Search

Introduction COPD is underdiagnosed, and measurement of spirometry alongside low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer is one strategy to increase earlier diagnosis of this disease. Methods Ever-smokers at high risk of lung cancer were invited to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial for a lung health check (LHC) comprising LDCT screening, pre-bronchodilator spirometry and a smoking cessation service. In this cross-sectional study we present data on participant demographics, respiratory symptoms, lung function, emphysema on imaging and both self-reported and primary care diagnoses of COPD. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with possible underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of COPD in this population, with airflow obstruction defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio

Populations with COPD demonstrate higher survival in overweight and obese compared with normal weight; the “obesity paradox”. Relationships in less-severe COPD are unclear, as is the impact of cardiovascular risk, and few studies include individuals at extremes of obesity. We examined the relationship between body mass index (BMI; defined as underweight: 40 kg·m−2, suggesting that obesity may not remain protective at the extremes in this population.

Background The diagnosis of COPD requires the demonstration of non-fully reversible airflow limitation by spirometry in the appropriate clinical context. Yet, there are patients with symptoms and relevant exposures suggestive of COPD with either normal spirometry (pre-COPD) or preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm). Their prevalence, clinical characteristics and associated outcomes in a real-life setting are unclear. Methods To investigate them, we studied 3183 patients diagnosed with COPD by their attending physician included in the NOVELTY study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02760329), a global, 3-year, observational, real-life cohort that included patients recruited from both primary and specialist care clinics in 18 countries. Results We found that 1) approximately a quarter of patients diagnosed with (and treated for) COPD in real life did not fulfil the spirometric diagnostic criteria recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), and could be instead categorised as pre-COPD (13%) or PRISm (14%); 2) disease burden (symptoms and exacerbations) was highest in GOLD 3–4 patients (exacerbations per person-year (PPY) 0.82) and lower but similar in those in GOLD 1–2, pre-COPD and PRISm (exacerbations range 0.27–0.43 PPY); 3) lung function decline was highest in pre-COPD and GOLD 1–2, and much less pronounced in PRISm and GOLD 3-4; 4) PRISm and pre-COPD were not stable diagnostic categories and change substantially over time; and 5) all-cause mortality was highest in GOLD 3–4, lowest in pre-COPD, and intermediate and similar in GOLD 1–2 and PRISm. Conclusions Patients diagnosed COPD in a real-life clinical setting present great diversity in symptom burden, progression and survival, warranting medical attention.

Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy in patients with obstructive lung disease. However, due to strict inclusion criteria and the conditions required for ascertaining statistical significance, the patients included typically represent as little as 5% of the general obstructive lung disease population. Thus, studies in broader patient populations are becoming increasingly important. These can be randomised effectiveness trials or observational studies providing data on real-world treatment effectiveness and safety data that complement efficacy RCTs. In this review we describe the features associated with the diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the real-world clinical practice setting. We also discuss how RCTs and observational studies have reported opposing outcomes with several treatments and inhaler devices due to differences in study design and the variations in patients recruited by different study types. Whilst observational studies are not without weaknesses, we outline recently developed tools for defining markers of quality of observational studies. We also examine how observational studies are capable of providing valuable insights into disease mechanisms and management and how they are a vital component of research into obstructive lung disease. As we move into an era of personalised medicine, recent observational studies, such as the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY), have the capacity to provide a greater understanding of the value of a personalised healthcare approach in patients in clinical practice by focussing on standardised outcome measures of patient-reported outcomes, physician assessments, airway physiology, and blood and airway biomarkers across both primary and specialist care.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of COPD exacerbations evaluate heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically important and patient relevant. This limits their usability and comparability. A core outcome set (COS) is a consensus-based minimum set of clinically important outcomes that should be evaluated in all RCTs in specific areas of health care. We present the study protocol of the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force, aiming to develop a COS for COPD exacerbation management, that could remedy these limitations. For the development of this COS we follow standard methodology recommended by the COMET initiative. A comprehensive list of outcomes is assembled through a methodological systematic review of the outcomes reported in relevant RCTs. Qualitative research with patients with COPD will also be conducted, aiming to identify additional outcomes that may be important to patients, but are not currently addressed in clinical research studies. Prioritisation of the core outcomes will be facilitated through an extensive, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey with a global reach. Selection will be finalised in an international, multi-stakeholder meeting. For every core outcome, we will recommend a specific measurement instrument and standardised time points for evaluation. Selection of instruments will be based on evidence-informed consensus. Our work will improve the quality, usability and comparability of future RCTs on the management of COPD exacerbations and, ultimately, the care of patients with COPD. Multi-stakeholder engagement and societal support by the European Respiratory Society will raise awareness and promote implementation of the COS.

COPD and asthma prevalence is associated with socioeconomic status (or “deprivation”), yet deprivation is rarely considered in typical large-scale efficacy randomised controlled trials that recruit highly selected patient populations. In this post hoc analysis of the Salford Lung Studies in COPD and asthma (two 12-month, open-label, effectiveness randomised controlled trials conducted in UK primary care), we evaluated the impact of patient deprivation on clinical outcomes with initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care. Patients were categorised into deprivation quintiles based on postcode and a countrywide database of indices of deprivation, and trial outcomes by quintile were assessed. 52% of patients in the COPD study were included in the most deprived quintile, contrasting with 20% in the asthma study. Greater deprivation was associated with higher rates of primary/secondary healthcare contacts and costs. However, the treatment effect of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus usual care for primary (COPD: moderate/severe exacerbations; asthma: Asthma Control Test responders at week 24) and secondary/other (healthcare consumption, adherence, treatment modifications, study withdrawals, exacerbations, serious adverse events) outcomes was similar across deprivation quintiles. Our findings support the recruitment of participants from all socioeconomic strata to allow assessment of data generalisability to routine clinical practice.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report heterogeneous outcome measures, thus rendering their results incomparable, complicating their translation into clinical practice. As a first step in the development of a core outcome set that will aim to homogenise outcome measures in future RCTs, we assessed the outcomes reported in recent relevant RCTs and systematic reviews. We conducted a methodological systematic review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ registration number CRD42016052437) of RCTs and systematic reviews on COPD exacerbation management indexed on Medline and PubMed during the last decade. We evaluated their methodology, specifically focusing on the reported outcome measures. Based on 123 RCTs and 38 systematic reviews, we found significant variability in the outcomes reported and in their definition. Mortality, which was assessed in 82% of the included trials, was the most frequently assessed outcome, followed by the rate of treatment success or failure (63%), adverse events (59%), health status, symptoms and quality of life (59%), lung function (47%), and duration of exacerbations (42%). The significant heterogeneity in the selection and definition of outcome measures in RCTs and systematic reviews limits the interpretability and comparability of their results, and warrants the development of a core outcome set for COPD exacerbations management.

The impact of prior treatment on results of clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been debated. We used data from the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD Trial to examine the impact of prior treatment on the effects of randomised study drugs on mortality and exacerbations. We used data on 16 417 patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk and information on prior medications to examine the effects of fluticasone furoate (FF), vilanterol (VI) and combined FF/VI compared to placebo on moderate and severe exacerbation as well as mortality. The study was event-driven with a median study exposure of 1.8 years. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01313676. There were no consistent associations between treatment prior to study entry and the effects of FF, VI or FF/VI on exacerbations during the study. However, patients taking inhaled corticosteroids and one or more bronchodilators prior to study entry seemed to have a better effect of active treatments than of placebo on mortality (hazard ratio for FF/VI 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.89). Survival in those randomised to placebo was independent of treatment prior to study enrolment. Prior treatment appears to affect treatment effects on mortality but not exacerbations in a randomised controlled trial of patients with COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have overlapping clinical features and share pathobiological mechanisms but are often considered distinct disorders. Prospective, observational studies across asthma, COPD and asthma–COPD overlap are limited. NOVELTY is a global, prospective observational 3-year study enrolling ∼12 000 patients ≥12 years of age from primary and specialist clinical practices in 19 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02760329). NOVELTY's primary objectives are to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and disease burden over time, and to identify phenotypes and molecular endotypes associated with differential outcomes over time in patients with a diagnosis/suspected diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD. NOVELTY aims to recruit real-world patients, unlike clinical studies with restrictive inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data collected at yearly intervals include clinical assessments, spirometry, biospecimens, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare utilisation (HCU). PROs and HCU will also be collected 3-monthly via internet/telephone. Data will be used to identify phenotypes and endotypes associated with different trajectories for symptom burden, clinical progression or remission and HCU. Results may allow patient classification across obstructive lung disease by clinical outcomes and biomarker profile, rather than by conventional diagnostic labels and severity categories. NOVELTY will provide a rich data source on obstructive lung disease, to help improve patient outcomes and aid novel drug development.

Exacerbations have significant impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Most guidelines emphasise prevention of exacerbations by treatment with long-acting bronchodilators and/or anti-inflammatory drugs. Whereas most of this treatment is evidence-based, it is clear that patients differ regarding the nature of exacerbations and are likely to benefit differently from different types of treatment. In this short review, we wish to highlight this, suggest a first step in differentiating pharmacological exacerbation prevention and call for more studies in this area. Finally, we wish to highlight that there are perhaps easier ways of achieving similar success in exacerbation prevention using nonpharmacological tools.