Phenotypes and Characterization of COPD: A PULMONARY REHABILITATION PERSPECTIVE

Respiratory Oscillometry and Functional Performance in Different COPD Phenotypes

Purpose

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotypes may introduce different characteristics that need to be known to improve treatment. Respiratory oscillometry provides a detailed analysis and may offer insight into the pathophysiology of COPD. In this paper, we used this method to evaluate the differences in respiratory mechanics of COPD phenotypes.

Patients and Methods

This study investigated a sample of 83 volunteers, being divided into control group (CG = 20), emphysema (n = 23), CB (n = 20) and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS, n = 20). These analyses were performed before and after bronchodilator (BD) use. Functional capacity was evaluated using the Glittre‑ADL test, handgrip strength and respiratory pressures.

Results

Initially it was observed that oscillometry provided a detailed description of the COPD phenotypes, which was consistent with the involved pathophysiology. A correlation between oscillometry and functional capacity was observed (r=-0.541; p = 0.0001), particularly in the emphysema phenotype (r = -0.496, p = 0.031). BD response was different among the studied phenotypes. This resulted in an accurate discrimination of ACOS from CB [area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) = 0.84] and emphysema (AUC = 0.82).

Conclusion

These results offer evidence that oscillatory indices may enhance the comprehension and identification of COPD phenotypes, thereby potentially improving the support provided to these patients.

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.

Identification of Patients With COPD in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Setting: THE COnCuR STUDY

PURPOSE

To examine the feasibility of screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) setting and to evaluate the detection rate of COPD using a targeted screening protocol.

METHODS

A total of 95 patients (62.5 ± 10.0 yr; men, n = 77), >40-yr old with a history of smoking were included in the study sample. Each participant answered the 5-item Canadian Lung Health Test (CLHT) questionnaire assessing symptoms such as coughing, phlegm, wheezing, shortness of breath, and frequent colds. Endorsing ≥1 item was indicative of potential COPD and warranted pulmonary function testing (PFT) and/or spirometry to diagnose or rule out COPD.

RESULTS

The CLHT questionnaire identified 44 patients at risk for COPD, with an average of 1.9 ± 1.2 items endorsed. Of the patients who underwent PFT, 6 new cases of mild COPD were diagnosed, resulting in a true positive rate with CLHT screening of 19% and a false-positive rate of 81%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the CLHT to patients referred to CR correctly identified COPD in <20% of cases. Using the CLHT to screen for COPD prior to starting CR may not be optimal, due to disparities between true- and false-positive rates.

Current controversies in the stepping up and stepping down of inhaled therapies for COPD at the patient level

The implementation of potential new step-up or step-down treatment recommendations in response to current guidelines is one of the main challenges currently faced in actual daily practice settings. In the present narrative review, we aim to discuss the relevance of these step-up and step-down proposals at the patient level in daily clinical practice. In particular, we aim to review the challenges associated with inhaled maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in four clinical scenarios. First, we discuss the step up from single to double bronchodilation, including current controversies regarding the addition of a second bronchodilator versus initial treatment with two bronchodilators. Second, we discuss the step up from double bronchodilation to triple therapy while challenging current indications for inhaled steroid therapy and discussing triple therapy designs. Third, we discuss the step down from triple therapy to double bronchodilation while evaluating the effect of this downshift in risk categories on the patient according to the new classifications. Finally, we discuss the step down from double to single bronchodilation, with a special focus on safety. We believe this review will help to highlight the most relevant discussion points regarding the treatment of COPD in a manner that will stimulate and guide related clinical research.