Search

Background and Aims: Alpha‐1 antitrypsin deficiency is an inherited disorder caused by alpha‐1 antitrypsin (AAT) mutations. We analysed the association between alcohol intake and liver‐related parameters in individuals with the heterozygous/homozygous Pi*Z AAT variant (Pi*MZ/Pi*ZZ genotype) found in the United Kingdom Biobank and the European Alpha1 liver consortium. Methods: Reported alcohol consumption was evaluated in two cohorts: (i) the community‐based United Kingdom Biobank (17 145 Pi*MZ, 141 Pi*ZZ subjects, and 425 002 non‐carriers [Pi*MM]); and (ii) the European Alpha1 liver consortium (561 Pi*ZZ individuals). Cohort (ii) included measurements of carbohydrate‐deficient transferrin (CDT). Results: In both cohorts, no/low alcohol intake was reported by >80% of individuals, while harmful consumption was rare (~1%). Among Pi*MM and Pi*MZ individuals from cohort (i), moderate alcohol consumption resulted in a <30% increased rate of elevated transaminases and ~50% increase in elevated gamma‐glutamyl transferase values, while harmful alcohol intake led to an at least twofold increase in the abnormal levels. In Pi*ZZ individuals from both cohorts, moderate alcohol consumption had no marked impact on serum transaminase levels. Among Pi*ZZ subjects from cohort (ii) who reported no/low alcohol consumption, those with increased CDT levels more often had signs of advanced liver disease. Conclusions: Pi*MZ/Pi*ZZ genotype does not seem to markedly aggravate the hepatic toxicity of moderate alcohol consumption. CDT values might be helpful to detect alcohol consumption in those with advanced fibrosis. More data are needed to evaluate the impact of harmful alcohol consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Faster lung function impairment occurs earlier in the disease, particularly in mild-to-moderate COPD, highlighting the need for early and effective targeted interventions. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2024 report recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination in group B (0 or 1 moderate exacerbation not leading to hospitalization, modified Medical Research Council score of ⩾2, and COPD Assessment Test™ score of ⩾10) and E (⩾2 moderate exacerbations or ⩾1 exacerbation leading to hospitalization and blood eosinophil count <300 cells/µL) patients. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and reduced the use of rescue medications, exacerbation risk, and risk of first clinically important deterioration (CID), compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy. However, there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy in maintenance therapy–naïve patients. This review discusses the rationale for the early initiation of LAMA/LABA combination therapy in maintenance therapy–naïve patients with COPD. In post hoc analyses of pooled data from RCTs, compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy, LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function and quality of life and reduced COPD symptoms, risk of first moderate/severe exacerbation, risk of first CID, and use of rescue medication, with no new safety signals. In a real-world study, patients initiating LAMA/LABA had significantly reduced risk of COPD-related inpatient admissions and rate of on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admissions over 12 months than those initiating LAMA. Consequently, LAMA/LABA combination therapy could be considered the treatment of choice in maintenance therapy–naïve patients with COPD, as recommended by the GOLD 2024 report. Plain language summary: Long-acting bronchodilator combination therapy for the treatment of maintenance therapy–naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common lung disease that makes it hard to breathe and is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. This disease tends to worsen lung function from an early stage, especially in people who only have mild or moderate symptoms. To help stop the loss of lung function and maintain the quality of life for patients with COPD, two main types of long-lasting inhaler medications are used: one type focuses on relaxing the muscles around the airways, and the other type helps open the airways making it easier to breathe. Some medications combine these two types of action and are approved for long-term management of COPD. However, there is not much information on the effectiveness and safety of these combination medications in patients who have never taken long-lasting COPD medication before. Current health guidelines suggest starting these combination medications in patients who are likely to see their symptoms get worse quickly, and who do not have a high level of a specific type of white blood cell. In this review, we discuss the evidence for starting these combination treatments early in patients who have never used long-lasting COPD medications before. There is no strong evidence yet that shows starting treatment early benefits patients with newly diagnosed COPD. However, about 30% of patients in clinical trials designed to study the effectiveness of these combination medications, had never received any long-lasting treatment before. After-the-fact analyses of these patients showed that these combination medications could reduce symptoms such as breathlessness, improve lung function, enhance quality of life, lessen the need for emergency medications, and decrease the risk of severe symptom flare-ups. Overall, the evidence supports using these combination inhaler medications as the first choice of treatment for patients with moderate COPD symptoms who have not previously been treated with long-lasting inhalers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma can be treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) delivered by low climate impact inhalers (dry powder inhalers) or high climate impact inhalers (pressurized metered-dose inhalers containing potent greenhouse gasses). ICS delivered with greenhouse gasses is prescribed ubiquitously and frequent despite limited evidence of superior effect. Our aim was to examine the beneficial and harmful events of ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers in patients with asthma and COPD. Methods: Nationwide retrospective cohort study of Danish outpatients with asthma and COPD treated with ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers. Patients were propensity score matched by the following variables; age, gender, tobacco exposure, exacerbations, dyspnoea, body mass index, pulmonary function, ICS dose and entry year. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation with exacerbations and all-cause mortality analysed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of the 10,947 patients with asthma and COPD who collected ICS by low or high climate impact inhalers, 2,535 + 2,535 patients were propensity score matched to form the population for the primary analysis. We found no association between high climate impact inhalers and risk of exacerbations requiring hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR 1.02, CI 0.92–1.12, p = 0.77), nor on pneumonia, exacerbations requiring hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or all-cause admissions. Delivery with high climate impact inhalers was associated with a slightly increased risk of exacerbations not requiring hospitalization (HR 1.10, CI 1.01–1.21, p = 0.03). Even with low lung function there was no sign of a superior effect of high climate impact inhalers. Conclusion: Low climate impact inhalers were not inferior to high climate impact inhalers for any risk analysed in patients with asthma and COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, there is conflicting information and guidance on the effective management of Alpha 1 Antitrypsin Deficiency (AATD). Establishing a consensus of assessment and disease management specific to AATD is important for achieving a standardized treatment pathway and for improving patient outcomes. Here, we aim to utilize the Delphi method to establish a European consensus for the assessment and management of patients with severe AATD. Methods: Two rounds of a Delphi survey were completed online by members of the European Alpha-1 Research Collaboration (EARCO). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with proposed statements for patients with no respiratory symptoms, stable respiratory disease, and worsening respiratory disease using a Likert scale of 1–7. Levels of agreement between respondents were calculated using a weighted average. Results: Round 1 of the Delphi survey was sent to 103 members of EARCO and 38/103 (36.9%) pulmonologists from across 15 countries completed all 109 questions. Round 2 was sent to all who completed Round 1 and 36/38 (94.7%) completed all 79 questions. Responses regarding spirometry, body plethysmography, high-resolution computed tomography, and the initiation of augmentation therapy showed little variability among physicians, but there was discordance among other aspects, such as the use of low-dose computed tomography in both a research setting and routine clinical care. Conclusions: These results provide expert opinions for the assessment and monitoring of patients with severe AATD, which could be used to provide updated recommendations and standardized treatment pathways for patients across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is associated with an increased risk of emphysema. However, the clinical manifestations are very heterogeneous, and an individual prognosis is very difficult to establish. Intravenous augmentation therapy with alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) from pooled blood donors is the only specific treatment available, but it requires weekly or biweekly administration for life. Several guidelines provide the indication criteria for the initiation of AAT augmentation therapy. However, in clinical practice, there are situations in which the decision as to when to start treatment becomes uncertain and some studies have shown great variability in the indication of this treatment even among specialists. The usual dilemma is between initiating augmentation therapy in individuals who may not develop significant lung disease or in whom disease will not progress or delaying it in patients who may otherwise rapidly and irreversibly progress. We illustrate this dilemma with five clinical cases: from the case of a patient with normal lung function who requests initiation of therapy to a moderately stable patient without augmentation or a mild patient who, after several years of remaining stable without treatment, deterioration in lung function initiated and, consequently, augmentation therapy was begun. All the nuances associated with the indication of augmentation justify a personalised approach and the decision about initiating augmentation therapy must be made after careful consideration of the pros and cons with the patient in reference centres with experience in treatment. These reference centres can work in collaboration with local hospitals where patients can be closely followed and augmentation therapy can be administered to avoid unnecessary travelling, making periodical administrations more comfortable for the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the global impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), noting its high prevalence and the significant burden of undiagnosed cases. Topics include the limitations of current screening practices and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's stance against routine spirometry for asymptomatic individuals, despite evidence suggesting that at-risk populations could benefit from early detection.