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

[Delphi Consensus of Argentine Pulmonologists on the Management of Patients with COPD in Real Life]

Introduction

COPD is the third cause of death globally and in Argentina COPD has a prevalence of 14.5%, but the management of patients in real life is unknown. The objectives of this work were: a) To know the opinions of pulmonologists in Argentina who manage patients with COPD in different aspects of daily practice. b) Compare our findings with specialists from Spain and c) Consider our results to plan future directives in the management of COPD in our country.

Material and methods

89 pulmonologists from Argentina, experts in COPD, participated in a Delphi consensus, who responded to a survey with five domains. a) Adherence to treatment, b) Control of COPD, c) Treatable features, d) Inhalation devices and e) Accessibility to therapeutic resources.

Results

After two rounds of questions, total consensus was achieved in 77.6% of the statements and discriminating by domain: Treatment adherence: 5/9 (55.5%). COPD control: 10/14 (71.4%). Treatable traits: 6/6 (100%). Inhalation devices: 10/14 (71.4%) and Accessibility to treatment: 6/6 (100%). In most of the affirmations, the results were similar to those obtained by Spanish pulmonologists.

Conclusions

Pulmonologists from Argentina manage COPD patients in a similar way and with minimal differences with our Spanish colleagues. It became evident that, in daily practice, there are factors that negatively impact access to the indicated treatments. Our work could serve as a starting point to improve this situation.

Impact of comorbidities in COPD clinical control criteria. The CLAVE study

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently coexists with other chronic diseases, namely comorbidities. They negatively impact prognosis, exacerbations and quality of life in COPD patients. However, no studies have been performed to explore the impact of these comorbidities on COPD clinical control criteria.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Determine the relationship between individualized comorbidities and COPD clinical control criteria.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study performed in Spain involving 4801 patients with severe COPD (< 50 predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1%]). Clinical control criteria were defined by the combination of COPD assessment test (CAT) scores (≤16 vs ≥17) and exacerbations in the previous three months (none vs ≥1). Binary logistic regression adjusted by age and FEV1% was performed to identify comorbidities potentially associated with the lack of control of COPD. Secondary endpoints were the relationship between individualized comorbidities with COPD assessment test and exacerbations within the last three months.

RESULTS

Most frequent comorbidities were arterial hypertension (51.2%), dyslipidemia (36.0%), diabetes (24.9%), obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (14.9%), anxiety (14.1%), heart failure (11.6%), depression (11.8%), atrial fibrillation (11.5%), peripheral arterial vascular disease (10.4%) and ischemic heart disease (10.1%). After age and FEV1% adjustment, comorbidities related to lack of clinical control were cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and atrial fibrillation; p < 0.0001), psychologic disorders (anxiety and depression; all p < 0.0001), metabolic diseases (diabetes, arterial hypertension and abdominal obesity; all p < 0.001), sleep disorders (p < 0.0001), anemia (p = 0.015) and gastroesophageal reflux (p < 0.0001). These comorbidities were also related to previous exacerbations and COPD assessment test scores.

INTERPRETATION

Comorbidities are frequent in patients with severe COPD, negatively impacting COPD clinical control criteria. They are related to health-related quality of life measured by the COPD assessment test. Our results suggest that comorbidities should be investigated and treated in these patients to improve their clinical control.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

Study question: What is the impact of comorbidities on COPD clinical control criteria?

RESULTS

Among 4801 patients with severe COPD (27.5% controlled and 72.5% uncontrolled), after adjustment by age and FEV1%, comorbidities related to lack of clinical control were cardiovascular diseases (heart failure, peripheral vascular disease and atrial fibrillation; p < 0.0001), psychologic disorders (anxiety and depression; p < 0.0001), metabolic diseases (diabetes, arterial hypertension and abdominal obesity; p < 0.001), obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (p < 0.0001), anaemia (p = 0.015) and gastroesophageal reflux (p < 0.0001), which were related to previous exacerbations and COPD assessment test scores.

INTERPRETATION

Comorbidities are related to health-related quality of life measured by the COPD assessment test scores and history of exacerbations in the previous three months.

Inhaled Maintenance Therapy in the Follow-Up of COPD in Outpatient Respiratory Clinics. Factors Related to Inhaled Corticosteroid Use. EPOCONSUL 2021 Audit

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to describe the patterns of inhaled maintenance therapy according to risk level and to explore the determinants associated with the decision to prescribe inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to bronchodilator therapy according to risk level as strategy in the follow-up of COPD in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

EPOCONSUL 2021 is a cross-sectional audit that evaluated the outpatient care provided to patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in respiratory clinics in Spain with prospective recruitment between April 15, 2021 and January 31, 2022.

RESULTS

4225 patients from 45 hospitals in Spain were audited. Risk levels were analyzed in 2678 patients. 74.5% of patients were classified as high risk and 25.5% as low risk according to GesEPOC criteria. Factors associated with the prescription of ICS in low-risk COPD were symptoms suggestive of asthma [OR: 6.70 (3.14-14.29), p<0.001], peripheral blood eosinophilia>300mm3 [OR: 2.16 (1.10-4.24), p=0.025], and having a predicted FEV1%<80% [OR: 2.17 (1.15-4.08), p=0.016]. In high-risk COPD, factors associated with triple therapy versus dual bronchodilator therapy were a mMRC dyspnea score of ≥2 [OR: 1.97 (1.41-2.75), p<0.001], symptoms suggestive of asthma [OR: 6.70 (3.14-14.29), p<0.001], and a predicted FEV1%<50% [OR: 3.09 (1.29-7.41), p<0.011].

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled therapy in the follow-up of COPD does not always conform to the current guidelines. Few changes in inhaled therapy are made at follow-up visits. The use of ICS is common in COPD patients who meet low-risk criteria in their follow-up and triple therapy in high-risk COPD patients is used as an escalation strategy in patients with high clinical impact. However, a history of exacerbations and eosinophil count in peripheral blood were not factors predicting triple therapy.

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.

[Translated article] Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update. Diagnosis and Treatment of COPD Exacerbation Syndrome

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm3. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

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.

Economic Impact of Low Adherence to COPD Management Guidelines in Spain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the non-adherence level of Spanish clinical practice to guideline recommendations for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to estimate the potential impact on pharmaceutical expenditure resulting from transitioning current treatment patterns according to guidelines.

METHODS

A model was developed to compare current prescribing patterns with two alternative scenarios: the first aligned with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2020) recommendations, and the second with the Spanish Guidelines for COPD (GesEPOC 2017). Current treatment practice was obtained from publications that describe treatment patterns by pulmonology departments in Spain. The economic impact between patterns was calculated from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS), considering the annual pharmacological costs of COPD inhaled maintenance therapy. Two additional analyses were performed: one that included current prescribing patterns of patients managed by pulmonology and primary care centers in Spain (published aggregated data); and another that only considered the appropriate use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) treatment according to guidelines.

RESULTS

It was estimated that 54% and 38% of patients were not treated in line with GOLD and GesEPOC recommendations, respectively, mainly due to a broader use of ICS-based therapies. Adapting treatment to recommendations could provide a potential annual cost-saving of €17,792,022 (according to GOLD) and €5,881,785 (according to GesEPOC). In scenario analysis 1, a 26% of non-adherence to GesEPOC guideline was observed with a potential annual pharmacological cost-saving of €2,707,554. In scenario analysis 2, considering only inappropriate use of ICS treatment, an annual cost-saving of €17,863,750 (according to GOLD) and €9,904,409 (according to GesEPOC) was calculated.

CONCLUSION

More than a third of treatments for COPD patients in Spain are not prescribed in accordance with guideline recommendations. The adaptation of clinical practice to guideline recommendations could provide important cost-savings for the Spanish NHS.

CONQUEST Quality Standards: For the Collaboration on Quality Improvement Initiative for Achieving Excellence in Standards of COPD Care

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are managed predominantly in primary care. However, key opportunities to optimize treatment are often not realized due to unrecognized disease and delayed implementation of appropriate interventions for both diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals. The COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST) is the first-of-its-kind, collaborative, interventional COPD registry. It comprises an integrated quality improvement program focusing on patients (diagnosed and undiagnosed) at a modifiable and higher risk of COPD exacerbations. The first step in CONQUEST was the development of quality standards (QS). The QS will be imbedded in routine primary and secondary care, and are designed to drive patient-centered, targeted, risk-based assessment and management optimization. Our aim is to provide an overview of the CONQUEST QS, including how they were developed, as well as the rationale for, and evidence to support, their inclusion in healthcare systems.

Methods

The QS were developed (between November 2019 and December 2020) by the CONQUEST Global Steering Committee, including 11 internationally recognized experts with a specialty and research focus in COPD. The process included an extensive literature review, generation of QS draft wording, three iterative rounds of review, and consensus.

Results

Four QS were developed: 1) identification of COPD target population, 2) assessment of disease and quantification of future risk, 3) non-pharmacological and pharmacological intervention, and 4) appropriate follow-up. Each QS is followed by a rationale statement and a summary of current guidelines and research evidence relating to the standard and its components.

Conclusion

The CONQUEST QS represent an important step in our aim to improve care for patients with COPD in primary and secondary care. They will help to transform the patient journey, by encouraging early intervention to identify, assess, optimally manage and followup COPD patients with modifiable high risk of future exacerbations.

Step-Up and Step-Down Treatment Approaches for COPD: A Holistic View of Progressive Therapies

Recent advances in inhaled drugs and a clearer definition of the disease have made the task of managing COPD more complex. Different proposals have been put forward which combine all the available treatments and the different clinical presentations in an effort to select the best therapeutic options for each clinical context. As COPD is a chronic progressive disease, the escalation of therapy has traditionally been considered the most natural way to tackle it. However, the notion of COPD as a constantly progressing disease has recently been challenged and, in specific areas, this points to the possibility of a de-escalation in treatment. In this context, the clinician requires simple, specific recommendations to guide these changes in treatment in their daily clinical practice. To accomplish this, the first step must be a correct evaluation and an accurate initial preliminary diagnosis of the patient's condition. Thereafter, the first escalation in therapy must be introduced with caution as the disease progresses, since clinical trials are not designed with clinical decision-making in mind. During this escalation, three possibilities are open to change the current treatment for a different one within the same family, to increase non-pharmacological interventions or to increase the pharmacological therapies. Beyond that point, a patient with persistent symptoms represents a complex clinical scenario which requires a specialized approach, including the evaluation of different respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities. Unfortunately, there are few de-escalation studies available, and these are mainly observational in nature. The debate on de-escalation in pharmacological treatment, therefore, involves two main discussion points: the withdrawal of bronchodilators and the withdrawal of inhaled steroids. Altogether, the scheme for modifying treatment must be more personalized than just adding molecules, and the therapeutic response and its conditioning factors should be evaluated at each step before proceeding further.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update Diagnosis and Treatment af COPD Exacerbation Syndrome

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm³. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

COPD Clinical Control: predictors and long-term follow-up of the CHAIN cohort

Background

Control in COPD is a dynamic concept that can reflect changes in patients’ clinical status that may have prognostic implications, but there is no information about changes in control status and its long-term consequences.

Methods

We classified 798 patients with COPD from the CHAIN cohort as controlled/uncontrolled at baseline and over 5 years. We describe the changes in control status in patients over long-term follow-up and analyze the factors that were associated with longitudinal control patterns and related survival using the Cox hazard analysis.

Results

134 patients (16.8%) were considered persistently controlled, 248 (31.1%) persistently uncontrolled and 416 (52.1%) changed control status during follow-up. The variables significantly associated with persistent control were not requiring triple therapy at baseline and having a better quality of life. Annual changes in outcomes (health status, psychological status, airflow limitation) did not differ in patients, regardless of clinical control status. All-cause mortality was lower in persistently controlled patients (5.5% versus 19.1%, p = 0.001). The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 2.274 (95% CI 1.394–3.708; p = 0.001). Regarding pharmacological treatment, triple inhaled therapy was the most common option in persistently uncontrolled patients (72.2%). Patients with persistent disease control more frequently used bronchodilators for monotherapy (53%) at recruitment, although by the end of the follow-up period, 20% had scaled up their treatment, with triple therapy being the most frequent therapeutic pattern.

Conclusions

The evaluation of COPD control status provides relevant prognostic information on survival. There is important variability in clinical control status and only a small proportion of the patients had persistently good control. Changes in the treatment pattern may be relevant in the longitudinal pattern of COPD clinical control. Further studies in other populations should validate our results.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov: identifier NCT01122758.

Clinical Control Criteria to Determine Disease Control in Patients with Severe COPD: The CLAVE Study

Background

Clinical control in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been completely characterized. A proposal of clinical control criteria (CCC) has been recently defined and validated as a tool for determining control, but there is scarce information on patients with severe COPD.

Objective

To evaluate clinical control in severe COPD using the CCC.

Patients and Methods

The study design was observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study involving 4801 patients with severe COPD in Spain. Clinical control was defined according to clinical impact (dyspnea grade, use of rescue treatment in last week, sputum color, and daily physical activity) and stability (exacerbations in last 3 months and patient’s perception about health status). Clinical control of COPD was alternatively evaluated with the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the presence of exacerbations in the last 3 months.

Results

According to CCC, 61.0% of patients had low clinical impact, and 41.4% showed clinical stability. Overall, 29.9% of patients had both low clinical impact and stability (controlled), whereas 70.1% showed high clinical impact and/or no clinical stability (non-controlled). COPD control was also assessed by using only the definition of CAT≤16 and no exacerbations in the last 3 months. Results obtained with this definition were similar to those obtained by CCC, and the concordance between both definitions was high (Kappa index = 0.698).

Conclusion

By using the CCC, approximately only one third of patients with severe COPD were considered as controlled. Physical activity, adherence to inhalers, age, post-bronchodilator FEV₁, age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index, and healthcare level were independent factors associated with COPD control.