Search

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The aim of this analysis was to describe the patterns of inhaled maintenance therapy according to risk level and to explore the determinants associated with the decision to prescribe inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to bronchodilator therapy according to risk level as strategy in the follow-up of COPD in daily clinical practice., Methods: EPOCONSUL 2021 is a cross-sectional audit that evaluated the outpatient care provided to patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in respiratory clinics in Spain with prospective recruitment between April 15, 2021 and January 31, 2022., Results: 4225 patients from 45 hospitals in Spain were audited. Risk levels were analyzed in 2678 patients. 74.5% of patients were classified as high risk and 25.5% as low risk according to GesEPOC criteria. Factors associated with the prescription of ICS in low-risk COPD were symptoms suggestive of asthma [OR: 6.70 (3.14-14.29), p<0.001], peripheral blood eosinophilia>300mm 3 [OR: 2.16 (1.10-4.24), p=0.025], and having a predicted FEV1%<80% [OR: 2.17 (1.15-4.08), p=0.016]. In high-risk COPD, factors associated with triple therapy versus dual bronchodilator therapy were a mMRC dyspnea score of ≥2 [OR: 1.97 (1.41-2.75), p<0.001], symptoms suggestive of asthma [OR: 6.70 (3.14-14.29), p<0.001], and a predicted FEV1%<50% [OR: 3.09 (1.29-7.41), p<0.011]., Conclusions: Inhaled therapy in the follow-up of COPD does not always conform to the current guidelines. Few changes in inhaled therapy are made at follow-up visits. The use of ICS is common in COPD patients who meet low-risk criteria in their follow-up and triple therapy in high-risk COPD patients is used as an escalation strategy in patients with high clinical impact. However, a history of exacerbations and eosinophil count in peripheral blood were not factors predicting triple therapy., (Copyright © 2023 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Inhaled bronchodilator therapy with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β 2 -agonists (LABAs) in combination is currently the mainstay of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Treatment guidelines recommend the addition of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to LABA/LAMA only in patients with a history of frequent/severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophil counts, or in those with concomitant asthma. Despite this, real-world data suggest that clinicians are not adhering to this guidance and that ICS are frequently overused. This is possibly due to the incorrect assumption that when LABA/LAMA therapy is not sufficient, adding an ICS to the treatment regimen is the logical next step. In this narrative review, we describe global and country-specific guideline recommendations from Germany, Spain, and Japan and compare these with real-world data on LABA/LAMA and ICS use in clinical practice. We also provide a clinical guide to the use of add-on therapies with LABA/LAMA for different patient phenotypes, including (1) patients still symptomatic (but not exacerbating) despite LABA/LAMA treatment; (2) patients still exacerbating despite LABA/LAMA treatment who have high blood eosinophil counts; and (3) patients still exacerbating despite LABA/LAMA treatment who do not have high blood eosinophils or concomitant asthma.

The best therapeutic approach to patients with asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap (ACO) is unknown. Current treatment recommendations rely on expert opinions, roundtable discussions, and strategy documents, because patients with ACO have been excluded from most clinical studies in asthma and COPD. Because of the underlying asthma initial therapy, early use of inhaled corticosteroids along with a long-acting bronchodilator is recommended. If maintenance inhaler therapy is not effective, advanced therapies based on phenotyping and identification of treatable traits may be considered., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr N. Hanania reports receiving consulting fees from GSK, Astra Zeneca, Sadslnofi, Regeneron, Teva, Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; his institution has received research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Teva, Genentech. M. Miravitlles has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Menarini, Rovi, Bial, Sandoz, Zambon, CSL Behring, Grifols, and Novartis; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Atriva Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Bial, Gebro Pharma, CSL Behring, Laboratorios Esteve, Ferrer, Mereo Biopharma, Verona Pharma, Spin Therapeutics, pH Pharma, Palobiofarma SL, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi, and Grifols; and research grants from Grifols., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Identifying the variables that guide decision-making in relation to the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can contribute to the appropriate use of these drugs. The objective of this study was to identify the clinical variables that physicians consider most relevant for prescribing or withdrawing ICS in COPD., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Spain from November 2020 to May 2021. Therapeutic decisions on the use of ICS in 11 hypothetical COPD patient profiles were collected using an online survey answered by specialists with experience in the management of patients with COPD. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of patients' characteristics in the therapeutic decision for prescribing ICS or proceeding to its withdrawal., Results: A total of 74 pulmonologists agreed to collaborate in the survey and answered the questionnaire. The results showed great variability, with only 2 profiles achieving consensus for starting or withdrawing the treatment. The frequency and severity of exacerbations influenced the decision to prescribe ICS in a dose-response fashion (1 exacerbation odds ratio (OR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.43, two exacerbations OR = 11.6, 95% CI: 4.47 to 30.2 and three OR = 123, 95% CI: 25 to 601). Similarly, increasing blood eosinophils and history of asthma were associated with ICS use. On the other hand, pneumonia reduced the probability of initiating treatment with ICS (OR = 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98]). Lung function and dyspnea degree did not influence the clinician's therapeutic decision. The results for withdrawal of ICS were similar but in the opposite direction., Conclusion: In accordance with guidelines, exacerbations, blood eosinophils and history of asthma or pneumonia are the factors considered by pulmonologist for the indication or withdrawal of ICS. However, the agreement in prescription or withdrawal of ICS when confronted with hypothetical cases is very low, suggesting a great variability in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. MM has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Menarini, Rovi, Bial, Sandoz, Zambon, Kamada, CSL Behring, Grifols and Novartis, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Atriva Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Bial, Gebro Pharma, CSL Behring, Laboratorios Esteve, Ferrer, Mereo Biopharma, Verona Pharma, Spin Therapeutics, ONO Pharma, pH Pharma, Palobiofarma SL, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi and Grifols and research grants from Grifols. FG has received economic compensation for consulting, lectures at various congresses and scientific training sessions, manuscript writing and support for attending meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Chiesi, Pfizer, Esteve and Rovi. CRR reports no disclosure related to this paper. XP has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Rovi and Chiesi. EMM has received economic compensation for consulting, lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, support for attending meetings, participation in data safety monitoring or advisory board from Boehringer Ingelheim, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Aflofarm, Bial, Chiesi, Meranini and GSK. CG has received economic compensation for consulting, support for attending meetings from Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Meranini, Ferrer and Teva. CA has received speaker fees and/or consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Faes farma, Esteve and GlaxoSmithKline. CF has received economic compensation by GOC Health Consulting for statistical analysis. SA has received economic compensation for support for attending meetings, other sessions and consulting from Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Menarini, GSK, Boeringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mundipharma, FAES, Pfizer and Teva. BA reports personal fees from GSK, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Laboratorios BIAL, Menarini, personal fees from Gebro, Astra- Zeneca, and Gilead, outside the submitted work. In addition, has a patent P201730724 pending. EN has received economic compensation for consulting, lectures, presentations, manuscript writing and educational events from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi and Glaxo Smith Kline. MB reports personal fees from Grifols, Menarini, CSL Behring, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2022 Miravitlles et al.)

The aim of this observational, retrospective study was to describe characteristics, treatment patterns, and adherence among patients with asthma who initiated multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in Catalonia, Spain. This study used data of patients initiating MITT in 2016 from the SIDIAP (Information System for Research in Primary Care) database, which covers ~80% of the Catalonian population (5.8 million). Of 1,204 patients initiating MITT, 361 (30.0%) stepped down (discontinued ≥ 1 and continued ≥1 MITT component) and 89 (7.4%) stopped all three components of MITT for a period of 60 days during the following 12 months. In the follow-up period, 196 (16.3%) patients were considered adherent to MITT (>0.8 proportion of days covered [PDC]), with a mean (standard deviation) PDC of 0.52 (0.51) days. Given the low adherence and substantial rates of step down/discontinuation among patients initiating MITT, there is an urgent need to implement strategies to improve treatment adherence/persistence., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are well-characterized diseases, they can coexist in a given patient. The term asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) was introduced to describe patients that have clinical features of both diseases and may represent around 25% of COPD patients and around 20% of asthma patients. Despite the increasing interest in ACO, there are still substantial controversies regarding its definition and its position within clinical guidelines for patients with obstructive lung disease. In general, most definitions indicate that ACO patients must present with non-reversible airflow limitation, significant exposure to smoking or other noxious particles or gases, together with features of asthma. In patients with a primary diagnosis of COPD, the identification of ACO has therapeutic implication because the asthmatic component should be treated with inhaled corticosteroids and some studies suggest that the most severe patients may respond to biological agents indicated for severe asthma. This manuscript aims to summarize the current state-of-the-art of ACO. The definitions, prevalence, and clinical manifestations will be reviewed and some innovative aspects, such as genetics, epigenetics, and biomarkers will be addressed. Lastly, the management and prognosis will be outlined as well as the position of ACO in the COPD and asthma guidelines., Competing Interests: Evgeni Mekov has received grants and personal fees from Chiesi, and speaker or consulting fees from Astra Zeneca and Chiesi. Alexa Nuñez is the recipient of a Rio Hortega contract in the 2019 Strategic Action Health Call from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III for the years 2020–2022. Don D. Sin has received honoraria for speaking engagements on COPD topics from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and has sat on advisory boards of AZ, Grifols and Nuvaira. Masakazu Ichinose has received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Kyorin and Novartis Pharma. Chin Kook Rhee reports personal fees from MSD and consulting/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer, outside the submitted work. Diego Jose Maselli reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi Regeneron GSK, Genentech, and Sunovion, during the conduct of the study. Andréanne Coté reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline personal fees from Sanofi Regeneron, and consulting and speaker fees on asthma topics from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. Charlotte Suppli Ulrik has received speaker fees and/or research grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, TEVA, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Actelion, Orion Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and ALK-Abello and has been on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme and TEVA. Francois Maltais reports grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi, Grifols, and Novartis, and personal fees for serving on speaker bureaus and consultation panels from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, and Novartis; he is financially involved with Oxynov, a company which is developing an oxygen delivery system. Antonio Anzueto has received consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols; GlaxoSmithKline, Verona Pharma, TEVA, Mylan/Theravance. Marc Miravitlles has received speaker/personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Menarini, Rovi, Bial, Sandoz, Zambon, CSL Behring, Grifols and Novartis, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Bial, Gebro Pharma, Kamada, CSL Behring, Laboratorios Esteve, Ferrer, Mereo Biopharma, Verona Pharma, TEVA, Spin Therapeutics, pH Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi and Grifols and research grants from Grifols. The authors reported no other potential conflicts of interest for this work., (© 2021 Mekov et al.)

Chronic airflow obstruction affects a wide range of airway diseases, the most frequent of which are asthma, COPD, and bronchiectasis; they are clearly identifiable in their extremes, but quite frequently overlap in some of their pathophysiological and clinical characteristics. This has generated the description of new mixed or overlapping disease phenotypes with no clear biological grounds. In this special article, a group of experts provides their perspective and proposes approaching the treatment of chronic airway disease (CAD) through the identification of a series of therapeutic goals (TG) linked to treatable traits (TT) - understood as clinical, physiological, or biological characteristics that are quantifiable using biomarkers. This therapeutic approach needs validating in a clinical trial with the strategy of identification of TG and treatment according to TT for each patient independently of their prior diagnosis., Competing Interests: Luis Perez de Llano declares to have received grants and/or fees for consultancy or speeches from Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, GSK, Teva, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, Sanofi, Menarini, Mundipharma, and Esteve, and reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, TEVA, and Chiesi, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, Novartis, Mundipharma and Boehringer, personal fees from Sanofi, other from Menarini, and personal fees from Esteve, BIAL, TECHDOW PHARMA, MSD, and ROVI S.A., outside the submitted work; Marc Miravitlles has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, AstraZeneca, Menarini, Rovi, Bial, Zambon, CSL Behring, Grifols, and Novartis; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ferrer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bial, Gebro Pharma, CSL Behring, Laboratorios Esteve, Ferrer, Mereo Biopharma, Verona Pharma, TEVA, pH Pharma, Novartis, and Grifols; and aid for research from GlaxoSmithKline and Grifols, and reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Menarini, Rovi, Bial, Sandoz, Zambon, CSL Behring, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Gebro Pharma, Kamada, Laboratorios Esteve, Ferrer, Mereo Biopharma, Verona Pharma, TEVA, Spin Therapeutics, pH Pharma, Sanofi and Grifols, and grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Grifols, outside the submitted work. Rafael Golpe declares that he has received speaking or advisory fees, or economic aid to attend congresses from Astra-Zeneca, GSK, Novartis, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Menarini, TEVA, Grifols, Ferrer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Rovi, and Gebro. Borja G Cosío declares he has received speaking or advisory fees, or economic aid to attend congresses from Astra-Zeneca, GSK, Novartis, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Menarini, TEVA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Rovi and reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Rovi, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini, Rovi, Zambon, Grifols, Novartis, Ferrer, Gebro Pharma, and Laboratorios Esteve, during the conduct of the study. Francisco Javier Alvarez-Gutiérrez declares that in the last 3 years he has received fees for advisory work, lectures, or subsidies to attend congresses and scientific meetings from ALK, AstraZeneca, BIal, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, and TEVA. Carolina Cisneros has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, TEVA, Menarini, Mundipharma, and Novartis; aid to attend congresses from Chiesi, TEVA, Menarini, and Mundipharma; and fees for advisory work from ALK, AstraZeneca, MundiPharma, TEVA, GSK, and Novartis, and reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from GSK and Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from TEVA, Menarini, Chiesi and Mundipharma, and personal fees from ALK, outside the submitted work. Carlos Almonacid declares to have received funding in the last 5 years from Astra-zeneca, GSK, Novartis, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Menarini, and TEVA, by way of aid to attend congresses, or as speaking or consulting fees, and reports grants and personal fees from GSK and AstraZeneca, personal fees from ALK, Novartis, Chiesy, and Mundipharma, and non-financial support from Menarini, outside the submitted work. Eva Martinez-Moragon declares to have received funding in the last 5 years from Astra-zeneca, GSK, ALK, Novartis, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Menarini, and TEVA, by way of aid to attend congresses, as speaking fees, or participation in scientific consultancy. Francisco-Javier Gonzalez-Barcala has received speaking fees or research grants from ALK, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Gebro Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Laboratorios Esteve, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Rovi, Roxall, Stallergenes-Greer, and Teva, and reports speaker fees, consulting fees or research grants from ALK, Astra-Zeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Gebro Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Laboratorios Esteve, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Rovi, Roxall, Stallergenes-Greer and Teva. David Ramos-Barbón reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis and Chiesi, non-financial support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, and personal fees from BIAL Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Vicente Plaza declares to have received, in the last 3 years, fees for participating as speaker at meetings sponsored by AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and Novartis, and as a consultant from ALK, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer, MundiPharma, and Sanofi; he received economic aid to attend congresses from AZ, Chiesi, and Novartis; and he received subsidies for research projects from AZ, Chiesi, and Menarini; and reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, grants from Menarini, and personal fees from Sanofi, Mundipharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck, outside the submitted work. Jose Luis López-Campos has received fees, in the last 3 years, for giving lectures, scientific consultancy, participation in clinical studies, or writing papers for (alphabetical order): AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Esteve, Ferrer, Gebro, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Menarini, Novartis, Rovi, and Teva, and reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Boehringer, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Menarini, and Novartis, personal fees from CSL Behring, Esteve, and Ferrer, grants and personal fees from GebroPharma, and personal fees from Rovi and Teva, outside the submitted work. Ciro Casanova has received fees for giving lectures, scientific consultancy, participation in clinical studies, or writing papers for (alphabetical order): AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Esteve, Gebro, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Rovi, and Teva, and reports non-financial support from Astra-Zeneca, personal fees from Bial, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi, Esteve, and Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, and grants and non-financial support from Menarini, outside the submitted work. Juan Luis Rodriguez Hermosa has received speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Gebro Pharma and reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Gebro, and Glaxo, outside the submitted work. Myriam Calle Rubio has received speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and Novartis; and consulting fees from GlaxoSmith¬Kline, Gebro Pharma, and Novartis, and reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Gebro, Glaxo, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. JJ Soler-Cataluña declares to have received fees for giving lectures, scientific consultancy, or participation in clinical studies on behalf of Air Liquide, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Esteve, Ferrer, GSK, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Rovi, Sandoz, and Teva and reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and GSK, grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Boehringer-Ingelheim and Novartis, and personal fees from Bial, Ferrer, Rovi, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Borja G Cosio reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, and GSK, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Mundipharma, and grants from Menarini, Teva, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Rovi, outside the submitted work. The rest of the authors declare they have no conflict of interests for this work. The rest of the authors declare they have no conflict of interests for this work., (© 2020 Pérez de Llano et al.)

Introduction: There is currently no universally accepted definition of asthma-COPD overlap (ACO)., Objective: To compare the prevalence of ACO in patients with asthma or COPD, and to assess their clinical characteristics and the capacity of the different definitions to predict the risk of exacerbation., Method: Prospective observational study with a 12-month follow-up in an asthma cohort and a COPD cohort. Four diagnostic criteria were compared: A) the Spanish 2012 consensus; B) the 2016 international consensus; C) the 2017 consensus between the Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC) and GEMA asthma guidelines; and D) the single criterion of ≥300eosinophils/μL, proposed by GOLD 2019. The risk of exacerbations was evaluated in each group., Results: A total of 345 patients were included, 233 (67.5%) with COPD and 112 (32.5%) with asthma, aged 63±14 years, 70.4% men. Fifteen (4.3%) patients met the criteria for ACO according to the criteria described under A above; 30 (8.7%) with the criteria of B; 118 (34.2%) with the criteria of C; and 97 (28.1%), with the D criterion. The ACO-COPD subtype were older, had worse lung function, and an increased risk of exacerbation compared with the ACO-asthma group. Of all the definitions evaluated, those which distinguished a higher risk of exacerbations were the GesEPOC-GEMA consensus and the GOLD proposal., Conclusions: The prevalence of ACO varies enormously depending on the diagnostic criteria used. The ACO population is heterogeneous, and the ACO-COPD subtype is very different from the ACO-asthma subtype. The definitions that include eosinophilia identify ACO patients with a greater risk of exacerbation., (Copyright © 2020. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

Rationale: Adults may exhibit characteristics of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a situation recently described as asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). There is a paucity of information about ACO in primary care. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence and describe characteristics of individuals with ACO in primary care practices among patients currently diagnosed with asthma, COPD, or both; and to compare the prevalence and characteristics of ACO among the three source populations. Methods: The Respiratory Effectiveness Group conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals ≥40 years old and with ≥2 outpatient primary care visits over a 2-year period in the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were classified into one of three source populations based on diagnostic codes: 1 ) COPD only, 2 ) both asthma and COPD, or 3 ) asthma only. ACO was defined as the presence of all of the following 1 ) age ≥40 years, 2 ) current or former smoking, 3) post-bronchodilator airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity <0.7), and 4 ) ≥12% and ≥200 ml reversibility in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Results: Among 2,165 individuals (1,015 COPD only, 395 with both asthma and COPD, and 755 asthma only), the overall prevalence of ACO was 20% (95% confidence interval, 18-23%). Patients with ACO had a mean age of 70 years (standard deviation, 11 yr), 60% were men, 73% were former smokers (the rest were current smokers), and 66% were overweight or obese. Comorbid conditions were common in patients with ACO, including diabetes (53%), cardiovascular disease (36%), hypertension (30%), eczema (23%), and rhinitis (21%). The prevalence of ACO was higher in patients with a diagnosis of both asthma and COPD (32%) compared with a diagnosis of COPD only (20%; P  < 0.001) or asthma only (14%; P  < 0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics of ACO varied across these three source populations. Conclusions: One in five individuals with a diagnosis of COPD, asthma, or both asthma and COPD in primary care settings have ACO based on the Respiratory Effectiveness Group ACO Working group criteria. The prevalence and characteristics of patients with ACO varies across the three source populations.

Objectives: Budesonide/formoterol (BF) Spiromax ® is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler, designed to minimise common inhaler errors and provide reliable and consistent dose delivery in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated non-inferiority of BF Spiromax after changing from another FDC inhaler, compared with continuing the original inhaler., Methods: Patients with asthma and/or COPD who switched to BF Spiromax were matched (1:3) with non-switchers. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving disease control (using the risk domain control (RDC) algorithm); secondary end points were: exacerbation rate, short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) use and treatment stability (achieved RDC; no maintenance treatment change). Non-inferiority was defined as having 95% CI lower bound above -10%, using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for relevant confounders., Results: Comparing 385 matched patients (asthma 253; COPD 132) who switched to BF Spiromax with 1091 (asthma 743; COPD 348) non-switchers, non-inferiority of BF Spiromax in RDC was demonstrated (adjusted difference: +6.6%; 95% CI -0.3 to 13.5). Among patients with asthma, switchers to BF Spiromax versus BF Turbuhaler ® reported fewer exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.76;95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; p=0.044); were less likely to use high daily doses of SABA (adjusted OR 0.71;95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; p=0.034); used fewer SABA inhalers (adjusted RR 0.92;95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; p=0.019); and were more likely to achieve treatment stability (adjusted OR 1.44;95% CI 1.02 to 2.04; p=0.037). No significant differences in these end points were seen among patients with COPD., Conclusions: Among UK patients with asthma and COPD, real-world use of BF Spiromax was non-inferior to BF Turbuhaler in terms of disease control. Among patients with asthma, switching to BF Spiromax was associated with reduced exacerbations, reduced SABA use and improved treatment stability versus continuing on BF Turbuhaler., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JV and VC are employees of OPRI, which has conducted paid research in respiratory disease on behalf of the following organisations in the past 5 years: Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Orion, Takeda, Teva, Zentiva (a Sanofi company). NR reports grants and personal fees from BoehringerIngelheim, Novartis, and personal fees from Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3M, Pfizer, Zambon, outside the presented work. HB is an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals. MvdT was an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV at the time the study was conducted. JFMvB has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, speaker fees from Menarini, research support from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca and Chiesi and travel support from the European COPD Coalition and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group. LB has during the last 3 years received honoraria to participate or to give lectures for the following companies: ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithklein, Novartis and Teva. MM declares no relevant competing interests. DBP has board membership with Aerocrine, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with Almirall, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service, Zentiva; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Skyepharma, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for manuscript preparation from Mundipharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Chiesi, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Zentiva; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia, Singapore and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and is peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Bronchiectasis is a clinical and radiological diagnosis associated with cough, sputum production and recurrent respiratory infections. The clinical presentation inevitably overlaps with other respiratory disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In addition, 4-72% of patients with severe COPD are found to have radiological bronchiectasis on computed tomography, with similar frequencies (20-30%) now being reported in cohorts with severe or uncontrolled asthma. Co-diagnosis of bronchiectasis with another airway disease is associated with increased lung inflammation, frequent exacerbations, worse lung function and higher mortality. In addition, many patients with all three disorders have chronic rhinosinusitis and upper airway disease, resulting in a complex "mixed airway" phenotype.The management of asthma, bronchiectasis, COPD and upper airway diseases has traditionally been outlined in separate guidelines for each individual disorder. Recognition that the majority of patients have one or more overlapping pathologies requires that we re-evaluate how we treat airway disease. The concept of treatable traits promotes a holistic, pathophysiology-based approach to treatment rather than a syndromic approach and may be more appropriate for patients with overlapping features.Here, we review the current clinical definition, diagnosis, management and future directions for the overlap between bronchiectasis and other airway diseases., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: E. Polverino reports personal fees from Bayer, Grifols, Insmed and Zambon, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: K. Dimakou has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Hurst has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.A. Martinez-Garcia reports personal fees from Bayer, Grifols, Zambon, Teva, AstraZeneca, GSK and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Miravitlles has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Paggiaro reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, personal fees from Guidotti, personal fees and non-financial support from Menarini, personal fees from Mundipharma, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Shteinberg reports having received research grants from Novartis and Trudell pharma; travel grants from Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK and Rafa; speaker's fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, AstraZeneca, Teva and Novartis; and is a member of the EMBARC collaboration. Conflict of interest: S. Aliberti reports grants and personal fees from Bayer Healthcare, grants and personal fees from Aradigm Corporation, grants and personal fees from Grifols, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Basilea, personal fees from Zambon, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Raptor, grants and personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Actavis UK Ltd, personal fees from Horizon, and grants and personal fees from INSMED, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.D. Chalmers reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, grants and personal fees from Grifols, grants and personal fees from Insmed, personal fees from Zambon, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants from AstraZeneca, and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)

Objectives: We aimed to characterize the clinical, functional and inflammatory features of patients diagnosed diagnosed with ACO according to a new algorithm and to compare them with those of other chronic obstructive airway disease (COAD) categories (asthma and COPD)., Methods: ACO was diagnosed in a cohort of COAD patients in those patients with COPD who were either diagnosed with current asthma or showed significant blood eosinophilia (≥300cells/μl) and/or a very positive bronchodilator response (>400ml and >15% in FEV1)., Results: Eighty-seven (29.8%) out of 292 patients fulfilled the ACO diagnostic criteria (12.8% asthmatics who smoked <20 pack-years, 100% of asthmatics who smoked ≥20 pack-years, 47.7% of COPD with >200eosinophils/μl in blood and none with non-eosinophilic COPD). ACO, asthma and COPD patients showed no differences in symptoms or exacerbation rate. Mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in ACO and asthma were similar (1741 vs 1771ml), higher than in COPD (1431ml, p<0.05). DLCO was lower in ACO than in asthma (68.1 vs 84.1%) and similar to COPD (64.5%). Mean blood eosinophil count was similar in ACO and asthma (360 vs 305cells/μl) and higher than in COPD (170cells/μl). Periostin levels were similar in ACO to COPD (36.6 and 36.5IU/ml) and lower than in asthma (41.5IU/ml, p<0.05), whereas FeNO levels in ACO were intermediate., Conclusion: This algorithm classifies as ACO all smoking asthmatics with non-fully reversible airway obstruction and a considerable proportion of e-COPD patients, highlighting those who can benefit from inhaled corticosteroids., (Copyright © 2017 SEPAR. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Although Asthma-COPD Overlap (ACO) has been described among populations of subjects with COPD or asthma, ACO has never been described among a population of subjects with occupational asthma (OA)., Objectives: The aims of this study were to: 1. identify ACO in a population of subjects with OA; and 2. compare the clinical characteristics between ACO and OA., Methods: This retrospective study included all subjects diagnosed with OA between 2000 and 2017 in an OA referral center. Occupational Asthma-COPD Overlap (OACO) was defined as post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 70% and smoking history ≥ 10 pack-years, along with a diagnosis of OA., Results: Three hundred and four subjects were included, 262 (86.2%) were classified as OA and 42 (13.8%) as OACO. OA subjects presented higher sputum eosinophil counts after a specific-inhalation challenge than subjects with OACO (median [IQR]: 6.5 [17.0] vs 2.3 [3.5]). After adjusting for confounding factors, subjects with OACO were older (OR: 1.10 [1.05; 1.14]) and were taking higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids than OA subjects (OR, 5.20 [1.77; 16.48]). Subjects with OACO were less often atopic than OA subjects (OR, 0.19 [0.07; 0.62])., Conclusions: Subjects with OACO constitute a distinct clinical and inflammatory phenotype from subjects with OA.

Introduction: The asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) is a clinical condition that combines features of those two diseases, and that is difficult to define due to the lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Determining systemic mediators may help clarify the nature of inflammation in patients with ACO., Objectives: We aimed at investigating the role and interaction of common markers of systemic inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-α), Th2-related markers (periostin, IL-5, and IL-13), and IL-17 in asthma, COPD, and ACO., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of patients aged ≥40 years with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in the first second/forced vital capacity <0.70 recruited from outpatient clinics in tertiary hospitals with a clinical diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or ACO. ACO was defined by a history of smoking >10 pack-years in a patient with a previous diagnosis of asthma or by the presence of eosinophilia in a patient with a previous diagnosis of COPD. Clinical, functional, and inflammatory parameters were compared between categories using discriminant and network analysis., Results: In total, 109 ACO, 89 COPD, and 94 asthma patients were included. Serum levels (median [interquartile range]) of IL-5 were higher in asthma patients than in COPD patients (2.09 [0.61-3.57] vs 1.11 [0.12-2.42] pg/mL, respectively; p =0.03), and IL-8 levels (median [interquartile range]) were higher in COPD patients than in asthma patients (9.45 [6.61-13.12] vs 7.03 [4.69-10.44] pg/mL, respectively; p <0.001). Their values in ACO were intermediate between those in asthma and in COPD. Principal component and network analysis showed a mixed inflammatory pattern in ACO in between asthma and COPD. IL-13 was the most connected node in the network, with different weights among the three conditions., Conclusion: Asthma and COPD are two different inflammatory conditions that may overlap in some patients, leading to a mixed inflammatory pattern. IL-13 could be central to the regulation of inflammation in these conditions., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr Pérez de Llano reports grants from SEPAR, during the conduct of the study, and grants and personal fees from Novartis, Chiesi, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr Cosío reports grants from SEPAR, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Chiesi, Rovi, Menarini, and Esteve, outside the submitted work. Dr Izquierdo reports and has received funds for advisory boards and lectures from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, Chiesi, and Menarini. Dr Soler-Cataluña reports grants from SEPAR, during the conduct of the study and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Rovi, Menarini, and Esteve, outside the submitted work. Dr Miravitlles reports personal fees from Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Teva, Grifols, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

Background: The Spanish Guidelines for COPD (GesEPOC) describe four clinical phenotypes: non-exacerbator (NE), asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACO), frequent exacerbator with emphysema (EE), and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis (ECB). The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of COPD phenotypes, their clinical characteristics, and the availability of diagnostic tools to classify COPD phenotypes in clinical practice., Materials and Methods: This study was an epidemiological, cross-sectional, and multi-centered study. Patients ≥40 years old with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 )/forced vital capacity ratio of <0.7 and who were smokers or former smokers (with at least 10 pack-years) were included. The availability of diagnostic tools to classify COPD phenotypes was assessed by an ad hoc questionnaire., Results: A total of 647 patients (294 primary care [PC], 353 pulmonology centers) were included. Most patients were male (80.8%), with a mean age (SD) of 68.2 (9.2) years, mean post-bronchodilator FEV 1 was 53.2% (18.9%) and they suffered a mean of 2.2 (2.1) exacerbations in the last year. NE was the most frequent phenotype (47.5%) found, followed by ECB (29.1%), EE (17.0%), and ACO (6.5%). Significant differences between the four phenotypes were found regarding age; sex; body mass index; FEV 1 ; body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE)/body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea and exacerbations (BODEx) index; modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale; respiratory symptoms; comorbidi-ties; hospitalizations; and exacerbations in the last year. Physicians considered that >80% of the diagnostic tools needed to classify COPD phenotypes were available, with the exception of computed tomography (26.9%) and carbon monoxide transfer test (13.5%) in PC, and sputum eosinophilia count in PC and pulmonology centers (40.4% and 49.4%, respectively)., Conclusion: In Spanish clinical practice, almost half of the patients with COPD presented with NE phenotype. The prevalence of ACO according to the Spanish consensus definition was very low. In general, physicians indicated that they had the necessary tools for diagnosing COPD phenotypes., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors meet the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship. Myriam Calle has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and Novartis. Marc Miravitlles has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Teva, Grifols, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Bayer Schering, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gebro Pharma, CLS Behring, Cipla, MediImmune, Mereo Biopharma, Teva, Novartis, and Grifols. Ricard Casamor is a full-time employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

Following a proposal by the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR), sponsor of the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) and the Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA), authors of both papers have unified the criteria for the diagnosis of asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). This consensus defines ACOS as the presence in a given patient of three elements: significant smoking exposure, chronic airflow limitation and asthma. Diagnosis is confirmed when a patient (35years of age or older), smoker or ex-smoker of more than 10 pack-years, presents airflow limitation (post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC<0.7) that persists after treatment with bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (even after systemic corticosteroids in selected cases), and an objective current diagnosis of asthma (according to GEMA criteria). In cases in which the diagnosis of asthma cannot be demonstrated, marked positive results on a bronchodilator test (FEV 1 ≥15% and ≥400mL) or elevated blood eosinophil count (≥300eosinophils/μL) will also be diagnostic of ACOS. The opinion of another 33 experts who had not participated in the consensus was sought using a modified Delphi survey. Up to 80% of respondents gave a very positive opinion of the consensus, and declared that it was better than other previous proposals. The GesEPOC-GEMA consensus on ACOS provides a unique perspective of the diagnostic problem, using a simple proposal and a pragmatic diagnostic algorithm that can be applied at any healthcare level., (Copyright © 2017 SEPAR. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

We aimed to describe the differences and similarities between patients with chronic obstructive airway disease classified on the basis of classical diagnostic labels (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or asthma-COPD overlap (ACOS)) or according to the underlying inflammatory pattern (Th-2 signature, either Th-2-high or Th-2-low).We performed a cross-sectional study of patients aged ≥40 years and with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity ratio ≤0.7 with a previous diagnosis of asthma (non-smoking asthmatics (NSA)), COPD or ACOS, the latter including both smoking asthmatics (SA) and patients with eosinophilic COPD (COPD-e). Clinical, functional and inflammatory parameters (blood eosinophil count, IgE and exhaled nitric oxide fraction ( F eNO )) were compared between groups. Th-2 signature was defined by a blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·μL -1 and/or a sputum eosinophil count ≥3%.Overall, 292 patients were included in the study: 89 with COPD, 94 NSA and 109 with ACOS (44 SA and 65 with COPD-e). No differences in symptoms or exacerbation rate were found between the three groups. With regards the underlying inflammatory pattern, 94 patients (32.2%) were characterised as Th-2-high and 198 (67.8%) as Th-2-low. The Th-2 signature was found in 49% of NSA, 3.3% of patients with COPD, 30% of SA and 49.3% of patients with COPD-e. This classification yielded significant differences in demographic, functional and inflammatory characteristics.We conclude that a classification based upon the inflammatory profile, irrespective of the taxonomy, provides a more clear distinction of patients with chronic obstructive airway disease., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com, (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

The asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome (ACOS) remains poorly characterised. Our aim was to describe an algorithm for identifying possible ACOS in adults with newly diagnosed COPD in primary care. General practitioners (n=241) consecutively recruited subjects ⩾35 years, with tobacco exposure, at least one respiratory symptom and no previous diagnosis of obstructive lung disease. Possible ACOS was defined as chronic airflow obstruction, i.e., post-bronchodilator (BD) forced expiratory volume 1/forced vital capacity (FEV 1 /FVC) ratio<0.70, combined with wheeze (ACOS wheeze) and/or significant BD reversibility (ACOS BD reversibility). Of 3,875 (50% females, mean age 57 years) subjects screened, 700 (18.1%) were diagnosed with COPD, i.e., symptom(s), tobacco exposure and chronic airflow obstruction. Indications for ACOS were found in 264 (38%) of the COPD patients. The prevalence of ACOS wheeze and ACOS BD reversibility was 27% (n=190) and 16% (n=113), respectively (P<0.001), and only 6% (n=39) of the COPD patients fulfilled both criteria for ACOS. Patients with any ACOS were younger (P=0.04), had more dyspnoea (P<0.001), lower FEV 1 %pred (67% vs. 74%; P<0.001) and lower FEV 1 /FVC ratio (P=0.001) compared with COPD-only patients. Comparing subjects fulfilling both criteria for ACOS with those fulfilling criteria for ACOS wheeze only (n=151) and those fulfilling criteria for ACOS BD reversibility only (n=74) revealed no significant differences. Irrespective of the applied ACOS definition, no significant difference in life-time tobacco exposure was found between ACOS- and COPD-only patients. In subjects with a new diagnosis of COPD, the prevalence of ACOS is high. When screening for COPD in general practice among patients with no previous diagnosis of obstructive lung disease, patients with possible ACOS may be identified by self-reported wheeze and/or BD reversibility.

Patients with asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS) have been largely excluded from pivotal therapeutic trials and, as a result, its treatment remains poorly defined and lacking firm evidence. To date, there is no universally accepted definition of ACOS, which has made it difficult to understand its epidemiology or pathophysiology. Despite many uncertainties, there is emerging agreement that some of the key features of ACOS include persistent airflow limitation in symptomatic individuals 40 years of age and older, a well-documented history of asthma in childhood or early adulthood and a significant exposure history to cigarette or biomass smoke. In this perspective, we propose a case definition of ACOS that incorporates these key features in a parsimonious algorithm that may enable clinicians to better diagnose patients with ACOS and most importantly enable researchers to design therapeutic and clinical studies to elucidate its epidemiology and pathophysiology and to ascertain its optimal management strategies., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)

Background: Some patients share characteristics of both COPD and asthma. As yet, there is no gold standard to identify patients with the so-called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS)., Objective: To describe the differences between ACOS patients and the remaining COPD patients, and to compare the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with ACOS by two different criteria: previous diagnosis of asthma before the age of 40 years; and the diagnostic criteria of the Spanish guidelines of COPD., Methods: Multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study performed in 3,125 COPD patients recruited in primary care and specialized outpatient clinics. Patients with COPD and a history of asthma before the age of 40 years were diagnosed with ACOS and compared to the remaining COPD patients. Subsequently, ACOS patients were subdivided based on whether they fulfilled the Spanish guidelines of the COPD diagnostic criteria or not, and they were compared., Results: ACOS was diagnosed in 15.9% of the patients. These patients had different basal characteristics compared to the remaining COPD patients, including a higher frequency of women and more exacerbations despite lower tobacco exposure and better lung function. They were more likely to have features of asthma, such as a positive bronchodilator test, higher peripheral eosinophilia, and higher total immunoglobulin E. Within the ACOS group, only one-third fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of the Spanish guidelines of COPD; these individuals were not significantly different from the remaining ACOS patients, except for having more exacerbations and poorer lung function., Conclusion: ACOS patients diagnosed on the basis of a previous diagnosis of asthma differed from the remaining COPD patients, but they were similar to ACOS patients diagnosed according to more restrictive criteria, suggesting that a history of asthma before the age of 40 years could be a useful criterion to suspect ACOS in a patient with COPD.

Background: Some patients with COPD may share characteristics of asthma; this is the so-called asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). There are no universally accepted criteria for ACOS, and most treatments for asthma and COPD have not been adequately tested in this population., Materials and Methods: We performed a survey among pulmonology specialists in asthma and COPD aimed at collecting their opinions about ACOS and their attitudes in regard to some case scenarios of ACOS patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire and attended a face-to-face meeting with the Metaplan methodology to discuss different aspects of ACOS., Results: A total of 26 pulmonologists with a mean age of 49.7 years participated in the survey (13 specialists in asthma and 13 in COPD). Among these, 84.6% recognized the existence of ACOS and stated that a mean of 12.6% of their patients might have this syndrome. In addition, 80.8% agreed that the diagnostic criteria for ACOS are not yet well defined. The most frequently mentioned characteristics of ACOS were a history of asthma (88.5%), significant smoking exposure (73.1%), and postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity <0.7 (69.2%). The most accepted diagnostic criteria were eosinophilia in sputum (80.8%), a very positive bronchodilator test (69.2%), and a history of asthma before 40 years of age (65.4%). Up to 96.2% agreed that first-line treatment for ACOS was the combination of a long-acting β2-agonist and inhaled steroid, with a long-acting antimuscarinic agent (triple therapy) for severe ACOS., Conclusion: Most Spanish specialists in asthma and COPD agree that ACOS exists, but the diagnostic criteria are not yet well defined. A previous history of asthma, smoking, and not fully reversible airflow limitation are considered the main characteristics of ACOS, with the most accepted first-line treatment being long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroids.

Purpose of Review: Some individuals share characteristics of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) has been defined as symptoms of increased variability of airflow in association with an incompletely reversible airflow obstruction. In this review, we present the latest findings in the diagnosis, characterization and management of ACOS., Recent Findings: Around 15-20% of COPD patients may have an ACOS. Patients with ACOS are characterized by increased reversibility of airflow obstruction, eosinophilic bronchial and systemic inflammation, and increased response to inhaled corticosteroids, compared with the remaining patients with COPD. Patients with ACOS have more frequent exacerbations, more wheezing and dyspnoea, but similar cough and sputum production compared with COPD., Summary: The relevance of the ACOS is to identify patients with COPD who may have underlying eosinophilic inflammation that responds to inhaled corticosteroids. So far, the previous diagnosis of asthma in a patient with COPD is the more reliable criterion for ACOS. Ongoing studies will clarify if concentrations of blood eosinophils may be useful to identify this subgroup of patients with COPD. If this is the case, the interest of ACOS may shift to that of eosinophilic COPD, which is easier to diagnose and has clear therapeutic implications.

Background: Patients with COPD may share some clinical characteristics with asthma sufferers. This phenotypic overlap between COPD and asthma is not yet well characterised., Method: We have analysed data from the EPI-SCAN study, an epidemiological, population-based study in Spain that included 3885 (40 to 80-year-old) subjects in order to investigate the clinical and systemic inflammatory characteristics of COPD patients previously diagnosed with asthma. Generic and COPD-specific quality of life, as well as physical activity, were also assessed through standardised and validated questionnaires., Results: A total of 385 (10.1%) subjects were diagnosed with COPD, 67 (17.4%) being classified with the COPD-asthma overlap phenotype. Such patients were more likely to have dyspnea and wheezing (p<0.001 in both comparisons) and more frequent exacerbations (p<0.001). No differences in systemic inflammatory markers were observed except for lower NOx concentrations in overlap patients (p=0.013). This overlap phenotype significantly worsened specific quality of life (11.1 units on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), 95%CI: 4.88-17.36) and reduced physical activity (3.49 units on the London Chest Activities of Daily Living (LCADL) scale, 95%CI: 1.06-5.94)., Conclusions: In this population-based study, 17.4% of the individuals identified with COPD had an overlap COPD-asthma phenotype. This patient subgroup had more dyspnea, wheezing, exacerbations, worse respiratory-specific quality of life, and reduced levels of physical activity. Specific interventions may be required to adequately care for this subgroup of patients., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease update has moved the principles of treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) forward by including the concepts of symptoms and risks into the decision of therapy. However, no mention of the concept of clinical phenotypes is included. It is recognised that COPD is a very heterogeneous disease and not all patients respond to all drugs available for treatment. The identification of responders to therapies is crucial in chronic diseases to provide the most appropriate treatment and avoid unnecessary medications. The classically defined phenotypes of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, together with the newly described phenotypes of overlap COPD-asthma and frequent exacerbator, allow a simple classification of patients that share clinical characteristics and outcomes and, more importantly, similar responses to existing treatments. These clinical phenotypes can help clinicians identify patients that respond to specific pharmacological interventions. For example, frequent exacerbators are the only subjects with an indication for anti-inflammatory treatment in COPD. Among them, those with chronic bronchitis are the only candidates to receive phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. Patients with overlap COPD-asthma phenotype show an enhanced response to inhaled corticosteroids and infrequent exacerbators should only receive bronchodilators. These well-defined clinical phenotypes could potentially be incorporated into treatment guidelines.

Introduction: Although asthma and COPD are different pathologies, many patients share characteristics from both entities. These cases can have different evolutions and responses to treatment. Nevertheless, the evidence available is limited, and it is necessary to evaluate whether they represent a differential phenotype and provide recommendations about diagnosis and treatment, in addition to identifying possible gaps in our understanding of asthma and COPD., Methods: A nation-wide consensus of experts in COPD in two stages: 1) during an initial meeting, the topics to be dealt with were established and a first draft of statements was elaborated with a structured "brainstorming" method; 2) consensus was reached with two rounds of e-mails, using a Likert-type scale., Results: Consensus was reached about the existence of a differential clinical phenotype known as"Overlap Phenotype COPD-Asthma", whose diagnosis is made when 2 major criteria and 2 minor criteria are met. The major criteria include very positive bronchodilator test (increase in FEV(1) ≥ 15% and ≥ 400ml), eosinophilia in sputum and personal history of asthma. Minor criteria include high total IgE, personal history of atopy and positive bronchodilator test (increase in FEV(1) ≥ 12% and ≥ 200ml) on two or more occasions. The early use of individually-adjusted inhaled corticosteroids is recommended, and caution must be taken with their abrupt withdrawal. Meanwhile, in severe cases the use of triple therapy should be evaluated. Finally, there is an obvious lack of specific studies about the natural history and the treatment of these patients., Conclusions: It is necessary to expand our knowledge about this phenotype in order to establish adequate guidelines and recommendations for its diagnosis and treatment., (Copyright © 2011 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma treatment must be based on appropriate diagnosis. However, patients receiving inhaled therapy in primary care may not be accurately diagnosed according to current guidelines., Aim: To analyse the characteristics of patients treated with inhaled medication, the concordance of tools for differential diagnosis, and the adequacy of prescription of inhaled corticosteroids (ICs) in primary care., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional, multicentre, non-interventional study conducted in 10 primary care centres in Barcelona, Spain., Method: Patients with chronic respiratory disease, aged >40 years were treated with ICs. They provided sociodemographic and clinical information and performed forced spirometry with a bronchodilator test (BDT). The diagnostic accuracy of asthma and COPD diagnoses were tested using two differential diagnosis questionnaires., Results: A total of 328 patients were initially classified as having COPD (64.8%), asthma (15.4%), or indeterminate (19.8%) by their GPs. After spirometry, 40% of patients had moderate-severe airflow obstruction according to the GOLD classification; mean reversibility of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 8.4%; 18.6% had a positive BDT; and 39.8% had post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity >0.7. Concordance of the differential diagnosis tools was moderate (clinical diagnosis versus spirometry and between the two questionnaires), low (clinical diagnosis versus questionnaires), and very low (spirometry versus differential diagnosis). Of the patients diagnosed with COPD, 71.4% were treated with ICs, and 12% of those classified as having asthma were not receiving ICs., Conclusion: Most patients can be classified as having COPD or asthma by primary care physicians. The use of the two questionnaires did not provide a better differential diagnostic compared with symptoms and spirometry with a BDT. Misdiagnosis may lead to inadequate treatment.

Objective: To describe the approach to asthma exacerbations in a primary care centre in comparison with current guidelines and to ascertain the resolution of the episodes., Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study was performed in asthmatic patients over 14 years old who were consulting for asthma exacerbations in a primary care centre during a 6-month period. The treatment given and the resolution obtained were evaluated., Results: One hundred and twenty-three asthma exacerbations were registered, corresponding to 96 patients. A total of 74% were mild exacerbations, 24.4% moderate and 1.6% severe. The severity of asthma correlated directly with the severity of exacerbations. The frequency of resolution was 98.4%, with an average duration of medical attention of 30 min (SD 16.5). According to guidelines, 60.2% of the mild exacerbations were well treated, as were 26.7% of the moderate exacerbations and none of the severe episodes. Peak expiratory flow was measured in 54.5% of patients. In 82 cases (66.6%) salbutamol was given with a large-volume spacer chamber. Treatment after discharge was correct in 27.3% of the mild and 23.3% of the moderate exacerbations. A total of 23 (23.9%) patients presented more than one exacerbation during the study period., Conclusions: Most exacerbations seen in primary care are mild. Administration of salbutamol was sufficient for the resolution of these exacerbations. However, treatment after discharge was not compliant with guidelines in most cases. The primary care team was able to resolve most of the asthma exacerbations.

Background: Control has been proposed as a dynamic tool that can capture changes in the clinical status of patients with COPD.Methods: This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare changes in control over a 3-month period with changes in risk level, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, and clinical phenotype (nonexacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap, or exacerbator with emphysema or with chronic bronchitis). Control was defined as the presence of low clinical impact, assessed according to the degree of dyspnea, use of rescue medication, physical activity and sputum color, and clinical stability assessed by clinical changes and exacerbations in the last 3 months. Impact and stability were alternatively assessed with COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores.Results: We included 354 patients, with a mean FEV1 of 49.8% ± 16.9%. At 3 months, the proportion of controlled patients was 50.3% according to clinical evaluation and 47.8% according to CAT score. Eighty-seven patients (29.2%) changed their control status as assessed by clinical variables, and 85 patients (28.5%) changed their status according to CAT score. In contrast, the risk level only changed in 26 patients (8.7%) (P < .001), 27 patients (9.1%) experienced changes in their clinical phenotype (P < .001), and 59 patients (19.8%) experienced changes in their GOLD stage (P = .008). Patients who showed an improvement in control status had better CAT scores at the end of follow-up (P < .001).Conclusions: In only 3 months, almost one-third of patients experienced changes in their control status. Changes in control status were significantly more frequent than changes in phenotype, risk level, and GOLD stage, and resulted in significant changes in health status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of mortality around the world. COPD is characterised by a heterogeneous clinical presentation and prognosis which may vary according to the clinical phenotype. One of the phenotypes of COPD most frequently studied is the asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), however, there are no universally accepted diagnostic criteria for ACO. It is recognised that the term ACO includes patients with clinical features of both asthma and COPD, such as more intense eosinophilic bronchial inflammation, more severe respiratory symptoms and more frequent exacerbations, but in contrast, it is associated with a better prognosis compared to COPD. More importantly, ACO patients show better response to inhaled corticosteroid treatment than other COPD phenotypes. The diagnosis of ACO can be difficult in clinical practice, and the identification of these patients can be a challenge for non-specialized physicians. We describe how to recognise and diagnose ACO based on a recently proposed Spanish algorithm and by the analysis of three clinical cases of patients with COPD. The diagnosis of ACO is based on the diagnosis of COPD (chronic airflow obstruction in an adult with significant smoking exposure), in addition to a current diagnosis of asthma and/or signficant eosinophilia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is the most common hereditary disorder in adults, but is under-recognized. In Spain, the number of patients diagnosed with AATD is much lower than expected according to epidemiologic studies. The objectives of this study were to assess the frequency and determinants of testing serum α1-antitrypsin (AAT) levels in COPD patients, and to describe factors associated with testing. Methods: EPOCONSUL is a cross-sectional clinical audit, recruiting consecutive COPD cases over one year. The study evaluated serum AAT level determination in COPD patients and associations between individual, disease-related, and hospital characteristics. Results: A total of 4,405 clinical records for COPD patients from 57 Spanish hospitals were evaluated. Only 995 (22.5%) patients had serum AAT tested on some occasion. A number of patient characteristics (being male [OR 0.5, p < 0.001], ≤55 years old [OR 2.38, p<0.001], BMI≤21 kg/m2 [OR 1.71, p<0.001], FEV1(%)<50% [OR 1.35, p<0.001], chronic bronchitis [OR 0.79, p < 0.001], Charlson index ≥ 3 [OR 0.66, p < 0.001], or history or symptoms of asthma [OR 1.32, p<0.001]), and management at a specialized COPD outpatient clinic [OR 2.73,p<0.001] were identified as factors independently associated with ever testing COPD patients for AATD. Overall, 114 COPD patients (11.5% of those tested) had AATD. Of them, 26 (22.8%) patients had severe deficiency. Patients with AATD were younger, with a low pack-year index, and were more likely to have emphysema (p<0.05). Conclusion: Testing of AAT blood levels in COPD patients treated at outpatient respiratory clinics in Spain is infrequent. However, when tested, AATD (based on the serum AAT levels ≤100 mg/dL) is detected in one in five COPD patients. Efforts to optimize AATD case detection in COPD are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study assessed the adherence profiles to inhaled therapies and the agreement between two patient self-report adherence methods in stable COPD lpatients from seven Latin American countries. Methods: This observational, cross-sectional, multinational, multicenter study involved 795 COPD patients (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC] <0.70). Adherence to inhaled therapy was assessed using the specific Test of Adherence to Inhalers (10-item TAI) and the generic 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) questionnaires. The percentage agreement and the kappa index were used to compare findings. Results: 59.6% of patients were male (69.5±8.7 years); post-bronchodilator FEV1 percent predicted was 50.0±18.6%. Mean values for 10-item TAI and MMAS-8 questionnaires were 47.4±4.9 and 6.8±1.6, respectively. Based on the TAI questionnaire, 54.1% of patients had good, 26.5% intermediate, and 19.4% poor adherence. Using the MMAS-8 questionnaire, 51% had high, 29.1% medium, and 19.9% low adherence. According to both questionnaires, patients with poor adherence had lower smoking history, schooling but higher COPD Assessment Test score, exacerbations in the past-year and post-bronchodilator FEV1. The agreement between 10-item TAI and MMAS-8 questionnaires was moderate (Kappa index: 0.42; agreement: 64.7%). Conclusion: Suboptimal adherence to medication was frequent in COPD patients from Latin America. Low adherence was associated with worse health status impairment and more exacerbations. There was inadequate agreement between the two questionnaires. Greater effort should be made to improve COPD patients’ adherence to treatment, and assessment of adherence with more specific instruments, such as the TAI questionnaire, would be more convenient in these patients. Clinical Trial Registration: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition) is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica (SEPAR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents one of the main causes of death worldwide. It affects hundreds of millions of people and is likely to spread further in the coming years. Despite the chronic nature of the disease and the proven efficacy of current therapies, treatment nonadherence is unfortunately common and too often related to treatment failure, disease exacerbations, hospitalizations, and high healthcare costs. At present, studies aimed to assess and improve patients' adherence in chronic respiratory diseases—and especially in COPD—are limited, but a review of the few data available makes it clear that there is a need for an innovative approach that leverages health technology to encourage patients to adhere to prescribed chronic treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Few studies have investigated the 24-hour symptom profile in patients with COPD or how symptoms during the 24-hour day are inter-related. This observational study assessed the prevalence, severity and relationship between night-time, early morning and daytime COPD symptoms and explored the relationship between 24-hour symptoms and other patient-reported outcomes. Methods: The study enrolled patients with stable COPD in clinical practice. Baseline night-time, early morning and daytime symptoms (symptom questionnaire), severity of airflow obstruction (FEV1), dyspnoea (modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale), health status (COPD Assessment Test), anxiety and depression levels (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), sleep quality (COPD and Asthma Sleep Impact Scale) and physical activity level (sedentary, moderately active or active) were recorded. Results: The full analysis set included 727 patients: 65.8% male, mean ± standard deviation age 67.2 ± 8.8 years, % predicted FEV1 52.8 ± 20.5%. In each part of the 24-hour day, >60% of patients reported experiencing ⩾1 symptom in the week before baseline. Symptoms were more common in the early morning and daytime versus night-time (81.4%, 82.7% and 63.0%, respectively). Symptom severity was comparable for each period assessed. Overall, in the week before baseline, 56.7% of patients had symptoms throughout the whole 24-hour day (3 parts of the day); 79.9% had symptoms in ⩾2 parts of the 24-hour day. Symptoms during each part of the day were inter-related, irrespective of disease severity (all p < 0.001). Early morning and daytime symptoms were associated with the severity of airflow obstruction (p < 0.05 for both). Nighttime, early morning and daytime symptoms were all associated with worse dyspnoea, health status and sleep quality, and higher anxiety and depression levels (all p < 0.001 versus patients without symptoms in each corresponding period). In each part of the 24-hour day, there was also an association between symptoms and a patient's physical activity level (p < 0.05 for each period). Conclusions: More than half of patients experienced COPD symptoms throughout the whole 24-hour day. There was a significant relationship between night-time, early morning and daytime symptoms. In each period, symptoms were associated with worse patient-reported outcomes, suggesting that improving 24-hour symptoms should be an important consideration in the management of COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition) is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica (SEPAR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition) is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica (SEPAR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)