The effect of exacerbation history on outcomes in the IMPACT trial

Exacerbation-like events in the 12 months prior to identification of chronic respiratory conditions in a primary care population

Initial chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) pharmacotherapy is based on symptom burden and exacerbation history. Inclusion of inhaled cortico-steroids (ICS) is recommended only for those with a history of exacerbations. This brief report highlights that among individuals with previously unrecognized COPD about 1 in 5 have one or more exacerbation-like events and about 1 in 10 have two or more events in the prior 12 months whether or not they self-report concomitant asthma. Closer attention to prior exacerbation-like event history might lead to more guideline concordant care. In addition, there are two other groups that have impaired but non-obstructive spirometry, some with significant respiratory symptom burden who have frequencies of exacerbation-like events similar to those meeting COPD spirometry criteria. To date we have little guidance for treatment of these individuals.

Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear.

METHODS

In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52.

RESULTS

A total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P = 0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; NOTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04456673.).

Implications of Cardiopulmonary Risk for the Management of COPD: A Narrative Review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) constitutes a major global health burden and is the third leading cause of death worldwide. A high proportion of patients with COPD have cardiovascular disease, but there is also evidence that COPD is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in cardiovascular disease. Patients with COPD frequently die of respiratory and cardiovascular causes, yet the identification and management of cardiopulmonary risk remain suboptimal owing to limited awareness and clinical intervention. Acute exacerbations punctuate the progression of COPD in many patients, reducing lung function and increasing the risk of subsequent exacerbations and cardiovascular events that may lead to early death. This narrative review defines and summarises the principles of COPD-associated cardiopulmonary risk, and examines respiratory interventions currently available to modify this risk, as well as providing expert opinion on future approaches to addressing cardiopulmonary risk.

How inhaled corticosteroids target inflammation in COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most commonly used anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of COPD. COPD has been previously described as a "corticosteroid-resistant" condition, but current clinical trial evidence shows that selected COPD patients, namely those with increased exacerbation risk plus higher blood eosinophil count (BEC), can benefit from ICS treatment. This review describes the components of inflammation modulated by ICS in COPD and the reasons for the variation in response to ICS between individuals. There are corticosteroid-insensitive inflammatory pathways in COPD, such as bacteria-induced macrophage interleukin-8 production and resultant neutrophil recruitment, but also corticosteroid-sensitive pathways including the reduction of type 2 markers and mast cell numbers. The review also describes the mechanisms whereby ICS can skew the lung microbiome, with reduced diversity and increased relative abundance, towards an excess of proteobacteria. BEC is a biomarker used to enable the selective use of ICS in COPD, but the clinical outcome in an individual is decided by a complex interacting network involving the microbiome and airway inflammation.

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.

Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of treatment for asthma, but their role in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is debated. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with COPD and frequent or severe exacerbations demonstrated a significant reduction (~25%) in exacerbations with ICS in combination with dual bronchodilator therapy (triple therapy). However, the suggestion of a mortality benefit associated with ICS in these trials has since been rejected by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Observational evidence from routine clinical practice demonstrates that dual bronchodilation is associated with better clinical outcomes than triple therapy in a broad population of patients with COPD and infrequent exacerbations. This reinforces guideline recommendations that ICS-containing maintenance therapy should be reserved for patients with frequent or severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophils (~10% of the COPD population), or those with concomitant asthma. However, data from routine clinical practice indicate ICS overuse, with up to 50-80% of patients prescribed ICS. Prescription of ICS in patients not fulfilling guideline criteria puts patients at unnecessary risk of pneumonia and other long-term adverse events and also has cost implications, without any clear benefit in disease control. In this article, we review the benefits and risks of ICS use in COPD, drawing on evidence from RCTs and observational studies conducted in primary care. We also provide a practical guide to prescribing ICS, based on the latest global treatment guidelines, to help primary care providers identify patients for whom the benefits of ICS outweigh the risks.

Exacerbation Risk and Mortality in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Group A and B Patients with and without Exacerbation History

Rationale: Risk stratification of patients according to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severity is clinically important and forms the basis of therapeutic recommendations. No studies have examined the association for Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A and group B patients with (A1 and B1, respectively) and without (A0 and B0, respectively) an exacerbation in the past year with future exacerbations, hospitalizations, and mortality in perspective with the new GOLD ABE classification. Objectives: The aim was to examine the association between GOLD A0, A1, B0, B1, and E patients and future exacerbations, respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, and mortality. Methods: In this nationwide cohort study, we identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, aged ⩾30 years, and registered in the Swedish National Airway Register between January 2017 and August 2020. Patients were stratified in GOLD groups A0, A1, B0, B1, and E and were followed until January 2021 for exacerbations, hospitalizations, and mortality in national registries. Measurements and Main Results: The 45,350 eligible patients included 25% A0, 4% A1, 44% B0, 10% B1, and 17% E. Moderate exacerbations, all-cause and respiratory hospitalizations, and all-cause and respiratory mortality increased by GOLD group A0-A1-B0-B1-E, except for moderate exacerbations, which were higher in A1 than in B0. Group B1 had a substantially higher hazard ratio for future exacerbation (2.56; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.40-2.74), all-cause hospitalization (1.28; 1.21-1.35), and respiratory hospitalization (1.44; 1.27-1.62), but not all-cause (1.04; 0.91-1.18) or respiratory (1.13; 0.79-1.64) mortality than group B0. The exacerbation rate for group B1 was 0.6 events per patient-year versus 0.2 for group B0 (rate ratio, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.36-2.76). Results were similar for group A1 versus group A0. Conclusions: Stratification of GOLD A and B patients with one or no exacerbation in the past year provides valuable information on future risk, which should influence treatment recommendations for preventive strategies.

Practical Recommendations for a Selection of Inhaled Corticosteroids in COPD: A Composite ICO Chart

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the maintenance of bronchodilator treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial. While some patients achieve clinical benefits, such as fewer exacerbations and improved symptoms, others do not, and some experience undesired side effects, such as pneumonia. Thus, we reviewed the evidence related to predictors of ICS therapy treatment response in patients with COPD. The first priority clinical markers when considering the efficacy of ICS are type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, followed by a history of suspected asthma and recurrent exacerbations. It is also necessary to consider any potential infection risk associated with ICS, and several risk factors for pneumonia when using ICS have been clarified in recent years. In this article, based on the evidence supporting the selection of ICS for COPD, we propose an ICS composite that can be added to the COPD (ICO) chart for use in clinical practice. The chart divided the type 2 biomarkers into three ranges and provided recommendations (recommend, consider, and against) by combining the history of suspected asthma, history of exacerbations, and risk of infection.

Blood Eosinophils and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A GOLD Science Committee 2022 Review

COPD is a heterogeneous condition. Some patients benefit from treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) but this requires a precision medicine approach, based on clinical characteristics (phenotyping) and biological information (endotyping) in order to select patients most likely to benefit. The GOLD 2019 report recommended using exacerbation history combined with blood eosinophil counts (BEC) to identify such patients. Importantly, the relationship between BEC and ICS effects is continuous; no / small effects are observed at lower BEC, with increasing effects at higher BEC. The GOLD 2022 report has added additional evidence and recommendations concerning the use of BEC in COPD in clinical practice. Notably, associations have been demonstrated in COPD patients between higher BEC and increased levels of type-2 inflammation in the lungs. These differences in type-2 inflammation can explain the differential ICS response according to BEC. Additionally, lower BEC are associated with greater presence of proteobacteria, notably haemophilus, and increased bacterial infections and pneumonia risk. These observations support management strategies that use BEC to help identify subgroups with increased ICS response (higher BEC) or increased risk of bacterial infection (lower BEC). Recent studies in younger individuals without COPD have also shown that higher BEC are associated with increased risk of FEV1 decline and the development of COPD. Here we discuss and summarise the GOLD 2022 recommendations concerning the use of BEC as a biomarker that can facilitate a personalised management approach in COPD.

A single inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of COPD

INTRODUCTION

: Single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting β₂-agonist, and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist is an effective and attractive therapeutic option codified in the recommendations of guidelines and treatment strategies for the management of COPD.

AREAS COVERED

: The preclinical and clinical development in COPD of fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) SITT and its use in the real world.

EXPERT OPINION

: Findings from phase III/IV trials and the use of FF/UMEC/VI in the real-world setting support the view that it may be a useful, safe, and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of COPD, especially when dealing with patients who are not adequately controlled with dual ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA therapy. Only direct head-to-head comparisons will be able to establish whether FF/UMEC/VI may be preferable to the other SITTs approved for COPD due to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and especially the fact that it is the only one that can be taken once-daily. In addition, there is a need for further studies, especially in the real world, to optimize the positioning of FF/UMEC/VI in the treatment of COPD, also considering the availability of FF/VI and UMEC/VI and the need for better differentiation between the three treatments.

Predictive modeling of COPD exacerbation rates using baseline risk factors

Background:

Demographic and disease characteristics have been associated with the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Using previously collected multinational clinical trial data, we developed models that use baseline risk factors to predict an individual’s rate of moderate/severe exacerbations in the next year on various pharmacological treatments for COPD.

Methods:

Exacerbation data from 20,054 patients in the ETHOS, KRONOS, TELOS, SOPHOS, and PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4 studies were pooled. Machine learning was used to identify predictors of moderate/severe exacerbation rates. Important factors were selected for generalized linear modeling, further informed by backward variable selection. An independent test set was held back for validation.

Results:

Prior exacerbations, eosinophil count, forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted, prior maintenance treatments, reliever medication use, sex, COPD Assessment Test score, smoking status, and region were significant predictors of exacerbation risk, with response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) increasing with higher eosinophil counts, more prior exacerbations, or additional prior treatments. Model fit was similar in the training and test set. Prediction metrics were ~10% better in the full model than in a simplified model based only on eosinophil count, prior exacerbations, and ICS use.

Conclusion:

These models predicting rates of moderate/severe exacerbations can be applied to a broad range of patients with COPD in terms of airway obstruction, eosinophil counts, exacerbation history, symptoms, and treatment history. Understanding the relative and absolute risks related to these factors may be useful for clinicians in evaluating the benefit: risk ratio of various treatment decisions for individual patients.

Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02465567, NCT02497001, NCT02766608, NCT02727660, NCT01854645, NCT01854658, NCT02343458, NCT03262012, NCT02536508, and NCT01970878)

Blood eosinophils in COPD: friend or foe?

INTRODUCTION

The pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is highly complex and the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood.

AREAS COVERED

COPD has been traditionally associated with neutrophilic inflammation of the bronchi, but in the last decade, studies have demonstrated that eosinophils may also migrate into the lower airways of patients with COPD and their increased numbers can be noticed during exacerbations as well as stable disease. In this review, we present clinical characteristics of eosinophilic COPD, as well as the role of eosinophils as a biomarker-guided therapy in COPD. A systematic research using the database of Pubmed up to February 2021 was performed. The terms we searched were eosinophilic inflammation, COPD, COPD phenotypes, COPD exacerbations, corticosteroids in COPD, and monoclonal antibodies in COPD.

EXPERT OPINION

Blood eosinophil levels show strong potential as a prognostic and theragnostic biomarker in the clinical management of COPD being at the moment the most reliable biomarker. The lack of a certain cutoff value of blood eosinophils as guidance for treatment with ICS and biologic therapies and the uncertainty regarding the stability of eosinophilia and eosinophilic phenotype through the course of COPD remain as unmet dilemmas and problems.

Towards precision in defining COPD exacerbations

COPD is the most prevalent chronic respiratory disease worldwide and a major cause of disability and death. Acute exacerbations of COPD remain a key feature of the disease in many patients and research assessing interventions to prevent and treat them requires a robust definition with high sensitivity and specificity. To date, no such definition exists, and multiple different definitions are used in clinical studies depending on the research question. The strengths and weaknesses of current definitions are discussed in the context of evolving knowledge and different settings in which studies are undertaken. Whether identification and recording of exacerbations remains essentially clinical, or can be identified with a dependable biomarker, it should be sensitive and adaptable to context while retaining clarity and facilitating data collection. This is essential to progress a better understanding of the pathophysiology and phenotypic expression of exacerbations to reduce their impact and personal burden for patients.

Pharmacological treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Pharmacological treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aims to alleviate symptoms and reduce the future risk of events such as exacerbations, disease progression and death. The heterogeneity of COPD results in variable responses to pharmacological interventions. COPD treatment has evolved towards a precision medicine approach, integrating clinical and biomarker information in order to optimize treatment decisions for each individual. The evidence supporting the use of blood eosinophil counts to predict responses to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD patients has led to the adoption of this biomarker for use in clinical practice. The development of novel double and triple inhaled combination treatments containing long-acting bronchodilators with or without ICS has involved some landmark randomized controlled trials in COPD patients. These studies have provided valuable evidence to direct the use of different classes of combination treatments. However, there are still some unresolved questions and debates. This review article describes the advances in the pharmacological treatment of COPD, particularly the personalization of treatment. The evidence base for current recommendations is discussed, and controversial issues are dissected.

Current developments and future directions in COPD

The European Respiratory Society journals publish respiratory research and policy documents of the highest quality, offering a platform for the exchange and promotion of scientific knowledge. In this article, focusing on COPD, the third leading cause of death globally, we summarise novel research highlights focusing on the disease's underlying mechanisms, epidemiology and management, with the aim to inform and inspire respiratory clinicians and researchers.

Current developments and future directions in COPD: a critical summary of some of the most recent ground-breaking research studies and policy documents from @ERSpublicationshttps://bit.ly/3oW0xDM

Clinical and spirometric variables are better predictors of COPD exacerbations than routine blood biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Understanding the risk factors for exacerbations of COPD may help provide a more personalised approach to exacerbation prevention.

METHOD

Observational, prospective, international, multicentre study aimed at identifying risk factors for exacerbations of COPD. Clinical variables, lung function and CAT scores were collected at baseline. In addition, routine blood biomarkers were also obtained, and patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were included. Of these, 155 (47.5%) presented at least one exacerbation. The median time to the first exacerbation was 147 days. Exacerbators had more respiratory symptoms, more impairment in FEV1(%), FVC(%) and a worse CAT score. Regarding biomarkers, only C-reactive protein was significantly higher in exacerbators (2.8 (standard deviation (SD):3.8) mg/dL vs. 1.9 (SD:2.6) mg/dL; p = 0.037). In multivariate analysis, only CAT scores, FEV1(%) and previous exacerbations were significantly associated with having an exacerbation during follow-up. In the equation of risk, patients with a CAT score ≥15, FEV1(%) <55% and at least one exacerbation the previous year had a probability of 76% of having an exacerbation during the next year, compared with 17% in patients who had none of the previous variables. No biomarkers showed a significant association in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the patients presented an exacerbation during the one-year follow-up. CAT scores, FEV1(%) and previous exacerbations were the only variables associated with increased risk of exacerbations. Routine biomarkers did not provide additional information to evaluate the risk of exacerbations.