomes that should be evaluated in all RCTs in specific areas of health care. We present the study protocol of the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force, aiming to develop a COS for COPD exacerbation management, that could remedy these limitations. For the development of this COS we follow standard methodology recommended by the COMET initiative. A comprehensive list of outcomes is assembled through a methodological systematic review of the outcomes reported in relevant RCTs. Qualitative research with patients with COPD will also be conducted, aiming to identify additional outcomes that may be important to patients, but are not currently addressed in clinical research studies. Prioritisation of the core outcomes will be facilitated through an extensive, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey with a global reach. Selection will be finalised in an international, multi-stakeholder meeting. For every core outcome, we will recommend a specific measurement instrument and standardised time points for evaluation. Selection of instruments will be based on evidence-informed consensus. Our work will improve the quality, usability and comparability of future RCTs on the management of COPD exacerbations and, ultimately, the care of patients with COPD. Multi-stakeholder engagement and societal support by the European Respiratory Society will raise awareness and promote implementation of the COS