Clinical characteristics of chronic bronchitic, emphysematous and ACOS phenotypes in COPD patients with frequent exacerbations

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.

COPD exacerbations and patient-reported outcomes according to post-bronchodilator FEV1 - a post-hoc analysis of pooled data

BACKGROUND

Management strategies of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) need to be tailored to the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁₎, exacerbations, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of individual patients. In this study, we analyzed the association and correlation between the FEV₁, exacerbations, and PROs of patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two cross-sectional studies that were previously conducted in Malaysia from 2017 to 2019, the results of which had been published separately. The parameters measured included post-bronchodilator FEV₁ (PB-FEV₁), exacerbations, and scores of modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c). Descriptive, association, and correlation statistics were used.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-four patients were included in the analysis. The PB-FEV₁ predicted was < 30% in 85 (22.7%), 30-49% in 142 (38.0%), 50-79% in 111 (29.7%), and ≥ 80% in 36 (9.6%) patients. Patients with PB-FEV₁ < 30% predicted had significantly more COPD exacerbations than those with PB-FEV₁ 30-49% predicted (p < 0.001), 50-79% predicted (p < 0.001), and ≥ 80% predicted (p = 0.002). The scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c were not significantly higher in patients with more severe airflow limitation based on PB-FEV₁ (p = 0.121-0.271). The PB-FEV₁ predicted had significant weak negative correlations with exacerbations (r = - 0.182, p < 0.001), mMRC (r = - 0.121, p = 0.020), and SGRQ-c scores (r = - 0.114, p = 0.028). There was a moderate positive correlation between COPD exacerbations and scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c (r = 0.407-0.482, all p < 0.001). There were significant strong positive correlations between mMRC score with CAT (r = 0.727) and SGRQ-c scores (r = 0.847), and CAT score with SGRQ-c score (r = 0.851) (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In COPD patients, different severity of airflow limitation was not associated with significant differences in the mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c scores. Exacerbations were significantly more frequent in patients with very severe airflow limitation only. The correlation between airflow limitation with exacerbations, mMRC, and SGRQ-c was weak.

Burden of Disease in Patients with Mild or Mild-to-Moderate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Group A or B): A Systematic Literature Review

Background

Patients with mild or mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), defined as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A/B, are regarded as having a lower risk of experiencing multiple or severe exacerbations compared with patients classified as GOLD group C/D. Current guidelines suggest that patients in GOLD A/B should commence treatment with a bronchodilator; however, some patients within this population who have a higher disease burden may benefit from earlier introduction of dual bronchodilator or inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapies. This study aimed to provide research-based insights into the burden of disease experienced by patients classified as GOLD A/B, and to identify characteristics associated with poorer outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence (burden of disease and prevalence data) relating to the population of interest (patients with COPD classified as GOLD A/B).

Results

A total of 79 full-text publications and four conference abstracts were included. In general, the rates of moderate and severe exacerbations were higher among patients in GOLD group B than among those in group A. Among patients classified as GOLD A/B, the risk of exacerbation was higher in those with more symptoms (modified Medical Research Council or COPD Assessment Test scales) and more severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted).

Conclusion

Data from this SLR provide clear evidence of a heavier burden of disease for patients in GOLD B, compared with those in GOLD A, and highlight factors associated with worse outcomes for patients in GOLD A/B.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - diagnosis and management of stable disease; a personalized approach to care, using the treatable traits concept based on clinical phenotypes. Position paper of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society

This position paper has been drafted by experts from the Czech national board of diseases with bronchial obstruction, of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society. The statements and recommendations are based on both the results of randomized controlled trials and data from cross-sectional and prospective real-life studies to ensure they are as close as possible to the context of daily clinical practice and the current health care system of the Czech Republic. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable heterogeneous syndrome with a number of pulmonary and extrapulmonary clinical features and concomitant chronic diseases. The disease is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and reduced quality of life. The main characteristics include persistent respiratory symptoms and only partially reversible airflow obstruction developing due to an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles and gases. Oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance and increased numbers of pro-inflammatory cells (mainly neutrophils) are the main drivers of primarily non-infectious inflammation in COPD. Besides smoking, household air pollution, occupational exposure, low birth weight, frequent respiratory infections during childhood and also genetic factors are important risk factors of COPD development. Progressive airflow limitation and airway remodelling leads to air trapping, static and dynamic hyperinflation, gas exchange abnormalities and decreased exercise capacity. Various features of the disease are expressed unequally in individual patients, resulting in various types of disease presentation, emerging as the "clinical phenotypes" (for specific clinical characteristics) and "treatable traits" (for treatable characteristics) concept. The estimated prevalence of COPD in Czechia is around 6.7% with 3,200-3,500 deaths reported annually. The elementary requirements for diagnosis of COPD are spirometric confirmation of post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction (post-BD FEV₁/VCmax <70%) and respiratory symptoms assessement (dyspnoea, exercise limitation, cough and/or sputum production. In order to establish definite COPD diagnosis, a five-step evaluation should be performed, including: 1/ inhalation risk assessment, 2/ symptoms evaluation, 3/ lung function tests, 4/ laboratory tests and 5/ imaging. At the same time, all alternative diagnoses should be excluded. For disease classification, this position paper uses both GOLD stages (1 to 4), GOLD groups (A to D) and evaluation of clinical phenotype(s). Prognosis assessment should be done in each patient. For this purpose, we recommend the use of the BODE or the CADOT index. Six elementary clinical phenotypes are recognized, including chronic bronchitis, frequent exacerbator, emphysematous, asthma/COPD overlap (ACO), bronchiectases with COPD overlap (BCO) and pulmonary cachexia. In our concept, all of these clinical phenotypes are also considered independent treatable traits. For each treatable trait, specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies are defined in this document. The coincidence of two or more clinical phenotypes (i.e., treatable traits) may occur in a single individual, giving the opportunity of fully individualized, phenotype-specific treatment. Treatment of COPD should reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease and be tailored to individual patients. Major goals of COPD treatment are symptom reduction and decreased exacerbation risk. Treatment strategy is divided into five strata: risk elimination, basic treatment, phenotype-specific treatment, treatment of respiratory failure and palliative care, and treatment of comorbidities. Risk elimination includes interventions against tobacco smoking and environmental/occupational exposures. Basic treatment is based on bronchodilator therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccination, care for appropriate nutrition, inhalation training, education and psychosocial support. Adequate phenotype-specific treatment varies phenotype by phenotype, including more than ten different pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. If more than one clinical phenotype is present, treatment strategy should follow the expression of each phenotypic label separately. In such patients, multicomponental therapeutic regimens are needed, resulting in fully individualized care. In the future, stronger measures against smoking, improvements in occupational and environmental health, early diagnosis strategies, as well as biomarker identification for patients responsive to specific treatments are warranted. New classes of treatment (inhaled PDE3/4 inhibitors, single molecule dual bronchodilators, anti-inflammatory drugs, gene editing molecules or new bronchoscopic procedures) are expected to enter the clinical practice in a very few years.

Clinical phenotypes and heath-related quality of life of COPD patients in a rural setting in Malaysia - a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Spanish chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guideline phenotypes patients according to the exacerbation frequency and COPD subtypes. In this study, we compared the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) according to their COPD phenotypes.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of COPD patients who attended the outpatient clinic of the Serian Divisional Hospital and Bau District Hospital from 23th January 2018 to 22th January 2019. The HRQoL was assessed using modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c).

RESULTS

Of 185 patients, 108 (58.4%) were non-exacerbators (NON-AE), 51 (27.6%) were frequent exacerbators (AE), and the remaining 26 (14.1%) had asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). Of AE patients, 42 (82.4%) had chronic bronchitis and only 9 (17.6%) had emphysema. Of the 185 COPD patients, 65.9% had exposure to biomass fuel and 69.1% were ex- or current smokers. The scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c were significantly different between COPD phenotypes (p <  0.001). There were significantly more patients with mMRC 2-4 among AE (68.6%) (p <  0.001), compared to those with ACO (38.5%) and NON-AE (16.7%). AE patients had significantly higher total CAT (p = 0.003; p <  0.001) and SGRQ-c (both p <  0.001) scores than those with ACO and NON-AE. Patients with ACO had significantly higher total CAT and SGRQ-c (both p <  0.001) scores than those with NON-AE. AE patients had significantly higher score in each item of CAT and component of SGRQ-c compared to those with NON-AE (all p <  0.001), and ACO [(p = 0.003-0.016; p = < 0.001-0.005) except CAT 1, 2 and 7. ACO patients had significantly higher score in each item of CAT and component of SGRQ-c (p = < 0.001-0.040; p <  0.001) except CAT 2 and activity components of SGRQ-c.

CONCLUSIONS

The HRQoL of COPD patients was significantly different across different COPD phenotypes. HRQoL was worst in AE, followed by ACO and NON-AE. This study supports phenotyping COPD patients based on their exacerbation frequency and COPD subtypes. The treatment of COPD should be personalised according to these two factors.

Identification and Assessment of Breathlessness in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

CONTEXT

Breathlessness is common in chronic conditions but often goes unidentified by clinicians. It is important to understand how identification and assessment of breathlessness occurs across health care settings, to promote routine outcome assessment and access to treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to summarize how breathlessness is identified and assessed in adults with chronic conditions across different health care settings.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and descriptive narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration: CRD42018089782). Searches were conducted on Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL (2000-2018) and reference lists. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers, with access to a third, against inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a bespoke proforma.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies were included, conducted in primary care (n = 9), secondary care (n = 53), and specialist palliative care (n = 35). Twenty-five measures of identification and 41 measures of assessment of breathlessness were used. Primary and secondary care used a range of measures to assess breathlessness severity, cause, and impact for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Specialist palliative care used measures assessing broader symptom severity and function with less focus on overall quality of life. Few studies were identified from primary care.

CONCLUSION

Various measures were identified, reflective of the setting's purpose. However, this highlights missed opportunities for breathlessness management across settings; primary care is particularly well placed to diagnose and support breathlessness. The chronic obstructive pulmonary disease approach (where symptoms and quality of life are part of disease management) could apply to other conditions. Better documentation of holistic patient-reported measures may drive service improvement in specialist palliative care.