Search

Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major reason for consultations in primary care, hospital admissions, deterioration in function, and mortality. Despite the majority of exacerbations not being caused by bacteria, as many as 70% of patients who present in UK primary care with AECOPD are prescribed antibiotics as part of standard care. However, finding effective non-antibiotic treatments for COPD exacerbations is a priority to reduce antibiotic use. The Chinese herbal medicine Shufeng Jiedu® (SFJD) has the potential to reduce treatment failure and duration of hospital stay. This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a fully powered randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on SFJD for AECOPD in UK primary care. Methods: This study is a phase III, two-arm individually double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial with nested qualitative study, coordinated by the Southampton Clinical Trial Unit (SCTU). Patients aged ≥ 40 years, with a current AECOPD, presenting with increased sputum purulence/volume, or breathlessness, and for whom the GP is considering use of antibiotics, will be eligible to participate. We aim to recruit seven eligible participants per month and randomise them to receive either the patent Chinese herbal medicine SFJD capsules or placebo for 14 consecutive days and to follow-up for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes include the feasibility of recruitment, study retention, and the percentage of diary completion. Discussion: If this trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment, delivery, and follow-up, we will seek funding for a fully powered placebo-controlled trial of SFJD for the treatment of AECOPD in primary care. Trial registration: This trial is registered via ISRCTN on 1 July 2021, identifier: ISRCTN26614726. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease.Methods: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% predicted, FEV1/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers.Discussion: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally.Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) through PCSK9 inhibition represents a new therapeutic approach to preventing and treating cardiovascular disease (CVD). Phenome-wide analyses of PCSK9 genetic variants in large biobanks can help to identify unexpected effects of PCSK9 inhibition., Methods and Results: In the prospective China Kadoorie Biobank, we constructed a genetic score using three variants at the PCSK9 locus associated with directly measured LDL-C [PCSK9 genetic score (PCSK9-GS)]. Logistic regression gave estimated odds ratios (ORs) for PCSK9-GS associations with CVD and non-CVD outcomes, scaled to 1 SD lower LDL-C. PCSK9-GS was associated with lower risks of carotid plaque [n = 8340 cases; OR = 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.45-0.83); P = 0.0015], major occlusive vascular events [n = 15 752; 0.80 (0.67-0.95); P = 0.011], and ischaemic stroke [n = 11 467; 0.80 (0.66-0.98); P = 0.029]. However, PCSK9-GS was also associated with higher risk of hospitalization with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD: n = 6836; 1.38 (1.08-1.76); P = 0.0089] and with even higher risk of fatal exacerbations amongst individuals with pre-existing COPD [n = 730; 3.61 (1.71-7.60); P = 7.3 × 10-4]. We also replicated associations for a PCSK9 variant, reported in UK Biobank, with increased risks of acute upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) [pooled OR after meta-analysis of 1.87 (1.38-2.54); P = 5.4 × 10-5] and self-reported asthma [pooled OR of 1.17 (1.04-1.30); P = 0.0071]. There was no association of a polygenic LDL-C score with COPD hospitalization, COPD exacerbation, or URTI., Conclusion: The LDL-C-lowering PCSK9 genetic variants are associated with lower risk of subclinical and clinical atherosclerotic vascular disease but higher risks of respiratory diseases. Pharmacovigilance studies may be required to monitor patients treated with therapeutic PCSK9 inhibitors for exacerbations of respiratory diseases or respiratory tract infections., Lay Summary: Genetic analyses of over 100 000 participants of the China Kadoorie Biobank, mimicking the effect of new drugs intended to reduce cholesterol by targeting the PCSK9 protein, have identified potential severe effects of lower PCSK9 activity in patients with existing respiratory disease.PCSK9 genetic variants that are associated with lower cholesterol and reduced rates of cardiovascular disease are also associated with increased risk of a range of respiratory diseases, including asthma, upper respiratory tract infections, and hospitalization with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).These genetic variants are not associated with whether or not individuals have COPD; instead, they are specifically associated with an increase in the chance of those who already have COPD being hospitalized and even dying, suggesting that careful monitoring of such patients should be considered during development of and treatment with anti-PCSK9 medication., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford (CTSU) is co-ordinating a PCSK9 phase III cardiovascular outcome trial (ORION 4). M.V.H. has collaborated with Boehringer Ingelheim in research, and in accordance with the policy of CTSU did not accept any personal payment. M.V.H. was at the University of Oxford when this work was conducted and is presently employed by 23andMe and holds stock in 23andMe., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Patients with COPD experience acute worsenings, termed 'exacerbations'. While other terms to describe these events have been proposed there is no consensus on terminology which has led to multiple terms being used across the UK. Respiratory nurses are part of a multi-disciplinary team managing COPD patients, however, the nursing perspective on the term 'exacerbation' is unknown.Methods: An anonymised survey of 17 questions was sent to respiratory nurses through an email invitation link. The survey link was open for one month. The aim was to understand the nurse perspective on 'exacerbation'. Alternative terms used in the UK were compared versus the term 'exacerbation'.Results: Responses were received from 113 nurses. The majority (88%) were female. There was no consensus on preference or meaning for the term 'exacerbation' between nurses. Less than 5% of nurses thought that patients with COPD would understand the term 'exacerbation'. In ranked order, the nurses preferred the following terms: 'flare-up', 'lung attack', 'crisis', 'exacerbation' and 'chest infection'. The term 'crisis', although new, was considered to be the term that most resonated with clinical practice.Conclusion: Respiratory nurses in the UK report that the term 'exacerbation' is not fit for purpose for patients, and alternatives should be sought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Real-life research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol (BGF) in routine COPD primary care management. We assessed the frequency of medication success among patients with COPD who initiated BGF using real-world data., Patients and Methods: Patients with a recorded diagnostic COPD code who started BGF with ≥2 prescriptions within 90-days were identified in the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database and followed from first prescription until censoring at the end of follow-up (180-days), death, leaving database or end of data at 24/10/2022. The primary outcome was medication success at 90-days post-BGF initiation, defined as no major cardiac or respiratory event (ie no complicated COPD exacerbation, hospitalization for any respiratory event, myocardial infarction, new/hospitalized heart failure, and death) and no incidence of pneumonia. Medication success was also assessed at 180-days post-BGF initiation. Overall real-life medication success was claimed if the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of patients meeting the primary outcome was ≥70% (defined a priori)., Results: Two hundred eighty-five patients were included. Prior to BGF initiation, these patients often had severe airflow obstruction (mean ppFEV 1 : 54.5%), were highly symptomatic (mMRC ≥2: 77.9% (n = 205/263); mean CAT score: 21.7 (SD 7.8)), with evidence of short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) over-use (≥3 inhalers/year: 62.1%, n=179/285), repeat OCS prescriptions (≥2 courses/year: 33.0%, n = 95/285) and multiple primary care consultations (≥2 visits/year: 61.1%, n = 174/285). Overall, 39.6% of patients (n = 113/285) switched from previous triple therapies. Real-life medication success was achieved by 96.5% of patients (n = 275/285 [95% CI: 93.6, 98.3]) during 90-days treatment with BGF and by 91.8% (n = 169/184 [95% CI: 86.9, 95.4]) of patients at 180-days. The prescribed daily dose of SABA remained stable over the study period., Conclusion: The majority of patients initiating BGF experienced real-life medication success reflecting the absence of severe cardiopulmonary events. These benefits were apparent after 90-days of treatment and sustained over 180-days., Competing Interests: Hana Müllerová, Stefan Franzén, Johann Castaneda, and Jonathan Marshall are employees of, and own stock in, AstraZeneca. Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan, Heath Heatley, Victoria Carter, John Townend, and Derek Skinner are employees of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute. David Price has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy and lecture fees from Medscape, Inside Practice paid to Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Müllerová et al.)

Purpose: Risk factors for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been previously characterized for patients with more severe cases of COPD. It is unclear how the risk of first exacerbation may best be identified in patients with less severe disease. This study investigated risk factors for first exacerbation among English patients with COPD classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A or B., Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) AURUM linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with COPD aged ≥35 years and classified as GOLD group A or B (2020 criteria) from January 2013-December 2019 were eligible. Patients were required to have 24 months history in CPRD (baseline). Two cohorts were defined: cohort 1 included patients with no severe exacerbations during baseline; cohort 2 included patients with no moderate or severe exacerbations during baseline. Risk factors associated with severe, or combined moderate and severe exacerbation were examined for up to 5 years of follow-up., Results: Overall, 194,948 patients were included in cohort 1 (mean age 66.2 years; 55.2% male), and 148,396 patients in cohort 2 (mean age 66.1 years; 56.6% male). Identified risk factors for exacerbation (and associated 1-year absolute risk of severe, or combined moderate and severe exacerbation, respectively) included: Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score (15.9%/28.4%); COPD Assessment Test score (9.6%/25.3%); GOLD grade of airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted; 13.6%/27.5%); and lung cancer (8.1%/23.6%). After adjustment for risk factors, these factors remained independently associated with severe exacerbation at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up., Conclusion: The identified risk factors may aid physicians in the early recognition of patients with COPD classified as GOLD group A or B at risk of first exacerbation., Competing Interests: Kieran J Rothnie, Steven Gelwicks, Raj Sharma, Chris Compton, and Afisi S Ismaila are employees of GSK and/or hold stocks/shares in GSK. Afisi S Ismaila is also an unpaid part-time member of the McMaster University faculty. Beade Numbere is an employee of CY Partners Recruitment Ltd and on assignment at GSK as a Complementary Worker. Yifei Lu is a university worker of GSK and a graduate researcher at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jennifer K Quint has received research grants from The Health Foundation, MRC, HDR UK, GSK, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, asthma+lung, Chiesi, and AstraZeneca; and personal fees for advisory board participation or speaking fees from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Insmed, and Bayer. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Rothnie et al.)

Background: Infections can trigger exacerbations of multiple sclerosis (MS). The effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on MS are not known. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of COVID-19 on new and pre-existing symptoms of MS., Methods: The COVID-19 and MS study is an ongoing community-based, prospective cohort study conducted as part of the United Kingdom MS Register. People with MS and COVID-19 were invited by email to complete a questionnaire about their MS symptoms during the infection. An MS exacerbation was defined as developing new MS symptoms and/or worsening of pre-existing MS symptoms., Results: Fifty-seven percent (230/404) of participants had an MS exacerbation during their infection; 82 developed new MS symptoms, 207 experienced worsened pre-existing MS symptoms, and 59 reported both. Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) reduced the likelihood of developing new MS symptoms during the infection (OR 0.556, 95%CI 0.316-0.978). Participants with a higher pre-COVID-19 webEDSS (web-based Expanded Disability Status Scale) score (OR 1.251, 95%CI 1.060-1.478) and longer MS duration (OR 1.042, 95%CI 1.009-1.076) were more likely to experience worsening of their pre-existing MS symptoms during the infection., Conclusion: COVID-19 infection was associated with exacerbation of MS. DMTs reduced the chance of developing new MS symptoms during the infection., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background Influenza vaccination is an important strategy in the prevention of exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite the proven benefits, there are patients who are reluctant to have this intervention for fear of triggering an exacerbation. There are very few studies looking at the effect of the vaccination on exacerbation rates of COPD in primary care. Methods Medical records were obtained from six primary care practices in the Derbyshire area (UK), and 293 pairs of patients were selected. All patients had a diagnosis of COPD based on post bronchodilator spirometry. Patients were matched according to age, sex, severity of COPD and comorbidities. The first group of patients received the influenza vaccination while the other group served as a control (either never received the vaccination or received it at a later date). The incidence of COPD exacerbations of both groups was recorded. Results There were 21 exacerbations in the control group compared to 11 in the vaccinated group. The difference in exacerbation rates between groups was not statistically significant (McNemar's p=0.11). In the 2 weeks after receiving the influenza vaccination, the risk of experiencing an exacerbation in this group of patients was 0.52 in the vaccinated group compared to the non-vaccinated group (OR 0.52, CI 0.29 to 1.14). Conclusion Patients with COPD should be reassured that the influenza vaccination is safe and does not cause an increase in exacerbations. They should be encouraged to take up the vaccination annually before the onset of winter. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment decisions are poorly understood for patients with COPD exacerbation complicated by acute hypercapnic respiratory failure and respiratory acidaemia (ECOPD-RA). We identified 420 NIV-eligible patients from the DECAF study cohorts admitted with an ECOPD-RA. Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, we examined which indices were associated with clinicians' decisions to start NIV, including whether the presence of pneumonia was a deterrent. Admitting hospital, admission from institutional care, partial pressure of oxygen, cerebrovascular disease, pH, systolic blood pressure and white cell count were all associated with the provision of NIV. Of these indices, only pH was also a predictor of inpatient death. Those not treated with NIV included those with milder acidaemia and higher (and sometimes excessive) oxygen levels, and a frailer population with higher Extended Medical Research Council Dyspnoea scores, presumably deemed not suitable for NIV. Pneumonia was not associated with NIV treatment; 34 of 111 (30.6%) NIV-untreated patients had pneumonia, whilst 107 of 309 (34.6%) NIV-treated patients had pneumonia ( p  = 0.483). In our study, one in four NIV-eligible patients were not treated with NIV. Clinicians' NIV treatment decisions are not based on those indices most strongly associated with mortality risk. One of the strongest predictors of whether a patient received a life-saving treatment is which hospital they attended. Further research is required to aid in the risk stratification of this patient group which may help standardise and improve care.

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at risk of exacerbations and pneumonia; how the risk factors interact is unclear., Methods: This post-hoc, pooled analysis included studies of COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β 2 agonist (LABA) combinations and comparator arms of ICS, LABA, and/or placebo. Backward elimination via Cox's proportional hazards regression modelling evaluated which combination of risk factors best predicts time to first (a) pneumonia, and (b) moderate/severe COPD exacerbation., Results: Five studies contributed: NCT01009463, NCT01017952, NCT00144911, NCT00115492, and NCT00268216. Low body mass index (BMI), exacerbation history, worsening lung function (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage), and ICS treatment were identified as factors increasing pneumonia risk. BMI was the only pneumonia risk factor influenced by ICS treatment, with ICS further increasing risk for those with BMI <25 kg/m 2 . The modelled probability of pneumonia varied between 3 and 12% during the first year. Higher exacerbation risk was associated with a history of exacerbations, poorer lung function (GOLD stage), female sex and absence of ICS treatment. The influence of the other exacerbation risk factors was not modified by ICS treatment. Modelled probabilities of an exacerbation varied between 31 and 82% during the first year., Conclusions: The probability of an exacerbation was considerably higher than for pneumonia. ICS reduced exacerbations but did not influence the effect of risks associated with prior exacerbation history, GOLD stage, or female sex. The only identified risk factor for ICS-induced pneumonia was BMI <25 kg/m 2 . Analyses of this type may help the development of COPD risk equations.

Background: Blood eosinophil counts and history of exacerbations have been proposed as predictors of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who may benefit from triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist).Methods: In a retrospective cohort analysis we examined the profiles of COPD patients from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and US Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart (Optum) databases with reference to exacerbation frequency and blood eosinophil distribution.Results: Of the 31,437 (CPRD) and 383,825 (Optum) patients with COPD, 15,364 (CPRD) and 139,465 (Optum) met the eligibility criteria and were included. Among patients with ≥2 exacerbations and available eosinophil counts in the baseline period (CPRD, n = 3089 and Optum, n = 13414), 17.0 and 13.3% respectively had eosinophil counts ≥400 cells/μL. Patients with ≥2 exacerbations or eosinophil count ≥400 cells/μL during first year, exacerbated at least once (CPRD, 82.8% vs Optum, 80.6%) or continued to have eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL (76.8% vs 76.5%), respectively in the follow-up year. In both years, a higher variability in the number of exacerbations and eosinophil count was observed in patients with one exacerbation and eosinophil counts between 300 and 400 cells/μL; patients with eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL had the lowest variability. Approximately 10% patients had both ≥2 exacerbations and eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL across the databases.Conclusion: A high variability in blood eosinophil counts over two consecutive years was observed in UK and US patients with COPD and should be considered while making treatment decisions. A small proportion of COPD patients had frequent exacerbations and eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite widespread use of therapies such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continue to suffer, have reduced life expectancy and utilise considerable NHS resources. Laboratory investigations have demonstrated that at low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/l) theophylline markedly enhances the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD., Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to a drug regimen containing ICSs in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation., Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial., Setting: The trial was conducted in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites., Participants: People with COPD [i.e. who have a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 )/forced vital capacity (FVC) of < 0.7] currently on a drug regimen including ICSs with a history of two or more exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids (OCSs) in the previous year., Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive either low-dose theophylline or placebo for 1 year. The dose of theophylline (200 mg once or twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status., Primary Outcome: The number of participant-reported exacerbations in the 1-year treatment period that were treated with antibiotics and/or OCSs., Results: A total of 1578 people were randomised (60% from primary care): 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. There were 11 post-randomisation exclusions. Trial medication was prescribed to 1567 participants: 788 in the theophylline arm and 779 in the placebo arm. Participants in the trial arms were well balanced in terms of characteristics. The mean age was 68.4 [standard deviation (SD) 8.4] years, 54% were male, 32% smoked and mean FEV 1 was 51.7% (SD 20.0%) predicted. Primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline arm and 764 in the placebo arm. There were 1489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean number of exacerbations was 2.24 (SD 1.99) for participants allocated to theophylline and 2.23 (SD 1.97) for participants allocated to placebo [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.08]. Low-dose theophylline had no significant effects on lung function (i.e. FEV 1 ), incidence of pneumonia, mortality, breathlessness or measures of quality of life or disease impact. Hospital admissions due to COPD exacerbation were less frequent with low-dose theophylline (adjusted IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). However, 39 of the 51 excess hospital admissions in the placebo group were accounted for by 10 participants having three or more exacerbations. There were no differences in the reporting of theophylline side effects between the theophylline and placebo arms., Limitations: A higher than expected percentage of participants (26%) ceased trial medication; this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo arms and mitigated by over-recruitment ( n  = 154 additional participants were recruited) and the high rate of follow-up. The limitation of not using documented exacerbations is addressed by evidence that patient recall is highly reliable and the results of a small within-trial validation study., Conclusion: For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose oral theophylline to a drug regimen that includes ICSs confers no overall clinical or health economic benefit. This result was evident from the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses., Future Work: To promote consideration of the findings of this trial in national and international COPD guidelines., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Graham Burns reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Petah Tikva, Israel), Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy), Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA) and AstraZeneca plc (Cambridge, UK), and non-financial support from Chiesi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Rekha Chaudhuri reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) plc (London, UK), Teva and Novartis International AG (Basel, Switzerland) for advisory board meetings, outside the submitted work. Anthony De Soyza reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from GSK, Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany) and Pfizer, and grants from Forest Laboratories (New York City, NY, USA)/Teva, outside the submitted work. He is also a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Elective and Emergency Specialist Care (EESC) Panel. Simon Gompertz reports personal fees from Pfizer and GSK, outside the submitted work. John Norrie reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme during the conduct of the study, was a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board (2010–16) and is currently Deputy Chairperson of the NIHR HTA General Board (2016–present) and a NIHR Journals Library Editor (2014–present). Andrew Wilson reports grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Basel, Switzerland), outside the submitted work. David Price reports grants and personal fees from Aerocrine AB (Stockholm, Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan NV (Canonsburg, PA, USA), Mundipharma International Ltd (Cambridge, UK), Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Cambridge, UK), Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Theravance Biopharma (San Francisco, CA, USA) and Zentiva Group a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic); personal fees from Almirall SA (Barcelona, Spain), Amgen Inc. (Newbury Park, CA, USA), Cipla Ltd (Mumbai, India), GSK, Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Skyepharma Production SAS (Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France); grants from AKL Research and Development Ltd (Stevenage, UK), the British Lung Foundation, the Respiratory Effectiveness Group and the UK NHS; and non-financial support from the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation and HTA programmes, outside the submitted work. He also reports stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals and owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Cambridge, UK, and Australia and Singapore) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore).

Objective: Hospital at home (HAH) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation selected by low-risk Dyspnoea, Eosinopenia, Consolidation, Acidaemia and atrial Fibrillation (DECAF) score is clinical and cost-effective; DECAF is a prognostic score indicating risk of mortality. Up to 50% of admitted patients are suitable, a much larger proportion than earlier services. Introduction of new models of care is challenging, but may be facilitated by informed engagement with stakeholders. This qualitative study sought to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of HAH., Design: Semistructured interviews, data were analysed using thematic-construct analysis., Setting: Interviews were conducted within patients' homes and hospitals in North East England., Participants: 89 participants were interviewees; 44 patients, 15 carers, 15 physicians, 11 specialist nurses and 4 managers., Results: Facilitators include the following: (1) availability of home comforts and maintaining independence (with positive influences on perceived rate of recovery, sleep quality and convenience for friends, family and carers) and (2) confidence in the continuity of HAH care. Barriers include the following: (1) fear of being alone at home; (2) privacy issues and not wanting visitors and (3) resistance to change. Clinician concerns occasionally delayed return home, principally during the early phase of the trial. Nurses cited higher workload and greater responsibility, but with additional resource and training; overall, they viewed HAH positively. Operational concerns included keeping medical records in a patient's home and inability to capture activity within current payment systems., Conclusion: HAH selected by DECAF was preferred to inpatient care by most patients and their families. Implementation in other hospitals will require education, training and service planning, tailored to overcome the identified barriers., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN29082260., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SCB reports grants from NIHR: Research for Patient Benefit programme, during the conduct of the study; HTA funding, grants from Philips Respironics, grants from Pzifer Open Air, personal fees from Pzifer and AztraZeneca outside the submitted work. AvW reports grants from NIHR: Research for Patient Benefit programme, during the conduct of the study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)