Observational Studies of Inhaled Corticosteroid Effectiveness in COPD: Lessons Learned

Cluster Analyses From the Real-World NOVELTY Study: Six Clusters Across the Asthma-COPD Spectrum

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complex diseases, the definitions of which overlap.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate clustering of clinical/physiological features and readily available biomarkers in patients with physician-assigned diagnoses of asthma and/or COPD in the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY; NCT02760329).

METHODS

Two approaches were taken to variable selection using baseline data: approach A was data-driven, hypothesis-free and used the Pearson dissimilarity matrix; approach B used an unsupervised Random Forest guided by clinical input. Cluster analyses were conducted across 100 random resamples using partitioning around medoids, followed by consensus clustering.

RESULTS

Approach A included 3796 individuals (mean age, 59.5 years; 54% female); approach B included 2934 patients (mean age, 60.7 years; 53% female). Each identified 6 mathematically stable clusters, which had overlapping characteristics. Overall, 67% to 75% of patients with asthma were in 3 clusters, and approximately 90% of patients with COPD were in 3 clusters. Although traditional features such as allergies and current/ex-smoking (respectively) were higher in these clusters, there were differences between clusters and approaches in features such as sex, ethnicity, breathlessness, frequent productive cough, and blood cell counts. The strongest predictors of the approach A cluster membership were age, weight, childhood onset, prebronchodilator FEV1, duration of dust/fume exposure, and number of daily medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster analyses in patients from NOVELTY with asthma and/or COPD yielded identifiable clusters, with several discriminatory features that differed from conventional diagnostic characteristics. The overlap between clusters suggests that they do not reflect discrete underlying mechanisms and points to the need for identification of molecular endotypes and potential treatment targets across asthma and/or COPD.

Clinical characteristics of adults with self-reported diagnosed asthma and/or COPD: data from the BOLD Australia Study

Background

Diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the community is variable, often without spirometry. Some studies report that adults with both diagnostic labels (asthma+COPD) have worse health outcomes than those with asthma or COPD only, but data for Australian adults are limited. We investigated the relationship between clinical characteristics and self-reported diagnoses of asthma, COPD and both.

Method

We used data from the BOLD Australia study, which included randomly selected adults aged ≥40 years from six study sites. The BOLD questionnaires and spirometry test were used in all sites. Participants were grouped by self-reported diagnosis. Demographic and clinical characteristics and lung function were compared between groups.

Results

Of the study sample (n=3522), 336 reported asthma only, 172 reported COPD only, 77 reported asthma+COPD and 2937 reported neither. Fewer than half of participants with a COPD diagnosis (with or without asthma) had airflow limitation. Participants with asthma+COPD had more respiratory symptoms and greater airflow limitation than those with either diagnosis alone. Having asthma+COPD was independently associated with a higher probability of having clinically important breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council score ≥2) than asthma only (adjusted OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.86-6.33) or COPD only (adjusted OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.69-6.39). Airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2 or higher, using post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio <0.7) was similar between asthma only and COPD only, but twice as prevalent in asthma+COPD (adjusted OR 2.18 and 2.58, respectively).

Conclusions

Adults with diagnoses of asthma+COPD have a higher symptom and disease burden than those with diagnoses of asthma only or COPD only. These patients should receive regular comprehensive reviews because of the substantially increased burden of having both diagnoses.

Diagnostic Performance of a Machine Learning Algorithm (Asthma/Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] Differentiation Classification) Tool Versus Primary Care Physicians and Pulmonologists in Asthma, COPD, and Asthma/COPD Overlap

BACKGROUND

The differential diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) poses a challenge in clinical practice and its misdiagnosis results in inappropriate treatment, increased exacerbations, and potentially death.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Asthma/COPD Differentiation Classification (AC/DC) tool compared with primary care physicians and pulmonologists in asthma, COPD, and asthma-COPD overlap.

METHODS

The AC/DC machine learning-based diagnostic tool was developed using 12 parameters from electronic health records of more than 400,000 patients aged 35 years and older. An expert panel of three pulmonologists and four general practitioners from five countries evaluated 119 patient cases from a prospective observational study and provided a confirmed diagnosis (n = 116) of asthma (n = 53), COPD (n = 43), asthma-COPD overlap (n = 7), or other (n = 13). Cases were then reviewed by 180 primary care physicians and 180 pulmonologists from nine countries and by the AC/DC tool, and diagnostic accuracies were compared with reference to the expert panel diagnoses.

RESULTS

Average diagnostic accuracy of the AC/DC tool was superior to that of primary care physicians (median difference, 24%; 95% posterior credible interval: 17% to 29%; P < .0001) and was noninferior and superior (median difference, 12%; 95% posterior credible interval: 6% to 17%; P < .0001 for noninferiority and P = .0006 for superiority) to that of pulmonologists. Average diagnostic accuracies were 73%, 50%, and 61% by AC/DC tool, primary care physicians, and pulmonologists versus expert panel diagnosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The AC/DC tool demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy compared with primary care physicians and pulmonologists in the diagnosis of asthma and COPD in patients aged 35 years and greater and has the potential to support physicians in the diagnosis of these conditions in clinical practice.

Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Risk of Lung Cancer in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The global prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is increasing, and the risk of lung cancer in these patients is high. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in COPD patients could help to decrease potential lung cancer risk. We planned to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the role of ICS in the risk of lung cancer among COPD patients.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library and a manual search of the list of references were conducted. Studies with cohort, case-control, and randomized clinical trial designs for any ICS use reporting the incidence/hazard ratio (HR) of lung cancer were included. The random-effects model was used to pool hazard ratios. Subgroup analysis and metaregression analysis were employed. Funnel plot and Egger regression test were used to assess publication bias.

Results

Combining the results of 14 observations, the pooled HR for cancer risk reduction was 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.79), p value ≤ 0.001. The use of ICS in COPD patients showed a 31% reduction in the risk of lung cancer. Subgroup meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of lung cancer as well.

Conclusion

The use of ICS in COPD patients reduces the risk of lung cancer. The risk reduction was independent of smoking status and latency period. Future studies should focus on the optimum dose and controlling confounders like asthma.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes.GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by >60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA.Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11  years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4.Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults/adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

New methodological approaches were able to effectively reduce immeasurable time bias in case-only designs

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess approaches to reduce immeasurable time bias in case-crossover (CCO), case-time-control (CTC), and case-case-time-control (CCTC) designs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used Korea's health care database that has inpatient and outpatient prescriptions and an empirical example of benzodiazepines and mortality among the elderly. We defined our unbiased exposure setting using all prescriptions and a pseudo-outpatient setting using outpatient records only. In the pseudo-outpatient setting, we assessed 10 approaches of restricting, adjusting, stratifying, or weighting on hospitalization-related factors. We conducted conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where an approach was considered effective when its OR was within the unbiased exposure setting OR's 95% CI.

RESULTS

Immeasurable time bias negatively biased the unbiased exposure setting's OR in all three case-only designs, overestimating the protective effect of benzodiazepines on mortality. Of the 10 approaches examined, stratifying the proportion of hospitalized time in 0.01 intervals most effectively repaired the bias in the CCO (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10-1.43) and CTC analyses (1.11, 0.95-1.30); no approach was effective in the CCTC analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stratifying the proportion of hospitalized time in 0.01 intervals best approximated the unbiased exposure setting estimate by overcoming the significant impact of immeasurable time bias in CCO and CTC designs.

Inhaled corticosteroid use and the incidence of lung cancer in COPD

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are suggested for potential chemoprevention of lung cancer. Several observational studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reported inconsistent results, either significant reductions in lung cancer incidence with ICS use or no effect. We assessed this association, using an approach that avoided biases affecting some of the studies.

METHODS

A cohort of patients with COPD, new users of long-acting bronchodilators over 2000-2014, was formed using the Quebec healthcare databases, and followed until 2015 for a first diagnosis of lung cancer. A 1-year delay after cohort entry was used to avoid protopathic bias and a 1-year latency period was included after the initiation of ICS use. A time-dependent Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of lung cancer associated with ICS exposure, adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

The cohort involved 63 276 subjects, including 63% receiving ICS, with 3743 lung cancers occurring during a mean follow-up of 5 years. The adjusted HR of lung cancer associated with any ICS exposure was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.08), relative to no ICS use. The HR with longer time (>4 years) since ICS initiation was 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.03), while with higher mean daily ICS dose (>1000 μg fluticasone equivalents) was 1.36 (95% CI 1.03-1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled corticosteroid use is not associated with a reduction in lung cancer incidence in patients with COPD. Observational studies reporting such reduction may have been affected by time-related biases and the inclusion of patients with asthma. The proposition of a randomised trial warrants some caution.

Comparative Effects of LAMA-LABA-ICS vs LAMA-LABA for COPD: Cohort Study in Real-World Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Triple therapy combinations of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for COPD were studied in randomized trials and observational studies, with variable results. We compared the effectiveness and safety of triple therapy with a LAMA-LABA combination in a real-world clinical practice setting.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of patients with COPD during 2002 through 2015, ≥ 55 years of age, from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Patients initiating LAMA-LABA-ICS were matched 4:1 on time-conditional propensity scores with patients initiating LAMA-LABA, and followed for 1 year for the occurrence of a moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and severe pneumonia.

RESULTS

The cohort included 6,921 initiators of LAMA-LABA-ICS matched to 1,932 initiators of LAMA-LABA. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of a COPD exacerbation associated with LAMA-LABA-ICS initiation compared with LAMA-LABA initiation was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87-1.08). For patients with blood eosinophil counts > 6%, the HR was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.46-0.94). For patients with two or more prior exacerbations, it was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98). The incidence of severe pneumonia requiring hospitalization was increased with LAMA-LABA-ICS initiation (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.06).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting of COPD treatment, the triple combination of LAMA, LABA, and ICS inhalers is generally as effective as combining LAMA and LABA inhalers in preventing COPD exacerbations. However, with the possible exception of patients with significant eosinophilia or frequent exacerbators, a LAMA-LABA combination without ICS may be preferable because it is associated with fewer severe cases of pneumonia.

Defining severe obstructive lung disease in the biologic era: an endotype-based approach

Severe obstructive lung disease, which encompasses asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or features of both, remains a considerable global health problem and burden on healthcare resources. However, the clinical definitions of severe asthma and COPD do not reflect the heterogeneity within these diagnoses or the potential for overlap between them, which may lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. Furthermore, most studies exclude patients with diagnoses of both asthma and COPD. Clinical definitions can influence clinical trial design and are both influenced by, and influence, regulatory indications and treatment recommendations. Therefore, to ensure its relevance in the era of targeted biologic therapies, the definition of severe obstructive lung disease must be updated so that it includes all patients who could benefit from novel treatments and for whom associated costs are justified. Here, we review evolving clinical definitions of severe obstructive lung disease and evaluate how these have influenced trial design by summarising eligibility criteria and primary outcomes of phase III randomised controlled trials of biologic therapies. Based on our findings, we discuss the advantages of a phenotype- and endotype-based approach to select appropriate populations for future trials that may influence regulatory approvals and clinical practice, allowing targeted biologic therapies to benefit a greater proportion and range of patients. This calls for co-ordinated efforts between investigators, pharmaceutical developers and regulators to ensure biologic therapies reach their full potential in the management of severe obstructive lung disease.

Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD and onset of type 2 diabetes and osteoporosis: matched cohort study

Some studies suggest an association between onset and/or poor control of type 2 diabetes mellitus and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and also between increased fracture risk and ICS therapy; however, study results are contradictory and these associations remain tentative and incompletely characterized. This matched cohort study used two large UK databases (1983–2016) to study patients (≥ 40 years old) initiating ICS or long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) for COPD from 1990–2015 in three study cohorts designed to assess the relation between ICS treatment and (1) diabetes onset (N = 17,970), (2) diabetes progression (N = 804), and (3) osteoporosis onset (N = 19,898). Patients had ≥ 1-year baseline and ≥ 2-year outcome data. Matching was via combined direct matching and propensity scores. Conditional proportional hazards regression, adjusting for residual confounding after matching, was used to compare ICS vs. LABD and to model ICS exposures. Median follow-up was 3.7–5.6 years/treatment group. For patients prescribed ICS, compared with LABD, the risk of diabetes onset was significantly increased (adjusted hazard ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07–1.50), with overall no increase in risk of diabetes progression (adjusted hazard ratio 1.04; 0.87–1.25) or osteoporosis onset (adjusted hazard ratio 1.13; 0.93–1.39). However, the risks of diabetes onset, diabetes progression, and osteoporosis onset were all significantly increased, with evident dose–response relationships for all three outcomes, at mean ICS exposures of 500 µg/day or greater (vs. < 250 µg/day, fluticasone propionate–equivalent). Long-term ICS therapy for COPD at mean daily exposure of ≥ 500 µg is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, diabetes progression, and osteoporosis.

Beta-Blockers in COPD: A Methodological Review of the Observational Studies

The use of beta-blockers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has received much attention. Several observational studies reported important reductions in mortality and exacerbations with these drugs, but the extent of bias in these studies is unclear. Nevertheless, the large ongoing randomized trial (βLOCK-COPD) was initiated specifically to evaluate these effects. We searched the literature to identify all observational studies investigating the effectiveness of beta-blockers in COPD patients on major outcomes, including death and COPD exacerbation. We identified 18 observational studies, with 10 studies affected by confounding bias and six by immortal time bias, while two addressed these biases. Reductions in all-cause mortality with beta-blocker use were observed among the studies with confounding bias (pooled rate ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.88) and those with immortal time bias (pooled rate ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.53-0.77). A large five-database study that addressed these two biases reported hazard ratios of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.78-1.02) for death and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.47-0.61) for COPD hospitalization. However, this latter estimate was the same as for the first 30 days after treatment initiation, thus indicating that important residual confounding cannot be ruled out. Observational studies, important to provide evidence from real-world data on medication effects, are unsupportive for beta-blockers in COPD. Even if immortal time bias is properly avoided, confounding bias cannot be fully controlled due to their relative contraindication in COPD. In the case of beta-blockers, randomized trials such as βLOCK-COPD are necessary to eliminate the uncertainty from residual confounding bias.

Counterpoint: Keeping the Demons at Bay When Handling Time-Varying Exposures-Beyond Avoiding Immortal Person-Time

The potential for immortal time bias is pervasive in epidemiologic studies with left truncation or time-varying exposures. Unlike other biases in epidemiologic research (e.g., measurement bias, confounding due to unmeasured factors, and selection based on unmeasured predictors of the outcome), immortal time bias can and should be avoided by the correct assignment of person-time during follow up. However, even when handing person-time correctly, allowing late entry into a study or into an exposure group can open the door to more insidious sources of bias, some of which we explore here. Clear articulation of the study question, including the treatment plans of interest, can provide navigation around these sources of bias and elucidate the assumptions needed for inference given the available data. Here, we use simulated data to illustrate the assumptions required under various approaches to estimate the effect of a time-varying treatment and describe how these assumptions relate to the assumptions necessary to estimate single sample rates and risks in settings with censoring and truncation.

Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: friend or foe?

The efficacy, safety and positioning of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is much debated, since it can result in clear clinical benefits in some patients ("friend") but can be ineffective or even associated with undesired side effects, e.g. pneumonia, in others ("foe"). After critically reviewing the evidence for and against ICS treatment in patients with COPD, we propose that: 1) ICS should not be used as a single, stand-alone therapy in COPD; 2) patients most likely to benefit from the addition of ICS to long-acting bronchodilators include those with history of multiple or severe exacerbations despite appropriate maintenance bronchodilator use, particularly if blood eosinophils are >300 cells·µL^-1, and those with a history of and/or concomitant asthma; and 3) the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients using ICS is higher in those with older age, lower body mass index (BMI), greater overall fragility, receiving higher ICS doses and those with blood eosinophils <100 cells·µL^-1 All these factors must be carefully considered and balanced in any individual COPD patient before adding ICS to her/his maintenance bronchodilator treatment. Further research is needed to clarify some of these issues and firmly establish these recommendations.