Several clinical interests regarding lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema: meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>We aim to address several clinical interests regarding lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for severe emphysema using meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight RCTs published from 1999 to 2010 were identified and synthesized to compare the efficacy and safety of LVRS vs conservative medical therapy. One RCT was obtained regarding comparison of median sternotomy (MS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). And three RCTs were available evaluating clinical efficacy of using bovine pericardium for buttressing, autologous fibrin sealant and BioGlue, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Odds ratio (95%CI), expressed as the mortality of group A (the group underwent LVRS) versus group B (conservative medical therapies), was 5.16(2.84, 9.35) in 3 months, 3(0.94, 9.57) in 6 months, 1.05(0.82, 1.33) in 12 months, respectively. On the 3^rd, 6^thand 12^thmonth, all lung function indices of group A were improved more significantly as compared with group B. PaO2 and PaCO2 on the 6^thand 12^thmonth showed the same trend. 6MWD of group A on the 6^thmonth and 12^thmonth were improved significantly than of group B, despite no difference on the 3^rdmonth. Quality of life (QOL) of group A was better than of group B in 6 and 12 months. VATS is preferred to MS, due to the earlier recovery and lower cost. And autologous fibrin sealant and BioGlue seems to be the efficacious methods to reduce air leak following LVRS.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>LVRS offers the more benefits regarding survival, lung function, gas exchange, exercise capacity and QOL, despite the higher mortality in initial three postoperative months. LVRS, with the optimization of surgical approach and material for reinforcement of the staple lines, should be recommended to patients suffering from severe heterogeneous emphysema.</p

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT Trial) Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) Versus Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: Analysis o the Western Europe and North America Regions

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a lung disease characterized by airflow limitation and progressive respiratory symptoms.1 Global public health trends estimate that the COPD burden will continue to rise, with COPD deaths estimated to increase to 4.4% of all deaths in Europe and 6.3% in the World Health Organization-defined region of the Americas by 2060.2 There are differences in the COPD burden in different regions reflecting variations in etiology,3,4 disease severity,5 symptoms,6 medication use,7 and health care systems and utilization.7 These differences may help inform therapeutic strategies to optimize therapeutic approaches to reducing symptoms and exacerbation risk.1 In the global InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health-related quality of life versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.8 Within trial populations, regional differences such as patient characteristics, treatment patterns, access to care and cultural/socioeconomic factors may dictate treatment choices and influence disease severity and progression in particular geographical locations. For example, a meta-analysis conducted in 2015 comprising 123 studies between 1990 and 2010 found that the overall prevalence of COPD as well as the rate of increase was higher in the Americas (including both North and South America) compared with Europe.9 Furthermore, a cross-sectional study assessing the burden of COPD symptoms in the United States and Europe found variations between patients across countries who had experienced at least 1 symptom of COPD.10 In Europe, patients with more frequent symptoms were more likely to experience worsening of symptoms and unexpected hospitalization. Whereas in the United States, patients with more frequent symptoms were not only more likely to experience worsening of symptoms but also longer lasting symptoms and a longer length of exacerbations.10 A further difference was that treatment adherence was higher in the United States than Europe, however, adherence was consistent across patients in Europe when assessed by modified Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2014 groups11 but varied in the United States with adherence highest in the GOLD Group C and lowest in Group A.10 Therefore, it is important to evaluate how overall population results pertain to patients treated in particular regions. As IMPACT is one of the largest trials conducted in patients with COPD to date, we have the unique opportunity to analyze study outcomes in patients enrolled in Western Europe and North America, the 2 main regions from an enrollment perspective