Search

BackgroundImpulse oscillometry (IOS) allows an effort-independent evaluation of small airway function in asthma. Unfortunately, well-determined minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for IOS measures are lacking. Here, we provide MCIDs for frequently used IOS measures, namely frequency dependence of resistance (FDR) and area of reactance (AX), in patients with asthma.MethodsWe performed IOS at baseline and 1 year later in adult patients with mild-to-severe asthma (n=235). In a two-step approach, we first applied a distribution-based method to statistically determine the MCID. Next, we validated the proposed MCID according to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 (ACQ-7) and Asthma Control Test (ACT). We used multivariable analyses to investigate the proposed MCIDs as predictors for improvements in PROMs compared with the established MCID of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1).ResultsThe proposed MCID was a decline of ≥0.06 kPa·L−1·s−1and ≥0.65 kPa·L−1for FDR and AX, respectively. Patients who had changes beyond the MCIDs for both FDR and AX showed greater improvements in all PROMs than those who had not. The mean improvements in PROMs were beyond the established MCIDs for ACQ-7 and AQLQ, and approximated the MCID for ACT. Multivariable analyses demonstrated the MCIDs for both FDR and AX as independent predictors for the MCIDs of all PROMs. The MCID for FDR was a stronger predictor of all PROMs than the MCID for FEV1.ConclusionsThis study provides MCIDs for IOS-derived measures in adult patients with asthma and emphasises that small airway function is a distinguished end-point beyond the conventional measure of FEV1.

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate was compared with that of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with stable, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).AFFIRM COPD (Aclidinium and Formoterol Findings in Respiratory Medicine COPD) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study. Patients were randomised (1:1) to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice-daily via Genuair/Pressair or salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg twice-daily via Accuhaler. The primary end-point was peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 24. Other end-points included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24, TDI and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, COPD Assessment Test and SGRQ scores, assessment of COPD symptoms and exacerbations, use of reliever medication, and device preference. Adverse events were monitored throughout.In total, 933 patients were eligible (mean age 63.4 years, 65.1% male). Aclidinium/formoterol was superior to salmeterol/fluticasone in peak FEV1 and noninferior in TDI. Health status and reduction in exacerbation risk were similar in both groups. While both treatments were well tolerated, pneumonia occurred less frequently with aclidinium/formoterol than salmeterol/fluticasone.In stable COPD, aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved bronchodilation versus salmeterol/fluticasone, with equivalent benefits in symptom control and reduction in exacerbation risk. Both treatments were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events were less common with aclidinium/formoterol.

Aclidinium statistically improved symptoms, and sleep and physical activity in moderate COPD http://ow.ly/2chV30adLbW