Investigating Women's Experiences of Asthma Care in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study.

Background : Most asthmatic women have normal pregnancies and complications are infrequent when their asthma is well-controlled. Symptom control and medical treatment are concerning to pregnant asthma suffers, as is the impact that their illness and treatment might have on their unborn baby. The aim was to investigate in a qualitative study the thoughts and feelings of women's experiences of asthma in pregnancy. Twenty-two women with asthma who had a pregnancy within two years were asked to participate. Seven women were interviewed when data saturation was achieved. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using the 'Framework' Method, independently analysed by two researchers and consensus reached concerning the construction of themes. The key themes that emerged were Asthma and pregnancy; Pregnancy and post-natal experiences; and Health professionals. These findings are globally interesting because of the prevalence of maternal asthma and they illustrate participants' experiences concerning their asthma care and their views on its improvement. Pregnant asthmatic women have concerns about their care and treatment which might be alleviated by outreach, joint working between respiratory doctors and nurse specialists, midwives and General Practice nurses. Targeted educational activities could form a part of this care delivery

Lung health for all: Chronic obstructive lung disease and World Lung Day 2022.

This is the final version. Available from American Thoracic Society via the DOI in this record. “Lung Health for All” is the key theme of World Lung Day 2022 (September 25). The day aims to highlight the global burden of the major respiratory diseases and the impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Key messages for the day are the importance of early detection and reduction of inequalities. These align well with the objectives Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) of improving the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) around the world

Blood eosinophils and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Science Committee 2022 review.

This is the final version. Available from the American Thoracic Society via the DOI in this record. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) published its first report for the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2001 (1). Since then, GOLD has updated it yearly (2), the last time in 2022 (www.goldcopd.org). To do so, GOLD critically evaluates the new evidence since the previous publication and decides whether it merits (or not) inclusion in the most recent update. GOLD publishes specific recommendations and, sometimes, the main arguments behind them, but it often lacks space for a detailed discussion regarding the pros and cons behind each recommendation. To address this limitation, the Scientific Committee of GOLD decided to publish, separately from the main annual update, a series of papers that review and discuss topics of particular current interest for clinical practice. The GOLD 2019 report recommended using blood eosinophil counts (BEC) as part of a precision medicine strategy to identify the most suitable patients for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) treatment (3). Recent publications have provided further evidence and insights concerning BEC in COPD. Here, we discuss the role of BEC as a COPD biomarker, focusing on new advances and summarizing the associated changes in the GOLD 2022 report (shown in Table 1)

A response to: Letter to the editor regarding "Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with other therapies for the treatment of COPD: A network meta-analysis".

This is the final version. Available from Springer via the DOI in this record. Data Availability: The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

The Effect of ICS Withdrawal and Baseline Inhaled Treatment on Exacerbations in the IMPACT Study: A Randomized, Double-blind Multicenter Trial

RATIONALE: In the IMPACT trial fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/ vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: Understand whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal affected IMPACT results given direct transition from prior maintenance medication to study medication at randomization. METHODS: Exacerbations and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were analyzed by prior ICS use. Exacerbations were also analyzed excluding data from the first 30 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced annual moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus UMEC/VI in prior ICS users (29% reduction; p<0.001), but only a numerical reduction was seen among prior ICS non-users (12% reduction; p=0.115). To minimize impact from ICS withdrawal, in an analysis excluding the first 30 days, FF/UMEC/VI continued to significantly reduce annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (19%; p<0.001) versus UMEC/VI. Benefit of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI was seen for severe exacerbation rates, regardless of prior ICS use (prior ICS users: 35% reduction, p<0.001; non-ICS users: 35% reduction, p=0.018) and overall when excluding the first 30 days (29%, p<0.001). Improvements from baseline with FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were also maintained throughout the study for both trough FEV1 and SGRQ regardless of prior ICS use. CONCLUSIONS: These data support important treatment effects from FF/UMEC/VI combination therapy on exacerbation reduction, lung function and quality of life that do not appear to be related to abrupt ICS withdrawal. FUNDING: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513). Clinical trial registration available at www.clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02164513. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Prognostic value of clinically important deterioration in COPD: IMPACT trial analysis

Introduction: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a multicomponent measure for assessing disease worsening in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis investigated the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the effect of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk in patients in the IMPACT trial. Methods: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week, multicentre trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. CID at the time-point of interest was defined as a moderate/severe exacerbation, ≥100 mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s or deterioration in health status (increase of ≥4.0 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or increase of ≥2.0 units in COPD Assessment Test score) from baseline. A treatment-independent post hoc prognostic analysis compared clinical outcomes up to week 52 in patients with/without a CID by week 28. A prospective analysis evaluated time to first CID with each treatment. Results: Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (all p<0.001), and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID-free. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies (all p<0.001). Conclusions: Prevention of short-term disease worsening was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. FF/UMEC/VI reduced CID risk versus dual therapies; this effect may improve long-term prognosis in this population

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial

BACKGROUND: In the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile. Research Question Does age have an effect on trial outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: IMPACT was a Phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg, FF/VI 100/25 mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg. Endpoints assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), proportion of St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score) and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4724 (46%), 4225 (41%), and 1406 (14%) were ≤64, 65-74, and ≥75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI (% reduction [95% confidence interval (CI)], ≤64 years: 8% [-1, 16], p=0.070; 65-74 years: 22% [14, 29], p<0.001; ≥75 years 18% [3, 31], p=0.021) and versus UMEC/VI (≤64 years: 16% [7, 25], p=0.002; 65-74 years: 33% [25, 41], p<0.001; ≥75 years 24% [6, 38], p=0.012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65-74 and ≥75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV1, and proportion of SGRQ responders at Week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most endpoints, with a similar safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513)

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial: fibrinogen levels predict risk of moderate or severe exacerbations

Background: Fibrinogen is the first qualified prognostic/predictive biomarker for exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial investigated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This analysis used IMPACT trial data to examine the relationship between fibrinogen levels and exacerbation outcomes in patients with COPD. Methods: 8094 patients with a fibrinogen assessment at Week 16 were included, baseline fibrinogen data were not measured. Post hoc analyses were performed by fibrinogen 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 < 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 < 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 fibrinogen levels. This supports the validity of fibrinogen as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations, and highlights the potential use of fibrinogen as an enrichment strategy in trials examining exacerbation outcomes. Trial registration: NCT0216451

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)