Adecuación del nivel de intervención en pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) según la estratificación de riesgo propuesta por la Guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) versión 2017

COPD Exacerbation Syndrome: The Spanish Perspective on an Old Dilemma

The definition of exacerbation of COPD as a syndrome, as proposed by the Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 update, and the consequences that this implies, have direct implications on patient care. This review analyzes this novel vision of the COPD exacerbation syndrome, its rationale, and its clinical implications, as opposed to the traditional symptoms-based or event-based definitions. An exacerbation conceived as a syndrome provides us with an umbrella term to include a set of diverse alterations, which, either in isolation or more frequently in combination, are clinically expressed in a similar way in patients with COPD. In patients with COPD, this occurs as a consequence of worsening expiratory airflow limitation or the underlying inflammatory process, producing a worsening in symptoms with respect to the baseline situation. This definition therefore assumes a worsening in at least one of the two key physiopathological markers, lung function and inflammation. The main features of this new physiopathological proposal include a syndromic approach with narrower differential diagnosis, the use of several biomarkers, treatable traits to better guide treatment, and a new severity classification. Further research is needed to examine the role of eosinophils in this context, but currently, the early results are promising. The evaluation of severity is key in the multidimensional characterization of exacerbation and the GesEPOC 2021 proposes new approaches and also recommends the use of multidisciplinary scores for severity categorization in patients. Finally, another innovation in the GesEPOC 2021 refers to the recurrence of exacerbations, which has implications for disease prognosis or long-term clinical impact which need to be elucidated in further studies.

Inhaled Corticosteroid Use Among COPD Patients in Primary Care in Spain

Purpose

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outside the current recommendations. Our aim was to describe ICS use in COPD patients and to identify factors associated with ICS use among COPD patients treated within primary care in Spain.

Patients and Methods

This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional and multicenter study of patients with COPD treated in primary care. Patient characteristics and exacerbations were described in terms of ICS use among the overall cohort, and among those with spirometry confirmed COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]/forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <70%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ICS use.

Results

A total of 901 patients were included, of which 47.9% (n = 432) were treated with ICS. A total of 240 patients (26.6%) experienced moderate/severe exacerbations in the prior year, while 309 (34.3%) during the previous two years. History of asthma totaled 11.6% (n = 105). The most frequent phenotype was non-exacerbator (51.6%), and the proportion of patient with moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly higher among ICS treated patients compared to non-treated: 37.5% versus 16.6% during the previous year (p < 0.001), and 46.8% versus 22.8% during the previous 2-years (p < 0.001), respectively. Patient characteristics were similar among spirometry confirmed patients and the overall population. Factors significantly associated with ICS use were a history of asthma (OR = 4.39, 95% CI: 2.67–7.26), the presence of moderate or severe exacerbations in the last year (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.81–3.49), followed by higher mMRC and higher CAT score.

Conclusion

Nearly half of patients in primary care in Spain are treated with ICS, despite most of them being non-exacerbators. History of asthma, exacerbations, and worse dyspnea and CAT scores are associated with ICS use.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021: Updated Pharmacological treatment of stable COPD

The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) were first published in 2012, and since then have undergone a series of updates incorporating new evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD. GesEPOC was drawn up in partnership with scientific societies involved in the treatment of COPD and the Spanish Patients' Forum. Their recommendations are based on an evaluation of the evidence using GRADE methodology, and a narrative description of the evidence in areas in which GRADE cannot be applied. In this article, we summarize the recommendations on the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD based on 9 PICO questions. COPD treatment is a 4-step process: 1) diagnosis, 2) determination of the risk level, 3) initial and subsequent inhaled therapy, and 4) identification and management of treatable traits. For the selection of inhaled therapy, high-risk patients are divided into 3 phenotypes: non-exacerbator, eosinophilic exacerbator, and non-eosinophilic exacerbator. Some treatable traits are general and should be investigated in all patients, such as smoking or inhalation technique, while others affect severe patients in particular, such as chronic hypoxemia and chronic bronchial infection. COPD treatment is based on long-acting bronchodilators with single agents or in combination, depending on the patient's risk level. Eosinophilic exacerbators must receive inhaled corticosteroids, while non-eosinophilic exacerbators require a more detailed evaluation to choose the best therapeutic option. The new GesEPOC also includes recommendations on the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids and on indications for alpha-1 antitrypsin treatment. GesEPOC offers a more individualized approach to COPD treatment tailored according to the clinical characteristics of patients and their level of complexity.

Changes in Control Status of COPD Over Time and Their Consequences: A Prospective International Study

INTRODUCTION

Control status may be a useful tool to assess response to treatment at each clinical visit in COPD. Control status has demonstrated to have long-term predictive value for exacerbations, but there is no information about the short-term predictive value of the lack of control and changes in control status over time.

METHOD

Prospective, international, multicenter study aimed at describing the short-term (6 months) prognostic value of control status in patients with COPD. Patients with COPD were classified as controlled/uncontrolled at baseline and at 3,6-month follow-up visits using previously validated criteria of control. Moderate and severe exacerbation rates were compared between controlled and uncontrolled visits and between patients persistently controlled, uncontrolled and those changing control status over follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients were analyzed: 80 (29.8%) were persistently controlled, 43 (16%) persistently uncontrolled and 144 (53.7%) changed control status during follow-up. Persistently controlled patients were more frequently men, with lower (not increased) body mass index and higher FEV₁(%). During the 6 months following an uncontrolled patient visit the odds ratio (OR) for presenting a moderate exacerbation was 3.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.47-4.69) and OR=4.25 (95%CI 2.48-7.27) for hospitalization compared with a controlled patient visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of control status at each clinical visit provides relevant prognostic information about the risk of exacerbation in the next 6 months. Lack of control is a warning signal that should prompt investigation and action in order to achieve control status.

Predictive value of control of COPD for risk of exacerbations: An international, prospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The concept of clinical control in COPD has been developed to help in treatment decisions, but it requires validation in prospective studies.

METHODS

This international, multicentre, prospective study aimed to validate the concept of control in COPD. Patients with COPD were classified as controlled/uncontrolled by clinical criteria or CAT scores at baseline and followed up for 18 months. The main outcome was the difference in rate of a composite endpoint of moderate and severe exacerbations or death over the 18-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 307 patients were analysed (mean age = 68.6 years and mean FEV₁ % = 52.5%). Up to 65% and 37.9% of patients were classified as controlled by clinical criteria or CAT, respectively. Controlled patients had significantly less exacerbations during follow-up (by clinical criteria: 1.1 vs 2.6, P < 0.001; by CAT: 1.1 vs 1.9, P = 0.014). Time to first exacerbation was significantly prolonged for patients controlled by clinical criteria only (median: 93 days, IQR: 63; 242 vs 274 days, IQR: 221; 497 days; P < 0.001). Control status by clinical criteria was a better predictor of exacerbations compared to CAT criteria (AUC: 0.67 vs 0.57).

CONCLUSION

Control status, defined by easy-to-obtain clinical criteria, is predictive of future exacerbation risk and time to the next exacerbation. The concept of control can be used in clinical practice at each clinical visit as a complement to the current recommendations of initial treatment proposed by guidelines.