Validation of clinical control in COPD as a new tool for optimizing treatment

Preclinical Evaluation of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to Predict Poor Control of Chronic Respiratory Diseases in Primary Care: A Novel Approach to Focus Our Efforts

Background/Objectives: Managing chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) within the Spanish Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS) presents significant challenges, particularly due to their high prevalence and poor disease control rates-approximately 45.1% for asthma and 63.2% for COPD. This study aims to develop a novel predictive model using electronic health records (EHRs) to estimate the likelihood of poor disease control in these patients, thereby enabling more efficient management in primary care settings. Methods: The Seleida project employed a bioinformatics approach to identify significant clinical variables from EHR data in primary care centers in Seville and Valencia. Statistically significant variables were incorporated into a logistic regression model to predict poor disease control in patients with asthma and COPD patients. Key variables included the number of short-acting β-agonist (SABA) and short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) canisters, prednisone courses, and antibiotic courses over the past year. Results: The developed model demonstrated high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in predicting poorly controlled disease in both asthma and COPD patients. These findings suggest that the model could serve as a valuable tool for the early identification of at-risk patients, allowing healthcare providers to prioritize and optimize resource allocation in primary care settings. Conclusions: Integrating this predictive model into primary care practice could enhance the proactive management of asthma and COPD, potentially improving patient outcomes and reducing the burden on healthcare systems. Further validation in diverse clinical settings is warranted to confirm the model's efficacy and generalizability.

Triple Therapy and Clinical Control in B+ COPD Patients: A Pragmatic, Prospective, Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with LABA/LAMA is recommended in GOLD B patients. We hypothesized that triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS) will be superior to LABA/LAMA in achieving and maintaining clinical control (CC), a composite outcome that considers both impact and disease stability in a subgroup of GOLD B patients (here termed GOLD B+ patients) characterized by: (1) remaining symptomatic (CAT≥10) despite regular LABA/LAMA therapy; (2) having suffered one moderate exacerbation in the previous year; and (3) having blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥150cells/μL.

METHODS

The ANTES B+ study is a prospective, multicenter, open label, randomized, pragmatic, controlled trial designed to test this hypothesis. It will randomize 1028 B+ patients to continue with their usual LABA/LAMA combination prescribed by their attending physician or to begin fluticasone furoate (FF) 92μg/umeclidinium (UMEC) 55μg/vilanterol (VI) 22μg in a single inhaler q.d. for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome will be the level of CC achieved. Secondary outcomes include the clinical important deterioration index (CID), annual rate of exacerbations, and FEV1. Exploratory objectives include the interaction of BEC and smoking status, all-cause mortality and proportion of patients on LABA/LAMA arm that switch therapy arms. Safety analysis include adverse events and incidence of pneumonia.

RESULTS

The first patient was recruited on February 29, 2024; results are expected in the first quarter of 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The ANTES B+ study is the first to: (1) explore the efficacy and safety of triple therapy in a population of B+ COPD patients and (2) use a composite index (CC) as the primary result of a COPD trial.

[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.

Reductions in inhaler greenhouse gas emissions by addressing care gaps in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an analysis

INTRODUCTION

Climate change from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represents one of the greatest public health threats of our time. Inhalers (and particularly metred-dose inhalers (MDIs)) used for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), constitute an important source of GHGs. In this analysis, we aimed to estimate the carbon footprint impact of improving three distinct aspects of respiratory care that drive avoidable inhaler use in Canada.

METHODS

We used published data to estimate the prevalence of misdiagnosed disease, existing inhaler use patterns, medication class distributions, inhaler type distributions and GHGs associated with inhaler actuations, to quantify annual GHG emissions in Canada: (1) attributable to asthma and COPD misdiagnosis; (2) attributable to overuse of rescue inhalers due to suboptimally controlled symptoms; and (3) avoidable by switching 25% of patients with existing asthma and COPD to an otherwise comparable therapeutic option with a lower GHG footprint.

RESULTS

We identified the following avoidable annual GHG emissions: (1) ~49 100 GHG metric tons (MTs) due to misdiagnosed disease; (2) ~143 000 GHG MTs due to suboptimal symptom control; and (3) ~262 100 GHG MTs due to preferential prescription of strategies featuring MDIs over lower-GHG-emitting options (when 25% of patients are switched to lower GHG alternatives). Combined, the GHG emission reductions from bridging these gaps would be the equivalent to taking ~101 100 vehicles off the roads each year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that the carbon savings from addressing misdiagnosis and suboptimal disease control are comparable to those achievable by switching one in four patients to lower GHG-emitting therapeutic strategies. Behaviour change strategies required to achieve and sustain delivery of evidence-based real-world care are complex, but the added identified incentive of carbon footprint reduction may in itself prove to be a powerful motivator for change among providers and patients. This additional benefit can be leveraged in future behaviour change interventions.

An Update on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials: A COPD Investigators Report - Reassessment of the 2008 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials

Background: In 2008, a dedicated American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force published a paper on the possible use and limitations of clinical outcomes and biomarkers to evaluate the impact of pharmacological therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since then, our scientific understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has increased considerably; there has been a progressive shift from a one-size-fits-all diagnostic and therapeutic approach to a personalized approach; and many new treatments currently in development will require new endpoints to evaluate their efficacy adequately. Objectives: The emergence of several new relevant outcome measures motivated the authors to review advances in the field and highlight the need to update the content of the original report. Methods: The authors separately created search strategies for the literature, primarily based on their opinions and assessments supported by carefully chosen references. No centralized examination of the literature or uniform criteria for including or excluding evidence were used. Measurements and Main Results: Endpoints, outcomes, and biomarkers have been revisited. The limitations of some of those reported in the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force document have been highlighted. In addition, new tools that may be useful, especially in evaluating personalized therapy, have been described. Conclusions: Because the "label-free" treatable traits approach is becoming an important step toward precision medicine, future clinical trials should focus on highly prevalent treatable traits, and this will influence the choice of outcomes and markers to be considered. The use of the new tools, particularly combination endpoints, could help better identify the right patients to be treated with the new drugs.

[Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease]

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is related to smoking as the main etiological agent although there are other risk factors that can interact influencing the development of the disease. The definition of COPD is based on three points: the presence of persistent respiratory symptoms, exposure to risk agents, and a non-reversible obstructive spirometric ratio. Forced spirometry with a bronchodilator test is necessary to confirm the diagnosis of COPD, however, attempts are being made to develop alternative methods for screening given the current significant underdiagnosis of this pathology.In order to advance in a more personalized medicine for the patient, classification tools have been adopted such as clinical phenotypes and treatable traits, allowing treatments to be adapted according to the characteristics of the patients. Non-pharmacological treatment (smoking cessation, vaccination, physical exercise...) are essential for the management of the disease, as well as pharmacological treatment based on clinical phenotypes. Eosinophils have become a key marker when establishing treatment with inhaled glucocorticoids.In the follow-up of the disease, it is very relevant to evaluate the degree of control being a fundamental element the absence of exacerbations given their implications in mortality, morbidity and quality of life of patients. More studies are needed to better define the phenotypes of exacerbations and their biomarkers.

[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.

Individual trajectory-based care for COPD: getting closer, but not there yet

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a main cause of death due to interplaying factors, including comorbidities that interfere with symptoms and response to therapy. It is now admitted that COPD management should be based on clinical symptoms and health status and should consider the heterogeneity of patients' phenotypes and treatable traits. This precision medicine approach involves a regular assessment of the patient's status and of the expected benefits and risks of therapy. The cornerstone of COPD pharmacological therapy is inhaled long-acting bronchodilation. In patients with persistent or worsened symptoms, factors likely to interfere with treatment efficacy include the patient's non-adherence to therapy, treatment preference, inhaler misuse and/or comorbidities, which should be systematically investigated before escalation is considered. Several comorbidities are known to impact symptoms, physical and social activity and lung function. The possible long-term side-effects of inhaled corticosteroids contrasting with their over-prescription in COPD patients justify the regular assessment of their benefits and risks, and de-escalation under close monitoring after a sufficient period of stability is to be considered. While commonly used in clinical trials, the relevance of routine blood eosinophil counts to guide therapy adjustment is not fully clear. Patients' characteristics, which define phenotypes and treatable traits and thus guide therapy, often change during life, forming the basis of the concept of clinical trajectory. The application of individual trajectory-based management of COPD in clinical practice therefore implies that the benefit:risk ratio is regularly reviewed according to the evolution of the patient's traits over time to allow optimised therapy adjustments.

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.

Future concepts in bronchodilation for COPD: dual- versus monotherapy

Most patients with COPD are recommended to initiate maintenance therapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β₂-agonist. However, many patients receiving mono-bronchodilation continue to experience high symptom burden, suggesting that patients are frequently not receiving optimal treatment. Treatment goals for COPD are often broad and not individually tailored, making initial treatment response assessments difficult. A personalised approach to initial maintenance therapy, based upon an individual's symptom burden and exacerbation risk, may be more appropriate.An alternative approach would be to maximise bronchodilation early in the disease course of all patients with COPD. Evidence suggests that dual bronchodilation has greater and consistent efficacy for lung function and symptoms than mono-bronchodilation, whilst potentially reducing the risk of exacerbations and disease deterioration, with a similar safety profile to mono-bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and symptoms between dual- and mono-bronchodilation have also been demonstrated in maintenance-naïve patients, who are most likely to resemble those at first presentation in a clinical setting. Despite promising results, there are several evidence gaps that need to be addressed to allow decision makers to evaluate the merits of a widespread earlier introduction of dual bronchodilation.

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.

Relationship Between Clinical Control, Respiratory Symptoms and Quality of Life for Patients with COPD

Background

The concept of clinical control has been proposed as an instrument for evaluating patients with COPD. However, the possible association between clinical control, reduced symptom severity and HRQoL has yet to be confirmed.

Methods

This multicentre, prospective and observational study was carried out in 15 pulmonology clinics in Spain. The patients were followed up for six months, with a baseline visit (V0), followed by visits at three months (V1) and six months (V2). Clinical control was determined at V1, with the application of both clinical criteria and the COPD assessment test (CAT). All patients reported their symptoms by a validated symptom diary (E-RS) using a portable device, and their HRQoL was assessed using the EQ5D questionnaire. The relationship between clinical control and E-RS and HRQoL during follow-up was assessed with t-test.

Results

A total of 126 patients were screened. After application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 93 were finally included (mean age 66 ± 8 years, 84.9% male), with a mean FEV1 predicted of 49.8% ± 16.5%. Of these patients, 44 (47.3%) achieved clinical control at V1, according to CAT criteria, and 50 (53.8%), according to clinical criteria. The E-RS scores differed between controlled and uncontrolled patients at all time points, both according to CAT (mean differences of -4.6, -5.6 and -6.2 units at V0, V1 and V2, respectively, p<0.005 for all comparisons) and to clinical criteria (mean differences of -3.3, -5-6 and -4.99 units, respectively, p<0.005 for all comparisons). The controlled patients also presented a significantly better HRQoL, measured by the EQ5D questionnaire (mean difference 0.13 and 0.10 at V2 by CAT or clinical criteria, respectively, p<0.05).

Conclusion

Clinical control in patients with COPD, whether measured by CAT or by clinical criteria, is associated with a lower symptom load and a better HRQoL.

Consensus Document on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Bronchial Infection in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Although the chronic presence of microorganisms in the airways of patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) confers a poor outcome, no recommendations have been established in disease management guidelines on how to diagnose and treat these cases. In order to guide professionals, the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) has prepared a document which aims to answer questions on the clinical management of COPD patients in whom microorganisms are occasionally or habitually isolated. Since the available scientific evidence is too heterogeneous to use in the creation of a clinical practice guideline, we have drawn up a document based on existing scientific literature and clinical experience, addressing the definition of different clinical situations and their diagnosis and management. The text was drawn up by consensus and approved by a large group of respiratory medicine experts with extensive clinical and scientific experience in the field, and has been endorsed by the SEPAR Scientific Committee.

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

INTRODUCTION

Control status may be a useful tool to assess response to treatment at each clinical visit in COPD. Control status has demonstrated to have long-term predictive value for exacerbations, but there is no information about the short-term predictive value of the lack of control and changes in control status over time.

METHOD

Prospective, international, multicenter study aimed at describing the short-term (6 months) prognostic value of control status in patients with COPD. Patients with COPD were classified as controlled/uncontrolled at baseline and at 3,6-month follow-up visits using previously validated criteria of control. Moderate and severe exacerbation rates were compared between controlled and uncontrolled visits and between patients persistently controlled, uncontrolled and those changing control status over follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients were analyzed: 80 (29.8%) were persistently controlled, 43 (16%) persistently uncontrolled and 144 (53.7%) changed control status during follow-up. Persistently controlled patients were more frequently men, with lower (not increased) body mass index and higher FEV₁(%). During the 6 months following an uncontrolled patient visit the odds ratio (OR) for presenting a moderate exacerbation was 3.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.47-4.69) and OR=4.25 (95%CI 2.48-7.27) for hospitalization compared with a controlled patient visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of control status at each clinical visit provides relevant prognostic information about the risk of exacerbation in the next 6 months. Lack of control is a warning signal that should prompt investigation and action in order to achieve control status.

Day and Night Control of COPD and Role of Pharmacotherapy: A Review

The topic of 24-hour management of COPD is related to day-to-night symptoms management, specific follow-up and patients' adherence to therapy. COPD symptoms strongly vary during day and night, being worse in the night and early morning. This variability is not always adequately considered in the trials. Night-time symptoms are predictive of higher mortality and more frequent exacerbations; therefore, they should be a target of therapy. During night-time, in COPD patients the supine position is responsible for a different thoracic physiology; moreover, during some sleep phases the vagal stimulation determines increased bronchial secretions, increased blood flow in the bronchial circulation (enhancing inflammation) and increased airway resistance (broncho-motor tone). Moreover, in COPD patients the circadian rhythm may be impaired. The role of pharmacotherapy in this regard is still poorly investigated. Symptoms can be grossly differentiated according to the different phenotypes of the disease: wheezing recalls asthma, while dyspnea is strongly related to emphysema (dynamic hyperinflation) or obstructive bronchiolitis (secretions). Those symptoms may be different targets of therapy. In this regard, GOLD recommendations for the first time introduced the concept of phenotype distinction suggesting the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) particularly when an asthmatic pattern or eosiophilic inflammations are present, and hypothesized different approaches to target symptoms (ie, dyspnea) or exacerbations. Pharmacotherapy should be evaluated and possibly directed on the basis of circadian variations, for instance, supporting the use of twice-daily rapid-action bronchodilators and evening dose of ICS. Recommendations on day and night symptoms monitoring strategies and choice of the specific drug according to patient's profile are still not systematically investigated or established. This review is the summary of an advisory board on the topic "24-hour control of COPD and role of pharmacotherapy", held by five pulmonologists, experts in respiratory pathophysiology, pharmacology and sleep medicine.

Predictive value of control of COPD for risk of exacerbations: An international, prospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The concept of clinical control in COPD has been developed to help in treatment decisions, but it requires validation in prospective studies.

METHODS

This international, multicentre, prospective study aimed to validate the concept of control in COPD. Patients with COPD were classified as controlled/uncontrolled by clinical criteria or CAT scores at baseline and followed up for 18 months. The main outcome was the difference in rate of a composite endpoint of moderate and severe exacerbations or death over the 18-month follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 307 patients were analysed (mean age = 68.6 years and mean FEV₁ % = 52.5%). Up to 65% and 37.9% of patients were classified as controlled by clinical criteria or CAT, respectively. Controlled patients had significantly less exacerbations during follow-up (by clinical criteria: 1.1 vs 2.6, P < 0.001; by CAT: 1.1 vs 1.9, P = 0.014). Time to first exacerbation was significantly prolonged for patients controlled by clinical criteria only (median: 93 days, IQR: 63; 242 vs 274 days, IQR: 221; 497 days; P < 0.001). Control status by clinical criteria was a better predictor of exacerbations compared to CAT criteria (AUC: 0.67 vs 0.57).

CONCLUSION

Control status, defined by easy-to-obtain clinical criteria, is predictive of future exacerbation risk and time to the next exacerbation. The concept of control can be used in clinical practice at each clinical visit as a complement to the current recommendations of initial treatment proposed by guidelines.

[The concept of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clinical control as a decision - making tool in real clinical practice for optimizing of basic pharmacotherapy]

The main goals of COPD therapy are to achieve clinical stability with minimal clinical manifestations and low risk of relapse. The proposed COPD control concept by analogy with asthma has not been quite well characterized yet. COPD control is defined as "the long - term maintenance of a clinical situation with a low impact of symptoms on the patient's life and absence of exacerbations." The situation of clinical control in COPD is considered desirable and potentially achievable for most patients with COPD. Pharmacotherapeutic options for COPD are constantly expanding. The control concept may be useful when the decision on treatment of COPD is made for dynamic adjustment of the therapy volume.

Evaluation of Changes in Control Status in COPD: An Opportunity for Early Intervention

BACKGROUND

Control has been proposed as a dynamic tool that can capture changes in the clinical status of patients with COPD.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare changes in control over a 3-month period with changes in risk level, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, and clinical phenotype (nonexacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap, or exacerbator with emphysema or with chronic bronchitis). Control was defined as the presence of low clinical impact, assessed according to the degree of dyspnea, use of rescue medication, physical activity and sputum color, and clinical stability assessed by clinical changes and exacerbations in the last 3 months. Impact and stability were alternatively assessed with COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores.

RESULTS

We included 354 patients, with a mean FEV₁ of 49.8% ± 16.9%. At 3 months, the proportion of controlled patients was 50.3% according to clinical evaluation and 47.8% according to CAT score. Eighty-seven patients (29.2%) changed their control status as assessed by clinical variables, and 85 patients (28.5%) changed their status according to CAT score. In contrast, the risk level only changed in 26 patients (8.7%) (P < .001), 27 patients (9.1%) experienced changes in their clinical phenotype (P < .001), and 59 patients (19.8%) experienced changes in their GOLD stage (P = .008). Patients who showed an improvement in control status had better CAT scores at the end of follow-up (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In only 3 months, almost one-third of patients experienced changes in their control status. Changes in control status were significantly more frequent than changes in phenotype, risk level, and GOLD stage, and resulted in significant changes in health status.

Comparison of clinical baseline characteristics between Asian and Western COPD patients in a prospective, international, multicenter study

We aimed to compare clinical characteristics between Asian and Western chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This was a sub-analysis of an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study. Asian patients were enrolled in Singapore and South Korea. Western patients were enrolled in Spain, Poland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Malta. A total of 349 patients were analyzed. Among them, 110 (32%) patients were Asian and 239 (68%) Western. Male sex was more predominant in Asian than in Western (95% versus 63%, respectively; P<0.01). Body mass index was significantly lower in Asian (23.5 versus 27.1; P<0.01). The proportion of patients with a history of exacerbation was lower in Asian (12% versus 64%; P<0.01). Although patients were enrolled by same inclusion criteria, there were several differences between Asian and Western COPD patients. Our study has shown unbiased real-world differences between Asian and Western COPD patients. Since prospective follow-up study is currently ongoing, the result of this study can be fundamental base of future analysis.