Search

Background: Little is known about factors that determine health status decline in clinical trials of COPD.Objectives: To examine health status changes over 3 years in the TORCH study of salmeterol+fluticasone propionate (SFC) vs. salmeterol alone, fluticasone propionate alone or placebo.Methods: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) was administered at baseline then every 6 months.Measurements and Main Results: Data from 4951 patients in 28 countries were available. SFC produced significant improvements over placebo in all three SGRQ domains during the study: (Symptoms -3.6 [95% CI -4.8, -2.4], Activity -2.8 [95% CI -3.9, -1.6], Impacts -3.2 [95% CI -4.3, -2.1]) but the pattern of change over time differed between domains. SGRQ deteriorated faster in patients with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stages III & IV relative to GOLD stage II (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the relationship between deterioration in SGRQ Total score and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) decline (as % predicted) in men and women. Significantly faster deterioration in Total score relative to FEV1 % predicted was seen in older patients (≥ 65 years) and there was an age-related change in Total score that was independent of change in FEV1. The relationship between deterioration in FEV1 and SGRQ did not differ in different world regions, but patients in Asia-Pacific showed a large improvement in score that was unrelated to FEV1 change.Conclusions: In addition to treatment effects, health status changes in clinical trials may be influenced by demographic and disease-related factors. Deterioration in health status appears to be fastest in older persons and those with severe airflow limitation.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00268216. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at high risk for lung cancer (LC) and represent a potential target to improve the diagnostic yield of screening programs., Objectives: To develop a predictive score for LC risk for patients with COPD., Methods: The Pamplona International Early Lung Cancer Detection Program (P-IELCAP) and the Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study (PLuSS) databases were analyzed. Only patients with COPD on spirometry were included. By logistic regression we determined which factors were independently associated with LC in PLuSS and developed a COPD LC screening score (COPD-LUCSS) to be validated in P-IELCAP., Measurements and Main Results: By regression analysis, age greater than 60, body mass index less than 25 kg/m(2), pack-years history greater than 60, and emphysema presence were independently associated with LC diagnosis and integrated into the COPD-LUCSS, which ranges from 0 to 10 points. Two COPD-LUCSS risk categories were proposed: low risk (scores 0-6) and high risk (scores 7-10). In comparison with low-risk patients, in both cohorts LC risk increased 3.5-fold in the high-risk category., Conclusions: The COPD-LUCSS is a good predictor of LC risk in patients with COPD participating in LC screening programs. Validation in two different populations adds strength to the findings.

The multidisciplinary treatment of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), which includes exercise training, self-management education, and psychosocial and nutritional intervention, is now a standard of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has been incorporated into major guidelines. We must now focus efforts on improving its impact and widening its applicability. What is the direction of PR; where does it fit in the comprehensive care of the COPD patient; and how can clinicians best apply this important intervention? This was the charge of the roundtable discussion, Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Moving Forward, involving 20 experts from North America and Europe, which was convened in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in early 2008. It is not meant to be an exhaustive review; rather, this report summarizes the roundtable proceedings, while providing direction to best position PR into the continuum of COPD care. By consensus, it was agreed upon that although PR is effective for other chronic respiratory diseases, the discussion focus was COPD since most of the evidence base and patient referral are for this disease. These proceedings provide insight into 3 broad areas appropriate for investigation or implementation: positioning PR in an integrated care model for COPD patients; improving the effectiveness of this intervention; and expanding the recognition, application, and accessibility to PR. It is the hope that this document will provide a catalyst for clinicians, investigators, and healthcare policy makers to help realize these goals as well as serve to suggest important areas for future research and development in PR.