Search

Background Lung emphysema is an important phenotype of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and CT scanning is strongly recommended to establish the diagnosis. This study aimed to identify criteria by which physicians with limited technical resources can improve the diagnosis of emphysema. Methods We studied 436 COPD patients with prospective CT scans from the COSYCONET cohort. All items of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale, as well as data from spirometry and CO diffusing capacity, were used to construct binary decision trees. The importance of parameters was checked by the Random Forest and AdaBoost machine learning algorithms. Results When relying on questionnaires only, items CAT 1 & 7 and SGRQ 8 & 12 sub-item 3 were most important for the emphysema- versus airway-dominated phenotype, and among the spirometric measures FEV1/FVC. The combination of CAT item 1 (≤ 2) with mMRC (> 1) and FEV1/FVC, could raise the odds for emphysema by factor 7.7. About 50% of patients showed combinations of values that did not markedly alter the likelihood for the phenotypes, and these could be easily identified in the trees. Inclusion of CO diffusing capacity revealed the transfer coefficient as dominant measure. The results of machine learning were consistent with those of the single trees. Conclusions Selected items (cough, sleep, breathlessness, chest condition, slow walking) from comprehensive COPD questionnaires in combination with FEV1/FVC could raise or lower the likelihood for lung emphysema in patients with COPD. The simple, parsimonious approach proposed by us might help if diagnostic resources regarding respiratory diseases are limited. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT01245933, registered 18 November 2010, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01245933. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01837-2.

Background Overuse of short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABA), which do not treat the underlying inflammation of asthma, is linked to poor clinical outcomes such as increased exacerbation risk. This study, as part of the SABINA program, estimated the prevalence of SABA overuse and associated variables in outpatients in Germany. Methods This retrospective study used anonymized electronic healthcare data from the Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA). A total of 15,640 patients aged ≥ 12 years with asthma who received ≥ 1 SABA prescription(s) between July 2017 and June 2018 in 924 general physician and 22 pneumologist (PN) practices were included. SABA overuse was defined as ≥ 3 prescribed inhalers (~ 200 puffs each) during the study period. The associations between SABA overuse and physician specialty, Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) steps (based on asthma medications), age, sex, and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) use were estimated using multivariable regression for patients with probable moderate (GINA step 2) and probable severe (GINA steps 3–5) asthma. Results Annually, 36% of all patients (GINA steps 1–5) in general and 38% in PN practices received ≥ 3 SABA inhalers. The risk of SABA overuse was 14% higher in patients treated by a general practitioner vs. a PN; 34% and 85% higher in GINA steps 4 and 5, respectively, vs. GINA step 3; and 40% higher in male vs. female patients. Conclusions SABA overuse is prevalent among patients with asthma across all GINA steps in Germany, which may indicate suboptimal asthma control. Further studies are needed to investigate the reasons behind SABA overuse.

Background In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10−30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21–24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1–24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (−850–896 mL); however, results are presented for the range −100–400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. Results The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. Conclusions FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Background In COPD, the course of the disease including morbidity and mortality is strongly associated with severe exacerbations. The current GOLD recommendations emphasize blood eosinophil counts as a marker for responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Retrospective analyses from randomized clinical trials indicate a favorable response to systemic corticosteroids in exacerbated COPD patients with blood eosinophils > 2%, however data outside clinical trials are scarce. Patients and methods We retrospectively evaluated data from 1007 cases of patients who were admitted to the University Medical Center Marburg between 01/2013 and 12/2018. All patients had been diagnosed with an acute exacerbation of COPD (ICD-10 J44.0/J44.1). Our analysis was based on a subgroup of 417 patients in whom a full blood cell count was obtained at the day of admission. Patients were predominantly male (63.3%), had a median age of 74 years (IQR 65 years – 83 years) and a median FEV1 of 1.03 l (42.6% predicted). We compared the hospital length of stay and other outcome parameters using established thresholds for the eosinophil blood cell count (100 and 300 eosinophils/μl and 2%). Results Patients with low eosinophils ( 300/μl: 7 days). The median CRP was higher in patients with low eosinophils as compared to the other groups ( 300: 7.1 mg/dl). Time to re-hospitalization or time to death did not differ between strata of eosinophils. Sensitivity analysis in a subgroup of patients in which pneumonia was excluded by chest x-ray did not significantly alter the results. Conclusion The results support the hypothesis that patients with severe COPD exacerbations and elevated blood eosinophil counts respond better to systemic corticosteroid treatment than patients with a non-eosinophilic exacerbation.

Background Short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD. Methods The Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 μg or twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg for 24 weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, 1), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates. Results At baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n = 1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n = 1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59–74 mL; p p = 0.241]; low: 0.49 [p = 0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p = 0.138]; low: 0.60 [p = 0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: − 0.56 [p p = 0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ≥4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use Conclusions In high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome. Funding GlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).

Background Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. Results Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16–25% [p p Conclusions Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Background Blood eosinophil counts and history of exacerbations have been proposed as predictors of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who may benefit from triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist). Methods In a retrospective cohort analysis we examined the profiles of COPD patients from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and US Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart (Optum) databases with reference to exacerbation frequency and blood eosinophil distribution. Results Of the 31,437 (CPRD) and 383,825 (Optum) patients with COPD, 15,364 (CPRD) and 139,465 (Optum) met the eligibility criteria and were included. Among patients with ≥2 exacerbations and available eosinophil counts in the baseline period (CPRD, n = 3089 and Optum, n = 13414), 17.0 and 13.3% respectively had eosinophil counts ≥400 cells/μL. Patients with ≥2 exacerbations or eosinophil count ≥400 cells/μL during first year, exacerbated at least once (CPRD, 82.8% vs Optum, 80.6%) or continued to have eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL (76.8% vs 76.5%), respectively in the follow-up year. In both years, a higher variability in the number of exacerbations and eosinophil count was observed in patients with one exacerbation and eosinophil counts between 300 and 400 cells/μL; patients with eosinophil count

Background Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with loss of lung function and poor outcomes for patients. However, there are limited data on the time course of changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) preceding the first reported symptom and after the start of an exacerbation. Methods WISDOM was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 52-week study in patients with severe-to-very severe COPD. Patients received triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) for 6 weeks, and were randomized to continue triple therapy or stepwise withdrawal of the ICS (dual bronchodilator group). After suitable training, patients performed daily spirometry at home using a portable, battery-operated spirometer. In the present post hoc analysis, patients who continued to perform daily home spirometry and completed at least one measurement per week for a 56-day period before and after the start of a moderate or severe exacerbation were included. Missing values were imputed by linear interpolation (intermittent), backfilling (beginning) or carry forward (end). Exacerbation onset was the first day of a reported symptom of exacerbation. Results Eight hundred and eighty-eight patients in the WISDOM study had a moderate/severe exacerbation after the complete ICS withdrawal visit; 360 of them contributed at least one FEV1 measure per week for the 8 weeks before and after the event and are included in this analysis. Mean daily FEV1 began to decline from approximately 2 weeks before the onset of symptoms of an exacerbation, dropping from 0.907 L (mean Days − 56 to − 36 before the exacerbation) to 0.860 L on the first day of the exacerbation. After the exacerbation, mean FEV1 improved but did not return to pre-exacerbation levels (mean Days 36–56 after the exacerbation, 0.875 L). The pattern of FEV1 changes around exacerbations was similar in the triple therapy and dual bronchodilator groups, and a similar pattern was seen in moderate and severe exacerbations when analysed separately. Conclusions Mean lung function starts to decline prior to the first reported symptoms of an exacerbation, and does not recover to pre-exacerbation levels 8 weeks after the event. Trial registration WISDOM (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00975195). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-018-0944-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Data examining the characteristics of patients with frequent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and associated hospitalisations and mortality are scarce. Methods Post-hoc analysis of the Prevention Of Exacerbations with Tiotropium in COPD (POET-COPD) trial, targeting exacerbations as the primary endpoint. Patients were classified as non-, infrequent, and frequent exacerbators (0, 1, or ≥ 2 exacerbations during study treatment), irrespective of study treatment. A multivariate Cox regression model assessed the effect of covariates on time to first exacerbation. Results In total, 7376 patients were included in the analysis: 63.5% non-exacerbators, 22.9% infrequent, 13.6% frequent exacerbators. Factors significantly associated with exacerbation risk were age, sex, body mass index, COPD duration and severity, smoking history, baseline inhaled corticosteroid use, and preceding antibiotic or systemic corticosteroid courses. Frequent exacerbators had greater severity and duration of COPD, received more pulmonary medication, and ≥ 2 systemic corticosteroid or antibiotic courses in the preceding year, and were more likely to be female and ex-smokers. The small proportion of frequent exacerbators (13.6%) accounted for 56.6% of exacerbation-related hospitalisations, which, overall, were associated with a three-fold increase in mortality. Conclusion The frequent exacerbator phenotype was closely associated with exacerbation-related hospitalisations, and exacerbation-related hospitalisations were associated with poorer survival. Trial registration NCT00563381; Study identifier: BI 205.389.

Background Little is known about the influencing potential of specific characteristics on lung function in different populations. The aim of this analysis was to determine whether lung function determinants differ between subpopulations within Germany and whether prediction equations developed for one subpopulation are also adequate for another subpopulation. Methods Within three studies (KORA C, SHIP-I, ECRHS-I) in different areas of Germany 4059 adults performed lung function tests. The available data consisted of forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity and peak expiratory flow rate. For each study multivariate regression models were developed to predict lung function and Bland-Altman plots were established to evaluate the agreement between predicted and measured values. Results The final regression equations for FEV1 and FVC showed adjusted r-square values between 0.65 and 0.75, and for PEF they were between 0.46 and 0.61. In all studies gender, age, height and pack-years were significant determinants, each with a similar effect size. Regarding other predictors there were some, although not statistically significant, differences between the studies. Bland-Altman plots indicated that the regression models for each individual study adequately predict medium (i.e. normal) but not extremely high or low lung function values in the whole study population. Conclusions Simple models with gender, age and height explain a substantial part of lung function variance whereas further determinants add less than 5% to the total explained r-squared, at least for FEV1 and FVC. Thus, for different adult subpopulations of Germany one simple model for each lung function measures is still sufficient.

Current methods for assessing clinical outcomes in COPD mainly rely on physiological tests combined with the use of questionnaires. The present review considers commonly used outcome measures such as lung function, health status, exercise capacity and physical activity, dyspnoea, exacerbations, the multi-dimensional BODE score, and mortality. Based on current published data, we provide a concise overview of the principles, strengths and weaknesses, and discuss open questions related to each methodology. Reviewed is the current set of markers for measuring clinically relevant outcomes with particular emphasis on their limitations and opportunities that should be recognized when assessing and interpreting their use in clinical trials of COPD.

The recommendations regarding the use of systemic steroids in COPD differ substantially depending on the phase of the disease. In moderate and severe acute exacerbations oral steroids are advocated based on the findings of several placebo-controlled trials that have been performed in secondary-care settings: these studies showed that systemic steroids improve lung function, dyspnoea and gas exchange. In addition, steroid use resulted in fewer treatment failures, a lower relapse rate and shorter hospital stays [1-4]. Importantly, giving steroids orally is non-inferior to the i.v. application [5] and an 8-week treatment is not superior to a 2-week therapy [6]. Recently, it could even be shown that 5-day treatment is non-inferior to a 14-day course [7]. In the trial with longer term therapy [6] hyperglycemia requiring treatment was identified as considerable side effect, in the other trials no major adverse events were observed. In contrast, in stable COPD positive effects of systemic steroids are scarce: there is some evidence that higher doses (≥ 30 mg prednisolone/day) may improve lung function over a short period, whereas this was not observed in doses of less than 10–15 mg prednisolone/day [8]. In a 2-year trial with 5 mg prednisolone + 1600 μg budesonide/day efficacy regarding lung function decline was not significantly better than budesonide alone [9]. In addition, there are substantial side effect problems. In particular, it is well established that respiratory and peripheral muscle strength [10] are affected. This is caused by a myopathy that is characterized by atrophy and necrosis [11] and may lead to reduced survival. Besides, there is evidence that chronic therapy with systemic steroids is one of the risk factors for the high rate of osteoporosis that is observed in COPD [12]. What does the paper by Horita et al. published in this issue of the journal [13] add to the literature? To my knowledge this is the first analysis that systematically evaluates the effects of systemic steroids on mortality in a considerable sample of COPD patients with severe and very severe COPD. The authors analyzed patients (N = 444) that had been randomized to the conservative treatment arm in the National Emphysema Treatment trial (NETT). They calculated a hazard ratio for death of 1.54 for the steroid user group. Then, in order to make sure that this result was not induced by unidentified confounders they performed a propensity score matching. Based on this analysis the hazard ratio for death in the steroid group was 1.73. Thus, the observed effect seems to be robust and real. Nevertheless, the authors righteously mention several potential weaknesses of their study: a) it is not prospective, but a prospective trial with this endpoint does not seem feasible, b) the steroid dose was not verified, c) only patients with an FEV1 ≤ 45% predicted had been included in the NETT trial, but logic tells that systemic steroids should only be considered when all other therapies are not sufficiently effective and it is quite unlikely that this occurs in patients with a moderate lung function impairment. It is quite worrisome though that in the NETT trial only a minority of the patients were treated with long acting bronchodilators. In summary, the study results support the recommendations in guidelines and strategy documents to stay away from the chronic use of systemic steroids in COPD [14]. As a consequence, in patients in stable condition that are currently treated with systemic steroids this therapy should be tapered/stopped. This can be quite demanding: patients may develop fatigue, low blood pressure, joint pain, weakness and even psychotic symptoms [15]. Importantly, discontinuation of chronic systemic steroid therapy did not result in an increase of COPD exacerbations [16]. There is only one scenario where steroid cessation may be harmful: some patients with an asthma-COPD overlap may profit from long-term use of systemic steroids [17] and may get worse when steroids are stopped. Based on the cited literature and supported by the findings of Horita et al. [13] there are some simple messages regarding the use of systemic steroids in COPD: a) in moderate or severe acute exacerbations oral steroids should be prescribed in a moderate dose (40 mg prednisolone) for 5 days, b) there is no place for systemic steroids in stable phase COPD, c) in patients treated with systemic steroids outside of an exacerbation steroid treatment should be withdrawn, d) before doing so therapy should be optimized and patients should be re-evaluated to make sure that they do not have an asthma-COPD overlap.

Background Oral corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators with or without antibiotics represent standard treatment of COPD exacerbations of moderate severity. Frequent courses of oral steroids may be a safety issue. We wanted to evaluate in an out-patient setting whether a 2-week course of inhaled budesonide/formoterol would be equally effective for treatment of acute COPD exacerbations as standard therapy in patients judged by the investigator not to require hospitalisation. Methods This was a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing two treatment strategies; two weeks' treatment with inhaled budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, qid) was compared with prednisolone (30 mg once daily) plus inhaled formoterol (9 μg bid) in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD attending a primary health care centre. Inclusion criteria were progressive dyspnoea for less than one week, FEV1 30–60% of predicted normal after acute treatment with a single dose of oral corticosteroid plus nebulised salbutamol/ipratropium bromide and no requirement for subsequent immediate hospitalisation, i.e the clinical status after the acute treatment allowed for sending the patient home. A total of 109 patients (mean age 67 years, 33 pack-years, mean FEV1 45% of predicted) were randomized to two weeks' double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol or prednisolone plus formoterol and subsequent open-label budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg bid) for another 12 weeks. Change in FEV1 was the primary efficacy variable. Non-inferiority was predefined. Results Non-inferiority of budesonide/formoterol was proven because the lower limit of FEV1-change (97.5% CI) was above 90% of the efficacy of the alternative treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, treatment failures, need for reliever medication (and exacerbations during follow-up) did not differ between the groups. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusion High dose budesonide/formoterol was as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol for the ambulatory treatment of acute exacerbations in non-hospitalized COPD patients. An early increase in budesonide/formoterol dose may therefore be tried before oral corticosteroids are used. Clinical trial registration NCT00259779

Background Analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a non-invasive method for studying the acidity (pH) of airway secretions in patients with inflammatory lung diseases. Aim To assess the reproducibility of EBC pH for two commercially available devices (portable RTube and non-portable ECoScreen) in healthy controls, patients with asthma or COPD, and subjects suffering from an acute cold with lower-airway symptoms. In addition, we assessed the repeatability in healthy controls. Methods EBC was collected from 40 subjects (n = 10 in each of the above groups) using RTube and ECoScreen. EBC was collected from controls on two separate occasions within 5 days. pH in EBC was assessed after degasification with argon for 20 min. Results In controls, pH-measurements in EBC collected by RTube or ECoScreen showed no significant difference between devices (p = 0.754) or between days (repeatability coefficient RTube: 0.47; ECoScreen: 0.42) of collection. A comparison between EBC pH collected by the two devices in asthma, COPD and cold patients also showed good reproducibility. No differences in pH values were observed between controls (mean pH 8.27; RTube) and patients with COPD (pH 7.97) or asthma (pH 8.20), but lower values were found using both devices in patients with a cold (pH 7.56; RTube, p < 0.01; ECoScreen, p < 0.05). Conclusion We conclude that pH measurements in EBC collected by RTube and ECoScreen are repeatable and reproducible in healthy controls, and are reproducible and comparable in healthy controls, COPD and asthma patients, and subjects with a common cold.

Background Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, once-daily, ultra-long-acting β2-agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomized, double-blind study compared the bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol with that of placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods In an incomplete-block, multi-dose, three-period, crossover design, patients received three of the following four treatments: indacaterol 150 μg, indacaterol 300 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and placebo, each once-daily for 14 days. Each treatment period was separated by a 14-day washout. Study drug was supplied daily by blinded, third party study personnel to maintain blinding of patients and investigators. The primary efficacy variable was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at 24 h post-dose after 14 days. The study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of indacaterol to tiotropium for this variable. Results A total of 169 patients were randomized (mean age 65 years); 153 (90.5%) completed. Trough FEV1 after 14 days with indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg was statistically and clinically superior to placebo, with differences (95% CI) of 170 (120-220) and 150 (100-200) mL respectively (both p < 0.001). For this endpoint, both doses of indacaterol not only met the criterion for non-inferiority compared with tiotropium, but also achieved numerically higher values, with differences versus tiotropium of 40 and 30 mL for indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, respectively. At 5 min post-dose on Day 1, the mean FEV1 for both indacaterol doses was significantly higher than placebo (by 120 and 130 mL for indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, respectively; p < 0.001) and tiotropium (by 80 mL for both doses; p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported by similar proportions of patients: 31.4%, 29.5%, 28.3% and 28.5% for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg, tiotropium and placebo treatments, respectively. Conclusions Once-daily indacaterol provided clinically and statistically significant 24-h bronchodilation. Indacaterol was at least as effective as tiotropium, with a faster onset of action (within 5 min) on the first day of dosing. Indacaterol should prove useful in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, for whom treatment with one or more classes of long-acting bronchodilator is recommended. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00615459, EudraCT number: 2007-004071-19

Introduction Pulmonary rehabilitation has been demonstrated to improve exercise capacity, dyspnoea, quality of life and to reduce the adverse effects of acute exacerbations. Current guidelines recommend exercise training in patients with mild to very severe disease. However, there is insufficient data comparing the efficacy of different training approaches and intensities. Methods Between January 2009 and December 2012, 105 COPD patients were screened to participate in the study. 61 patients were randomly assigned into an individualized training group or into a non-individualized training group. Both groups exercised once a week for 60 minutes over a time period of three months. At the beginning and after three months, the following measurements were performed: 6-minute walking test (6-MWT), health-related quality of life (St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ and COPD-Assessment-Test; CAT), M. rectus femoris cross-sectional area, and inflammatory markers in peripheral blood. Results Only in the individualized training group we observed a significant change of the 6-MWT (increase of 32.47 m; p = 0.012) and the cross-sectional area of the M. rectus fermoris (increase of 0.57 cm2; p = 0.049), while no significant changes occurred in the non-individualized training group. Peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator 1α increased in the individualized training only after the three months training period (increase of 0.43 relative copies; p = 0.017), all other myokines and inflammatory markers were not influenced by either of the programs. The total drop-out-rate was 44.3%. Conclusion A low frequency outpatient training program may induce modest improvements in exercise capacity and muscle mass only if it is performed on an individualized basis.