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

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Lung Cancer: A Review for Clinicians

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer (LC) are common global causes of morbidity and mortality. Because both diseases share several predisposing risks, the two diseases may occur concurrently in susceptible individuals. The diagnosis of COPD has important implications for the diagnostic approach and treatment options if lesions concerning for LC are identified during screening. Importantly, the presence of COPD has significant implications on prognosis and management of patients with LC. In this monograph, we review the mechanistic linkage between LC and COPD, the impact of LC screening in patients at risk, and the implications of the presence of COPD on the approach to the diagnosis and treatment of LC. This manuscript succinctly reviews the epidemiology and common pathogenetic factors for the concurrence of COPD and LC. Importantly for the clinician, it summarizes the indications, benefits, and complications of LC screening in patients with COPD, and the assessment of risk factors for patients with COPD undergoing consideration of various treatment options for LC

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)

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. RESULTS: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy as First-Line Treatment in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Symptomatic COPD: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the EMAX Trial.

Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: -0.44 [-0.73, -0.16]; maintenance-treated: -0.28 [-0.45, -0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: -0.37 [-0.66, -0.09]; maintenance-treated: -0.25 [-0.41, -0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [-0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [-0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (-0.26 [-1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (-0.58 [-1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD

Assessing the healthcare resource use associated with inappropriate prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in GOLD groups A or B:an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

Abstract Background Recent recommendations from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) position inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing exacerbations (≥ 2 or ≥ 1 requiring hospitalisation); i.e. GOLD groups C and D. However, it is known that ICS is frequently prescribed for patients with less severe COPD. Potential drivers of inappropriate ICS use may be historical clinical guidance or a belief among physicians that intervening early with ICS would improve outcomes and reduce resource use. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare resource use in the UK for COPD patients in GOLD groups A and B (0 or 1 exacerbation not resulting in hospitalisation) who have either been prescribed an ICS-containing regimen or a non-ICS-containing regimen. Methods Linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database were used. For the study period (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2015) a total 4009 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1745 receiving ICS-containing therapy and 2264 receiving non-ICS therapy. Treatment groups were propensity score-matched to account for potential confounders in the decision to prescribe ICS, leaving 1739 patients in both treatment arms. Resource use was assessed in terms of frequency of healthcare practitioner (HCP) interactions and rescue therapy prescribing. Treatment acquisition costs were not assessed. Results Results showed no benefit associated with the addition of ICS, with numerically higher all-cause HCP interactions (72,802 versus 69,136; adjusted relative rate: 1.07 [p = 0.061]) and rescue therapy prescriptions (24,063 versus 21,163; adjusted relative rate: 1.05 [p = 0.212]) for the ICS-containing group compared to the non-ICS group. Rate ratios favoured the non-ICS group for eight of nine outcomes assessed. Outcomes were similar for subgroup analyses surrounding potential influential parameters, including patients with poorer lung function (FEV1 <  50% predicted), one prior exacerbation or elevated blood eosinophils. Conclusions These data suggest that ICS use in GOLD A and B COPD patients is not associated with a benefit in terms of healthcare resource use compared to non-ICS bronchodilator-based therapy; using ICS according to GOLD recommendations may offer an opportunity for improving patient care and reducing resource use

Correction to: Comparative efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus other bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A network meta-analysis.

This is the final version. Available from Springer via the DOI in this record. The authors regret to inform readers that the labels for the ‘treatment favour’ arrows were incorrectly labelled in Fig. 4. The ‘Favours UMEC/VI 62.5/25’ and ‘Favours comparator’ labels were appended to the wrong arrows and the corrected Fig. 4 is shown below. Please note that the data have not changed between versions