Search

James F Donohue,1 J Stuart Elborn,2 Peter Lansberg,3 Afzal Javed,4 Solomon Tesfaye,5 Hope Rugo,6 Sita Ratna Devi Duddi,7,8 Niraksha Jithoo,9 Pai-Hui Huang,10 Kannan Subramaniam,11 Nagendra Ramanjinappa,12 Arkady Koltun,13 Shari Melamed,13 Juliana CN Chan14 1UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Queen’s University, Belfast, UK; 3University Medical Center, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK & Pakistan Psychiatric Research Centre, Coventry, UK; 5Sheffield Teaching Hospitals and the University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 6University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; 7International Alliance of Patients’ Organisations, London, United Kingdom; 8DakshamA Health and Education, Delhi, India; 9Viatris Ltd, Johannesburg, South Africa; 10Viatris Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Taipei, Taiwan; 11Viatris Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand; 12Viatris Ltd, Bangalore, India; 13Viatris Ltd, Canonsburg, PA, USA; 14Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Regions of the People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Juliana CN Chan, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Regions of the People’s Republic of China, Tel +852 3505 3138, Email jchan@cuhk.edu.hkAbstract: According to the United Nations High-Level Meeting 2018, five non-communicable diseases (NCDs) including cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes mellitus, cancer, and mental health conditions accounted for two-thirds of global deaths. These five NCDs share five common risk factors including tobacco use

James F Donohue,1 Tara Rheault,2 Margot MacDonald-Berko,2 Thomas Bengtsson,3 Kathleen Rickard2 1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Verona Pharma plc, Raleigh, NC, USA; 3Stat Mind AB, Lund, SwedenCorrespondence: Tara Rheault, Verona Pharma, 8045 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC, 27617, USA, Tel +1 646-530-2126, Email tara.rheault@veronapharma.comAbstract: Ensifentrine is a novel, potent, and selective dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE)3 and PDE4 designed for delivery by inhalation that combines effects on airway inflammation, bronchodilation and ciliary function in bronchial epithelia. In Phase 2 studies in subjects with COPD, ensifentrine demonstrated clinically meaningful bronchodilation and improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life when administered alone or in combination with current standard of care therapies. Ensifentrine is currently in late-stage clinical development for the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This review summarizes non-clinical data as well as Phase 1 and Phase 2 efficacy and safety results of nebulized ensifentrine relevant to the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD.Keywords: RPL554, nebulized therapy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, clinical efficacy, drug development

Donohue JF, Ozol-Godfrey A, Goodin T, Sanjar S. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020;15:745–754. The authors have advised there is an error in Figure 4 on page 751. The Q2 subgroup of the placebo arm has the label of “−0.012” which should read “0.012”.   The authors apologize for this error. Read the original article

James F Donohue, 1 Ayca Ozol-Godfrey, 2 Thomas Goodin, 2 Shahin Sanjar 2 1Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USACorrespondence: James F DonohueDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USAEmail James_donohue@med.unc.eduPurpose: Rescue medication use is common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and tends to increase with symptoms and disease severity. An analysis of baseline rescue medication use was conducted to inform on patient phenotypes and subsequent effects on lung function, symptoms, and safety following 12 weeks of nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY) 25 μg twice daily or placebo in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.Patients and Methods: Pooled data from the 12-week, placebo-controlled GOLDEN 3 and 4 studies (n=781) were used to assign patients into quarters based on baseline rescue medication use (ie, average puffs-per-day) during the run-in period. Placebo-adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and EXAcerbations of COPD Tool-Respiratory Symptoms (EXACT-RS) total score data were reported; safety was evaluated by reviewing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs).Results: Baseline rescue medication use was a proxy for disease severity, evidenced by decreased lung function, increased health status scores, symptom scores and use of background long-acting β 2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids across quarters and treatment groups. Treatment with GLY led to greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV 1, SGRQ and EXACT-RS scores compared with placebo in all rescue medication use quarters. Additionally, the SGRQ and EXACT-RS exhibited greater improvement with increas

James F Donohue,1 Donald A Mahler,2,3 Sanjay Sethi4 1Pulmonary Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA; 3Director of Respiratory Services, Valley Regional Hospital, Claremont, NH, USA; 4University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USACorrespondence: James F DonohueUNC School of Medicine, 4125 Bioinformatics Building CB#7020, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-0001, USATel +1 984-974-5703Fax +1 984-974-5737Email James_Donohue@med.unc.eduAbstract: Bronchodilation with muscarinic antagonists, β2-agonists, and inhaled corticosteroids remains the foundation of pharmaceutical treatment for patients with stable COPD. These drugs are delivered from a variety of devices, including dry powder inhalers, pressurized metered-dose inhalers, soft-mist inhalers, or nebulizers. Nebulized delivery is often preferable in patients who are elderly, are cognitively impaired, are unable to generate sufficient inspiratory force to use their inhaler, have difficulty coordinating hand-breath activity, are too dyspneic to hold their breath for a sufficient time, and/or may be acutely ill. Revefenacin, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulization recently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of patients with COPD, was discovered and developed using “duration and lung selectivity-by-design.” This strategy selected a molecule with a high lung-selective index to maximize bronchodilation and limit systemic anti-muscarinic side effects. In early-phase clinical studies, revefenacin for nebulization led to a rapid onset of bronchodilation that was sustained for 24 hrs in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Revefenacin also demonstrated minimal systemic exposure and good tolerability in these studies. Statistically and clinically significant improvements in lung function (ie, peak and/or trough FEV1) relative to placebo were observed with revefenacin in Phase III cli

Dave Singh,1 Anthony D D’Urzo,2 James F Donohue,3 Edward M Kerwin,4 Eduard Molins,5 Ferran Chuecos,5 Anna Ribera,5 Diana Jarreta5 1Medicines Evaluation Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 2Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina Pulmonary Critical Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 4Clinical Research Institute, Medford, OR, USA; 5BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, SpainCorrespondence: Dave SinghMedicines Evaluation Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M23 9QZ, UK Tel +44 161 946 4073Fax +44 161 946 1459Email DSingh@meu.org.ukBackground: Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD should be based on studies conducted specifically in this population. We have reviewed evidence from previous studies of pharmacological treatments in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD and performed a new post-hoc analysis of dual bronchodilator treatment in this population, aiming to assess the effectiveness of these interventions.Materials and methods: A literature review identified clinical trials that included analyses of patients with COPD who were maintenance therapy-naïve with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD in two large phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week trials investigating the efficacy of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination versus monotherapy or placebo (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]).Results: Treatment-naïve patients with COPD often represent a population of patients at the earliest stage at which mo

Sohini Ghosh,1 Roy A Pleasants,2 Jill A Ohar,3 James F Donohue,1 M Bradley Drummond1 1Division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 3Department of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunology, School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA Purpose: Adequate peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is required for drug dispersion with dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Prevalence of PIFR discordance (suboptimal PIFR with prescribed inhalers) and factors influencing device-specific PIFR are unclear in COPD. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIFR discordance and associated clinical factors in a stable COPD population. Patients and methods: An observational, single-center, cohort study was conducted including 66 outpatients with COPD. PIFR was measured using the In-Check™ Dial with applied resistance of prescribed inhalers. Participants were defined as discordant if measured PIFR was <30 L/min and <60 L/min for high and low–medium resistance devices, respectively, using an inspiratory effort the participant normally used with their prescribed DPI.Results: The median age of the COPD participants was 69.4 years, 92% were white and 47% were female. A total of 48% were using low–medium resistance DPIs (Diskus®/Ellipta®) and 76% used high-resistance DPI (Handihaler®). A total of 40% of COPD participants were discordant to prescribed inhalers. Female gender was the only factor consistently associated with lower PIFR. Shorter height was associated with reduced PIFR for low–medium resistance (r=0.44; P=0.01), but not high resistance (r=0.20; P=0.16). There was no correlation between PIFR by In-Check™ dial and PIFR measured by standard spirometer.Conclusion: PIFR is reduced in stable COPD pat

Anthony D D’Urzo,1 Dave Singh,2 James F Donohue,3 Edward M Kerwin,4 Anna Ribera,5 Eduard Molins,5 Ferran Chuecos,5 Diana Jarreta,5 Esther Garcia Gil5 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Medicines Evaluation Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 3Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 4Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 5AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain Background: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg is a twice-daily maintenance bronchodilator for COPD. This post hoc study evaluated aclidinium/formoterol vs aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo in patient subgroups. Patients and methods: Data were pooled from two 24-week Phase III clinical trials (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). Patients (N=3,394) were analyzed by baseline airflow obstruction severity (moderate/severe), age (<65/≥65 years), sex, and exacerbation history (0/≥1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months). Changes from baseline vs placebo and monotherapies were evaluated: morning pre-dose (trough) and morning 1-hour post-dose FEV1, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), and moderate/severe exacerbation rates (healthcare resource utilization [HCRU] and EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT] criteria). Results: Aclidinium/formoterol improved the post-dose FEV1 vs placebo and monotherapy in all subgroups (all P<0.01) and trough FEV1 vs placebo (P<0.001) and formoterol (P<0.05) across all subgroups. Improvements in trough FEV1 were observed vs aclidinium in patients with severe airflow obstruction, patients aged <65 years, males, and patients with exacerbation history (P<0.05). Improvements in TDI were observed vs placebo in all subgroups (all&

James F Donohue,1 Vamsi K Bollu,2 Donald E Stull,3 Lauren M Nelson,4 Valerie SL Williams,4 Michael D Stensland,5 Nicola A Hanania6 1Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 2Worldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, 3Data Analytics and Design Strategy, 4Psychometrics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, 5Agile Outcomes Research, Inc., Rochester, MN, 6Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA Background: Symptom severity is the largest factor in determining subjective health in COPD. Symptoms (eg, chronic cough, dyspnea) are associated with decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We evaluated the impact of arformoterol on HRQoL in COPD patients, measured by St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Post hoc growth mixture model (GMM) analysis examined symptom response profiles. Methods: We examined data from a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-month safety trial of twice-daily nebulized arformoterol 15 µg (n=420) versus placebo (n=421). COPD severity was assessed by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) status. GMM analysis identified previously unknown patient subgroups and examined the heterogeneity in response to SGRQ Symptoms scores. Results: SGRQ Total score improved by 4.24 points with arformoterol and 2.02 points with placebo (P=0.006). Significantly greater improvements occurred for arformoterol versus placebo in SGRQ Symptoms (6.34 vs 4.25, P=0.031) and Impacts (3.91 vs 0.97, P=0.001) scores, but not in Activity score (3.57 vs 1.75, P=0.057). GMM identified responders and nonresponders based on the SGRQ Symptoms score. End-of-study mean difference in SGRQ Symptoms scores between these latent classes was 20.7 points (P<0.001; 95% confidence interval: 17.6–23.9). Compared w

PurposeThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) initiative was developed to advance the methodology of PROs applicable to chronic diseases. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive chronic disease associated with poor health. This study was designed to examine the correlation of PROMIS health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scales and clinical measures among COPD patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted comparing patients who were stable (n = 100) with those currently experiencing a COPD exacerbation (n = 85). All PROMIS measures for adults available at the time of the study (2008), disease-targeted and other HRQOL instruments, health literacy, percent predicted FEV1, and a 6-min walk distance were assessed when patients were considered clinically stable.ResultsStable COPD patients reported significantly (p ≤ 0.05) better health-related quality of life on PROMIS domains than patients experiencing an exacerbation. PROMIS domain scores were significantly (p ≤ 0.01) correlated with each of legacy measures. Six-min walk scores were most highly correlated with the PROMIS physical function domain scores (r = 0.53) followed by the fatigue (r = -0.26), social (r = 0.24) and to a lesser extent depression (r = -0.23), and anxiety (r = -0.22) domain scores. Percent predicted FEV1 score was significantly associated with PROMIS physical function scores (r = 0.27).ConclusionThis study provides support for the validity of the PROMIS measures in COPD patients.

PurposeThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) initiative was developed to advance the methodology of PROs applicable to chronic diseases. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive chronic disease associated with poor health. This study was designed to examine the correlation of PROMIS health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scales and clinical measures among COPD patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted comparing patients who were stable (n = 100) with those currently experiencing a COPD exacerbation (n = 85). All PROMIS measures for adults available at the time of the study (2008), disease-targeted and other HRQOL instruments, health literacy, percent predicted FEV1, and a 6-min walk distance were assessed when patients were considered clinically stable.ResultsStable COPD patients reported significantly (p ≤ 0.05) better health-related quality of life on PROMIS domains than patients experiencing an exacerbation. PROMIS domain scores were significantly (p ≤ 0.01) correlated with each of legacy measures. Six-min walk scores were most highly correlated with the PROMIS physical function domain scores (r = 0.53) followed by the fatigue (r = -0.26), social (r = 0.24) and to a lesser extent depression (r = -0.23), and anxiety (r = -0.22) domain scores. Percent predicted FEV1 score was significantly associated with PROMIS physical function scores (r = 0.27).ConclusionThis study provides support for the validity of the PROMIS measures in COPD patients.

James F Donohue Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Dear editor Roskell et al present a systematic review comparing the long-acting beta2 agonists (LABA), olodaterol, and indacaterol in the July edition of the International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.1 The end-points compared for the two LABAs were: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 12; quality of life analyzed by change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Quotient (SGRQ; total score and proportion of responders) at week 12; transition dyspnea index (TDI), analyzed by change from baseline at week 12; use of rescue medication, analyzed by change from baseline in average number of puffs per day; and proportion of patients experiencing at least one exacerbation, analyzed in trials with a treatment duration of 24 weeks or longer reporting data for this outcome. The authors conclude that olodaterol and indacaterol have similar efficacy in patients with COPD. Read the original article&nbsp

James F Donohue,1 Nancy Herje,2 Glenn Crater,2 Kathleen Rickard2 1Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2Aerocrine, Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA Objective: To characterize fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels that may be indicative of Th2-mediated airway inflammation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: This single-visit, outpatient study was conducted in 200 patients aged 40 years and older with COPD. All patients underwent spirometry and FeNO testing. COPD severity was classified according to the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2010 guidelines. Results: Patients who participated in the study had a mean age of 63.9±11.3 years and a mean smoking history of 46±29 pack years. Patients had a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted of 53.9%±22.1%. The percentage of patients classified with COPD severity Stage I, II, III, and IV was 13%, 40%, 39%, and 8%, respectively. In addition, according to current procedural terminology codes, 32% of patients were classified as mixed COPD/asthma, 26% as COPD/emphysema, and 42% as all other codes. The mean FeNO level for all patients was 15.3±17.2 parts per billion (ppb). Overall, 89% of patients had a FeNO <25 ppb, 8% had a FeNO 25–50 ppb, and 3% had a FeNO >50 ppb. The percentages of patients with FeNO in the intermediate or high ranges of FeNO were greatest among patients with mixed COPD/asthma (intermediate, 11.5%; high, 6.6%) compared with COPD/emphysema (intermediate, 8%; high, 0) and all other codes (intermediate, 6.3%; high, 1.3%). Conclusion: Increases in FeNO were identified in a subset of patients with COPD, particularly in those previously diagnosed with both COPD and asthma. Since FeNO is useful for identifying patients with airway inflammation who will have a beneficial response to treatment with an inhaled corti

George E Taffet,1 James F Donohue,2 Pablo R Altman31Geriatrics Section, Geriatrics and Cardiovascular Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, The Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, 2Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 3Medical Affairs, Mylan Specialty L.P., Basking Ridge, NJ, USAAbstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common in older people, with an estimated prevalence of 10% in the US population aged ≥75 years. Inhaled medications are the cornerstone of treatment for COPD and are typically administered by one of three types of devices, ie, pressurized metered dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, and nebulizers. However, age-related pulmonary changes may negatively influence the delivery of inhaled medications to the small airways. In addition, physical and cognitive impairment, which are common in elderly patients with COPD, pose special challenges to the use of handheld inhalers in the elderly. Health care providers must take time to train patients to use handheld inhalers and must also check that patients are using them correctly on a regular basis. Nebulizers should be considered for patients unable to use handheld inhalers properly. What follows is a review of issues associated with COPD and its treatment in the elderly patient.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, inhaler, device, cognition, disability, comorbidities, maintenance therapy

James F Donohue1, Dave Singh2, Oliver Kornmann3, David Lawrence4, Cheryl Lassen4, Benjamin Kramer5 1University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 2University of Manchester, Medicines Evaluation Unit, Manchester, UK; 3IKF Pneumologie GmbH and Co KG, Clinical Research Centre Respiratory Diseases, Frankfurt, Germany; 4Novartis Horsham Research Centre, Horsham, UK; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA Purpose: Pooled data were analyzed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of indacaterol, a once-daily inhaled long-acting ß2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients and methods: Data were pooled from clinical studies of 3–12 months’ duration in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD receiving double-blind indacaterol 75 µg (n = 449), 150 µg (n = 2611), 300 µg (n = 1157), or 600 µg once daily (n = 547); formoterol 12 µg twice daily (n = 556); salmeterol 50 µg twice daily (n = 895); placebo (n = 2012); or tiotropium 18 µg once daily, given open label or blinded (n = 1214). Outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events and deaths, plasma potassium, blood glucose, and QTc interval and vital signs. Results: The commonest adverse events with indacaterol were COPD worsening, nasopharyngitis, and headache; most cases were mild or moderate and incidence was generally similar to placebo and other active treatments. The risk of acute respiratory serious adverse events (leading to hospitalization, intubation, or death) was not significantly increased with any of the active treatments compared with placebo. COPD exacerbation rates (analyzed in the intent-to-treat population) were significantly reduced with all active treatments versus placebo. Hazard ratios versus placebo for major cardiovascular adverse events were <1 for all indacaterol doses. Notable values for vital signs and measures of systemic ß2-adr

Nicholas J Gross1, James F Donohue21Hines VA Hospital, Stritch Loyola School of Medicine, Hines, IL, USA; 2University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USAAbstract: A nebulized formulation of formoterol, Perforomist®, 20 μg/2 ml, has been available since 2007 for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We review the safety and efficacy data obtained during its development. In a dose-finding study, formoterol inhalation solution (FFIS) was similar to the formoterol originator, Foradil® 12 μg DPI (FA) in patients with COPD. In a 12-week efficacy study, FFIS manifested a rapid onset of action and FEV1 peak, AUC0–12, and trough levels similar to FA. No loss of efficacy, tachyphylaxis, was observed over 12 weeks of regular administration. In placebo-controlled studies in COPD patients receiving maintenance tiotropium, the addition of FFIS significantly augmented bronchodilation over the 6-week treatment duration, signifying that nebulized formoterol can further improve lung function in patients who are receiving tiotropium without an observed increase in adverse reactions. The safety profile of FFIS during 12-week and 1-year studies revealed adverse events that were similar to those of placebo and FA. Cardiac rhythm studies, including frequent ECGs and Holter monitoring, did not indicate any increase in rate or rhythm disturbances greater than placebo or FA. We conclude that maintenance use of Perforomist® is appropriate for patients with COPD who require or prefer a nebulizer for management of their disease.Keywords: long-acting bronchodilator, β-agonist, chronic bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema, Perforomist®, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Barbara P Yawn1, Douglas W Mapel2, David M Mannino3, Fernando J Martinez4, James F Donohue5, Nicola A Hanania6, Mark Kosinski7, Regina Rendas-Baum7, Matthew Mintz8, Steven Samuels9, Anand A Dalal10, On behalf of the Lung Function Questionnaire Working Group*1Olmsted Medical Center, Department of Research, Rochester, MN, USA; 2Lovelace Clinic Foundation, Albuquerque, NM, USA; 3University of Kentucky School of Medicine, Lexington, KT, USA; 4University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 5University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 6Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 7QualityMetric, Inc., Lincoln, RI, USA; 8George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; 9Indiana Internal Medicine Consultants, Greenwood, IN, USA; 10GlaxosmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; *The Lung Function Questionnaire Working Group includes Barbara P Yawn, Douglas W Mapel, David M Mannino, Fernando Martinez, James Donohue, Nicola Hanania, Matthew Mintz, and Steven SamuelsObjective: To describe the item-selection and item-reduction for the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ), being developed to help clinicians identify patients appropriate for diagnostic evaluation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using spirometry.Methods: Item selection and reduction were based on information from 387 ≥40-year-old respondents to the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey who had self-reported chronic bronchitis. Item reduction involved stepwise logistic regression. The accuracy of the final subset of items for identifying individuals with airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity <0.70) versus those without it was assessed with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Content and face validity were assessed using focus groups of primary care physicians (n = 16) and interviews with COPD patients (n = 16).Results: The model with all five items (age; smok