COPD

A rare and potentially life-threatening adverse effect of bronchodilator therapy may be overlooked among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, according to a researcher who reviewed spirometry test results from U.S. military veterans.

Courtesy of Dr. Kaul

Nearly 1.5% of the tests met the criteria for paradoxical bronchospasm, which refers to airway constriction that may rapidly occur after inhalation of a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) such as albuterol.

However, none of those reports alluded to paradoxical bronchospasm, said investigator Malvika Kaul, MD, fellow in the department of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in Chicago.

“Paradoxical bronchospasm was neither recognized nor reported in any spirometry test results,” Dr. Kaul said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

By recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm, health care providers could address its clinical implications and identify potential alternative management options, according to Dr. Kaul.

“We hope in the future, education of clinicians about this phenomena is emphasized,” Dr. Kaul said in her presentation.
 

Recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm

In an interview, Dr. Kaul said she began researching paradoxical bronchospasm after encountering a patient who had an acute reaction to albuterol during a pulmonary function test.

“I was not taught about it, and I wasn’t recognizing that pattern very frequently in my patients,” she said.

Prescribing information for Food and Drug Administration–approved SABAs include a warning that life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm may occur, said Dr. Kaul.

If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, the patient should discontinue the medication immediately and start on alternative therapy, according to the available prescribing information for albuterol sulfate.

Paradoxical bronchospasm has been linked to worsened respiratory outcomes, including more frequent exacerbations, in patients with obstructive lung diseases, according to Dr. Kaul.

Two previous large studies pegged the prevalence of paradoxical bronchospasm at around 4.5% in patients with COPD or asthma, but “it has not been reported or addressed in high-risk population, such as veterans who have high prevalence of obstructive lung diseases like COPD,” Dr. Kaul said.
 

Latest study results

Dr. Kaul described a retrospective analysis of 1,150 pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry tests conducted in patients with COPD or asthma at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between 2017 and 2020.

A positive paradoxical bronchodilator response was defined as a decrease of least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity from baseline after four puffs of albuterol were inhaled, Dr. Kaul said.

Out of 18 reviewed spirometry results that met the criteria, none of the test results reported or recognized paradoxical bronchospasm, according to Dr. Kaul.

Those meeting the criteria were predominantly COPD patients, according to Dr. Kaul, who said 12 had an underlying diagnosis COPD, 4 had asthma, and 2 had COPD and asthma.

Of the 18 patients, 13 were African American, and all but 1 of the 18 patients had a current or past smoking history, according to reported data.

A history of obstructive sleep apnea was reported in nine patients, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease was also reported in nine patients. Eleven patients had emphysema.
 

Greater awareness needed

Results of this study emphasize the need to recognize potential cases paradoxical bronchospasm in clinical practice, as well as a need for more research, according to Allen J. Blaivas, DO, FCCP, chair of the CHEST Airway Disorders NetWork.

“It’s something to be on the alert for, and certainly be aware that, if your patient is telling you that they feel worse, we shouldn’t just pooh-pooh it,” said Dr. Blaivas, who is medical director of the intensive care unit at the East Orange campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System.

Further research could focus on breaking down whether patients with suspected paradoxical bronchospasm are using metered-dose inhalers or nebulizers, whether or not they are also taking inhaled corticosteroids, and whether prospective testing can confirm paradoxical bronchospasm in patients who report tightness after using a SABA, he said in an interview.

Dr. Kaul and coauthor Israel Rubinstein, MD had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Blaivas had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A rare and potentially life-threatening adverse effect of bronchodilator therapy may be overlooked among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, according to a researcher who reviewed spirometry test results from U.S. military veterans.

Courtesy of Dr. Kaul

Nearly 1.5% of the tests met the criteria for paradoxical bronchospasm, which refers to airway constriction that may rapidly occur after inhalation of a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) such as albuterol.

However, none of those reports alluded to paradoxical bronchospasm, said investigator Malvika Kaul, MD, fellow in the department of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in Chicago.

“Paradoxical bronchospasm was neither recognized nor reported in any spirometry test results,” Dr. Kaul said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

By recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm, health care providers could address its clinical implications and identify potential alternative management options, according to Dr. Kaul.

“We hope in the future, education of clinicians about this phenomena is emphasized,” Dr. Kaul said in her presentation.
 

Recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm

In an interview, Dr. Kaul said she began researching paradoxical bronchospasm after encountering a patient who had an acute reaction to albuterol during a pulmonary function test.

“I was not taught about it, and I wasn’t recognizing that pattern very frequently in my patients,” she said.

Prescribing information for Food and Drug Administration–approved SABAs include a warning that life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm may occur, said Dr. Kaul.

If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, the patient should discontinue the medication immediately and start on alternative therapy, according to the available prescribing information for albuterol sulfate.

Paradoxical bronchospasm has been linked to worsened respiratory outcomes, including more frequent exacerbations, in patients with obstructive lung diseases, according to Dr. Kaul.

Two previous large studies pegged the prevalence of paradoxical bronchospasm at around 4.5% in patients with COPD or asthma, but “it has not been reported or addressed in high-risk population, such as veterans who have high prevalence of obstructive lung diseases like COPD,” Dr. Kaul said.
 

Latest study results

Dr. Kaul described a retrospective analysis of 1,150 pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry tests conducted in patients with COPD or asthma at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between 2017 and 2020.

A positive paradoxical bronchodilator response was defined as a decrease of least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity from baseline after four puffs of albuterol were inhaled, Dr. Kaul said.

Out of 18 reviewed spirometry results that met the criteria, none of the test results reported or recognized paradoxical bronchospasm, according to Dr. Kaul.

Those meeting the criteria were predominantly COPD patients, according to Dr. Kaul, who said 12 had an underlying diagnosis COPD, 4 had asthma, and 2 had COPD and asthma.

Of the 18 patients, 13 were African American, and all but 1 of the 18 patients had a current or past smoking history, according to reported data.

A history of obstructive sleep apnea was reported in nine patients, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease was also reported in nine patients. Eleven patients had emphysema.
 

Greater awareness needed

Results of this study emphasize the need to recognize potential cases paradoxical bronchospasm in clinical practice, as well as a need for more research, according to Allen J. Blaivas, DO, FCCP, chair of the CHEST Airway Disorders NetWork.

“It’s something to be on the alert for, and certainly be aware that, if your patient is telling you that they feel worse, we shouldn’t just pooh-pooh it,” said Dr. Blaivas, who is medical director of the intensive care unit at the East Orange campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System.

Further research could focus on breaking down whether patients with suspected paradoxical bronchospasm are using metered-dose inhalers or nebulizers, whether or not they are also taking inhaled corticosteroids, and whether prospective testing can confirm paradoxical bronchospasm in patients who report tightness after using a SABA, he said in an interview.

Dr. Kaul and coauthor Israel Rubinstein, MD had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Blaivas had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A rare and potentially life-threatening adverse effect of bronchodilator therapy may be overlooked among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma, according to a researcher who reviewed spirometry test results from U.S. military veterans.

Courtesy of Dr. Kaul

Nearly 1.5% of the tests met the criteria for paradoxical bronchospasm, which refers to airway constriction that may rapidly occur after inhalation of a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA) such as albuterol.

However, none of those reports alluded to paradoxical bronchospasm, said investigator Malvika Kaul, MD, fellow in the department of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in Chicago.

“Paradoxical bronchospasm was neither recognized nor reported in any spirometry test results,” Dr. Kaul said in an online poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, held virtually this year.

By recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm, health care providers could address its clinical implications and identify potential alternative management options, according to Dr. Kaul.

“We hope in the future, education of clinicians about this phenomena is emphasized,” Dr. Kaul said in her presentation.
 

Recognizing paradoxical bronchospasm

In an interview, Dr. Kaul said she began researching paradoxical bronchospasm after encountering a patient who had an acute reaction to albuterol during a pulmonary function test.

“I was not taught about it, and I wasn’t recognizing that pattern very frequently in my patients,” she said.

Prescribing information for Food and Drug Administration–approved SABAs include a warning that life-threatening paradoxical bronchospasm may occur, said Dr. Kaul.

If paradoxical bronchospasm occurs, the patient should discontinue the medication immediately and start on alternative therapy, according to the available prescribing information for albuterol sulfate.

Paradoxical bronchospasm has been linked to worsened respiratory outcomes, including more frequent exacerbations, in patients with obstructive lung diseases, according to Dr. Kaul.

Two previous large studies pegged the prevalence of paradoxical bronchospasm at around 4.5% in patients with COPD or asthma, but “it has not been reported or addressed in high-risk population, such as veterans who have high prevalence of obstructive lung diseases like COPD,” Dr. Kaul said.
 

Latest study results

Dr. Kaul described a retrospective analysis of 1,150 pre- and postbronchodilator spirometry tests conducted in patients with COPD or asthma at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between 2017 and 2020.

A positive paradoxical bronchodilator response was defined as a decrease of least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity from baseline after four puffs of albuterol were inhaled, Dr. Kaul said.

Out of 18 reviewed spirometry results that met the criteria, none of the test results reported or recognized paradoxical bronchospasm, according to Dr. Kaul.

Those meeting the criteria were predominantly COPD patients, according to Dr. Kaul, who said 12 had an underlying diagnosis COPD, 4 had asthma, and 2 had COPD and asthma.

Of the 18 patients, 13 were African American, and all but 1 of the 18 patients had a current or past smoking history, according to reported data.

A history of obstructive sleep apnea was reported in nine patients, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease was also reported in nine patients. Eleven patients had emphysema.
 

Greater awareness needed

Results of this study emphasize the need to recognize potential cases paradoxical bronchospasm in clinical practice, as well as a need for more research, according to Allen J. Blaivas, DO, FCCP, chair of the CHEST Airway Disorders NetWork.

“It’s something to be on the alert for, and certainly be aware that, if your patient is telling you that they feel worse, we shouldn’t just pooh-pooh it,” said Dr. Blaivas, who is medical director of the intensive care unit at the East Orange campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System.

Further research could focus on breaking down whether patients with suspected paradoxical bronchospasm are using metered-dose inhalers or nebulizers, whether or not they are also taking inhaled corticosteroids, and whether prospective testing can confirm paradoxical bronchospasm in patients who report tightness after using a SABA, he said in an interview.

Dr. Kaul and coauthor Israel Rubinstein, MD had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Blaivas had no relevant relationships to disclose.

Patients with a baseline DLCO (diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide) of < 60% of predicted have more severe disease clinical expression with higher mortality risk, according to a long-term observational study of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) I chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Clarifying mechanisms of low DLCO may help clinicians direct interventions toward ameliorating the low capacity, Juan Pablo de Torres, MD, and colleagues wrote in the journal CHEST^®.

Defining increased risk

“Can a DLCO threshold help define an increased risk of death and a different clinical presentation in GOLD I patients?” the researchers questioned. For evaluation of COPD, the GOLD does not currently promote the use of DLCO, and the clinical and prognostic utility of a low DLCO has not been studied, the authors noted.

Several COPD studies, however, have shown associations between low DLCO values and reduced exercise capacity, increased symptoms, risk of severe exacerbations, and mortality. The patients included in these studies, however, have generally had moderate to severe airflow limitation, and have not had postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV₁/FVC) < 0.70 and an FEV₁ ≥ 80%, defined by GOLD as COPD spirometric stage I. These mild obstruction GOLD I patients, in large epidemiological studies, do have increased risk of death. But it is often assumed, Dr. de Torres and colleagues noted, that “mild” suggests a good prognosis. They propose that a simple DLCO measurement could help identify those GOLD I patients with “worse overall COPD compromise and an increased risk of death.” Importantly, GOLD I represents the largest percentage of patients with airflow limitation that epidemiological studies have identified.

The researchers enrolled 360 GOLD stage I COPD patients, recording their age, sex, pack-years’ history, body mass index, dyspnea, lung function measurements, exercise capacity, BODE (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) index, and history of exacerbations, and followed them for a mean of 109 months. They identified a cutoff DLCO value for all-cause mortality, compared the clinical and physiological characteristics of patients above and below the threshold, and explored the predictive power of that cutoff value.
 

All-cause mortality difference

The mean age in the overall population studied was 63 years (31% were women), with 43% active smokers, and pack-years history of 45. Overall mortality was 11% during the follow-up period. The predominantly male population was mildly overweight, had few comorbidities, normal FEV₁ values, mild dyspnea, normal 6-minute walk distance, and very few exacerbations.

Analysis showed a DLCO cutoff value of < 60% was associated with a significant all-cause mortality differential (DLCO ≥ 60%: 9% vs. DLCO < 60%: 23%, P = .01). At a same FEV₁% predicted and Charlson score, patients with DLCO < 60% had lower BMI, more dyspnea, lower inspiratory capacity (IC)/total lung capacity (TLC) ratio, lower 6-minute walk distance, and higher BODE index. Adjusted Cox multiple regression analysis confirmed that a DLCO < 60% was associated with an all-cause mortality hazard ratio [HR] of 3.37, (95% confidence interval, 1.35-8.39; P = .009).
 

Multiorgan loss of tissue

The researchers found that patients with baseline DLCO < 60% were more likely to be women (46% versus 28%), and to have a lower BMI (25 vs. 27), higher pack-year history (54 vs. 43), the same spirometric values but lower IC/TLC ratio (.37 vs. .40), a lower walk distance (443 vs. 485 meters), higher dyspnea (MRC score 1.1 vs. .7), similar exacerbation rate, higher BODE index (.5 vs. .2) and higher mortality than patients with higher DLCO % predicted values. This group, Dr. de Torres and colleagues suggest, represents a multiorgan loss of tissue, a phenotype associated with worse clinical outcomes and prognosis.

“Low DLCO in these patients,” Dr. de Torres said in an interview, “could mainly be secondary to coexistent emphysema, which is the most common cause of low DLCO in this population. Also possible, but less likely, is coexistent pulmonary hypertension.” He noted further that “This study opens the door to research specifically testing if such is the case, and if it is, for clinicians to use available therapies to prevent adverse outcomes.”
 

Comorbidity burden

Patients with GOLD I COPD die more often of cardiovascular disease instead of underlying lung disease, according to Richard H. Zou, MD, and Jessica Bon, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial in the journal CHEST.

Increased mortality rates, they suggest, may be related to higher comorbidity burden, particularly comorbidities associated with cardiovascular-related health. Subclinical cardiovascular disease is a common comorbidity in COPD, and concomitant endothelial dysfunction has been associated with both cardiovascular disease and early emphysema in smokers. They may have disproportionately reduced DLCO levels because of parenchymal destruction.

“This study suggests that DLCO can be used to identify patients with GOLD I COPD at increased death risk and that individuals with mild airflow obstruction with DLCO <60% predicted are a clinical phenotype distinct from those with higher DLCO levels,” Dr. Zhou and Dr. Bon concluded.

The researchers and the editorialists declared that they had no disclosures. One of the three cohorts assessed in the current study (CHAIN cohort in Spain) received funding from AstraZeneca.

Patients with a baseline DLCO (diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide) of < 60% of predicted have more severe disease clinical expression with higher mortality risk, according to a long-term observational study of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) I chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Clarifying mechanisms of low DLCO may help clinicians direct interventions toward ameliorating the low capacity, Juan Pablo de Torres, MD, and colleagues wrote in the journal CHEST^®.

Defining increased risk

“Can a DLCO threshold help define an increased risk of death and a different clinical presentation in GOLD I patients?” the researchers questioned. For evaluation of COPD, the GOLD does not currently promote the use of DLCO, and the clinical and prognostic utility of a low DLCO has not been studied, the authors noted.

Several COPD studies, however, have shown associations between low DLCO values and reduced exercise capacity, increased symptoms, risk of severe exacerbations, and mortality. The patients included in these studies, however, have generally had moderate to severe airflow limitation, and have not had postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV₁/FVC) < 0.70 and an FEV₁ ≥ 80%, defined by GOLD as COPD spirometric stage I. These mild obstruction GOLD I patients, in large epidemiological studies, do have increased risk of death. But it is often assumed, Dr. de Torres and colleagues noted, that “mild” suggests a good prognosis. They propose that a simple DLCO measurement could help identify those GOLD I patients with “worse overall COPD compromise and an increased risk of death.” Importantly, GOLD I represents the largest percentage of patients with airflow limitation that epidemiological studies have identified.

The researchers enrolled 360 GOLD stage I COPD patients, recording their age, sex, pack-years’ history, body mass index, dyspnea, lung function measurements, exercise capacity, BODE (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) index, and history of exacerbations, and followed them for a mean of 109 months. They identified a cutoff DLCO value for all-cause mortality, compared the clinical and physiological characteristics of patients above and below the threshold, and explored the predictive power of that cutoff value.
 

All-cause mortality difference

The mean age in the overall population studied was 63 years (31% were women), with 43% active smokers, and pack-years history of 45. Overall mortality was 11% during the follow-up period. The predominantly male population was mildly overweight, had few comorbidities, normal FEV₁ values, mild dyspnea, normal 6-minute walk distance, and very few exacerbations.

Analysis showed a DLCO cutoff value of < 60% was associated with a significant all-cause mortality differential (DLCO ≥ 60%: 9% vs. DLCO < 60%: 23%, P = .01). At a same FEV₁% predicted and Charlson score, patients with DLCO < 60% had lower BMI, more dyspnea, lower inspiratory capacity (IC)/total lung capacity (TLC) ratio, lower 6-minute walk distance, and higher BODE index. Adjusted Cox multiple regression analysis confirmed that a DLCO < 60% was associated with an all-cause mortality hazard ratio [HR] of 3.37, (95% confidence interval, 1.35-8.39; P = .009).
 

Multiorgan loss of tissue

The researchers found that patients with baseline DLCO < 60% were more likely to be women (46% versus 28%), and to have a lower BMI (25 vs. 27), higher pack-year history (54 vs. 43), the same spirometric values but lower IC/TLC ratio (.37 vs. .40), a lower walk distance (443 vs. 485 meters), higher dyspnea (MRC score 1.1 vs. .7), similar exacerbation rate, higher BODE index (.5 vs. .2) and higher mortality than patients with higher DLCO % predicted values. This group, Dr. de Torres and colleagues suggest, represents a multiorgan loss of tissue, a phenotype associated with worse clinical outcomes and prognosis.

“Low DLCO in these patients,” Dr. de Torres said in an interview, “could mainly be secondary to coexistent emphysema, which is the most common cause of low DLCO in this population. Also possible, but less likely, is coexistent pulmonary hypertension.” He noted further that “This study opens the door to research specifically testing if such is the case, and if it is, for clinicians to use available therapies to prevent adverse outcomes.”
 

Comorbidity burden

Patients with GOLD I COPD die more often of cardiovascular disease instead of underlying lung disease, according to Richard H. Zou, MD, and Jessica Bon, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial in the journal CHEST.

Increased mortality rates, they suggest, may be related to higher comorbidity burden, particularly comorbidities associated with cardiovascular-related health. Subclinical cardiovascular disease is a common comorbidity in COPD, and concomitant endothelial dysfunction has been associated with both cardiovascular disease and early emphysema in smokers. They may have disproportionately reduced DLCO levels because of parenchymal destruction.

“This study suggests that DLCO can be used to identify patients with GOLD I COPD at increased death risk and that individuals with mild airflow obstruction with DLCO <60% predicted are a clinical phenotype distinct from those with higher DLCO levels,” Dr. Zhou and Dr. Bon concluded.

The researchers and the editorialists declared that they had no disclosures. One of the three cohorts assessed in the current study (CHAIN cohort in Spain) received funding from AstraZeneca.

Patients with a baseline DLCO (diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide) of < 60% of predicted have more severe disease clinical expression with higher mortality risk, according to a long-term observational study of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) I chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Clarifying mechanisms of low DLCO may help clinicians direct interventions toward ameliorating the low capacity, Juan Pablo de Torres, MD, and colleagues wrote in the journal CHEST^®.

Defining increased risk

“Can a DLCO threshold help define an increased risk of death and a different clinical presentation in GOLD I patients?” the researchers questioned. For evaluation of COPD, the GOLD does not currently promote the use of DLCO, and the clinical and prognostic utility of a low DLCO has not been studied, the authors noted.

Several COPD studies, however, have shown associations between low DLCO values and reduced exercise capacity, increased symptoms, risk of severe exacerbations, and mortality. The patients included in these studies, however, have generally had moderate to severe airflow limitation, and have not had postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV₁/FVC) < 0.70 and an FEV₁ ≥ 80%, defined by GOLD as COPD spirometric stage I. These mild obstruction GOLD I patients, in large epidemiological studies, do have increased risk of death. But it is often assumed, Dr. de Torres and colleagues noted, that “mild” suggests a good prognosis. They propose that a simple DLCO measurement could help identify those GOLD I patients with “worse overall COPD compromise and an increased risk of death.” Importantly, GOLD I represents the largest percentage of patients with airflow limitation that epidemiological studies have identified.

The researchers enrolled 360 GOLD stage I COPD patients, recording their age, sex, pack-years’ history, body mass index, dyspnea, lung function measurements, exercise capacity, BODE (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) index, and history of exacerbations, and followed them for a mean of 109 months. They identified a cutoff DLCO value for all-cause mortality, compared the clinical and physiological characteristics of patients above and below the threshold, and explored the predictive power of that cutoff value.
 

All-cause mortality difference

The mean age in the overall population studied was 63 years (31% were women), with 43% active smokers, and pack-years history of 45. Overall mortality was 11% during the follow-up period. The predominantly male population was mildly overweight, had few comorbidities, normal FEV₁ values, mild dyspnea, normal 6-minute walk distance, and very few exacerbations.

Analysis showed a DLCO cutoff value of < 60% was associated with a significant all-cause mortality differential (DLCO ≥ 60%: 9% vs. DLCO < 60%: 23%, P = .01). At a same FEV₁% predicted and Charlson score, patients with DLCO < 60% had lower BMI, more dyspnea, lower inspiratory capacity (IC)/total lung capacity (TLC) ratio, lower 6-minute walk distance, and higher BODE index. Adjusted Cox multiple regression analysis confirmed that a DLCO < 60% was associated with an all-cause mortality hazard ratio [HR] of 3.37, (95% confidence interval, 1.35-8.39; P = .009).
 

Multiorgan loss of tissue

The researchers found that patients with baseline DLCO < 60% were more likely to be women (46% versus 28%), and to have a lower BMI (25 vs. 27), higher pack-year history (54 vs. 43), the same spirometric values but lower IC/TLC ratio (.37 vs. .40), a lower walk distance (443 vs. 485 meters), higher dyspnea (MRC score 1.1 vs. .7), similar exacerbation rate, higher BODE index (.5 vs. .2) and higher mortality than patients with higher DLCO % predicted values. This group, Dr. de Torres and colleagues suggest, represents a multiorgan loss of tissue, a phenotype associated with worse clinical outcomes and prognosis.

“Low DLCO in these patients,” Dr. de Torres said in an interview, “could mainly be secondary to coexistent emphysema, which is the most common cause of low DLCO in this population. Also possible, but less likely, is coexistent pulmonary hypertension.” He noted further that “This study opens the door to research specifically testing if such is the case, and if it is, for clinicians to use available therapies to prevent adverse outcomes.”
 

Comorbidity burden

Patients with GOLD I COPD die more often of cardiovascular disease instead of underlying lung disease, according to Richard H. Zou, MD, and Jessica Bon, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial in the journal CHEST.

Increased mortality rates, they suggest, may be related to higher comorbidity burden, particularly comorbidities associated with cardiovascular-related health. Subclinical cardiovascular disease is a common comorbidity in COPD, and concomitant endothelial dysfunction has been associated with both cardiovascular disease and early emphysema in smokers. They may have disproportionately reduced DLCO levels because of parenchymal destruction.

“This study suggests that DLCO can be used to identify patients with GOLD I COPD at increased death risk and that individuals with mild airflow obstruction with DLCO <60% predicted are a clinical phenotype distinct from those with higher DLCO levels,” Dr. Zhou and Dr. Bon concluded.

The researchers and the editorialists declared that they had no disclosures. One of the three cohorts assessed in the current study (CHAIN cohort in Spain) received funding from AstraZeneca.

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The earliest responders to reach the site of the destroyed twin towers of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, are at highest risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) among all those who worked at the site. The 9/11 attack was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

The findings come from a case-control study that included nearly 18,000 emergency responders and volunteers. The investigators found that those who arrived at the site within 48 hours had an approximately 30% higher risk of developing COPD than those who arrived later, after adjustment for smoking and obesity, reported Rafael E de la Hoz, MD, a professor of environmental medicine, public health, and medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

“In this largest World Trade Center occupational cohort, spirometrically defined COPD and ACO were both modestly but significantly associated with World Trade Center exposure intensity, but the association seemed driven by the overlap,” he said in a narrated poster presentation during the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.

“Around the world, we rely on our emergency workers to help when disasters occur,” commented Arzu Yorgancıoğlu, MD, professor and head of the department of pulmonology at Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey, who was not involved in the study.

“This study shows how important it is to keep monitoring the health of workers, like those who attended the World Trade Center site 20 years ago, as occupational exposure to pollutants can lead to COPD. What we can learn from research like this is not only how best to care for emergency workers who operate in dangerous conditions but also how we can protect them in their work in the future,” she said.
 

Inconsistent findings

Fire and police personnel, emergency medical workers, construction workers, and others who labored amid the lingering pall of toxic dust and smoke at the World Trade Center site have developed asthma and other lower respiratory tract diseases over the ensuing decades.

“As the occupational cohorts age, there are concerns about chronic, longer latency, and disabling respiratory disease,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

There have been inconsistent reports about the potential associations between COPD and ACO and the intensity of occupational exposure at the World Trade Center site. This prompted the investigators to further explore these associations using spirometry-defined disease.

They assessed data on 17,996 former World Trade Center site workers who had undergone at least two good-quality spirometric evaluations from 2002 to 2018.

To be classified as having COPD, workers had to have fixed airway obstruction. Those in the ACO subgroup were also required to have prebronchodilator obstruction with forced expiratory volume in 1 second of more than 400 mL in response to bronchodilation.

The patients were matched for sex and height within 5 cm using a 1:4 nested case-control design. Missing data were imputed.
 

Earliest arrivals paid the highest penalty

Of the total cohort, 85.4% were men, and 85.6% were overweight or obese. A total of 586 workers (3.3%) met the case definition for having COPD; 258 (1.4%) met the definition for having ACO.

The investigators found that the prevalence of self-reported ACO was six times higher than the prevalence of spirometry-confirmed disease. Among those who reported an onset date, 56.7% reported having asthma before COPD; the remainder reported having COPD first.

In analyses adjusted for age, sex, cohort entry period, smoking status, body mass index, metabolic syndrome parameters, and eosinophil levels, both COPD and ACO were significantly associated with early arrival at the World Trade Center site, with an adjusted odds ratio for COPD of 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.64), and an OR for ACO of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.1-2.49).

There was no significant interaction between early site arrival and smoking status.

The association between early exposure and COPD was no longer significant when those with ACO were excluded, the authors noted.

“We also observed that COPD more often followed asthma in these workers than the reverse, suggesting that asthma may have been on the path to COPD in most workers affected by the inhaled toxicants at the disaster site,” Dr. de la Hoz and colleagues wrote.

In addition, “our data suggest that self-reported physician diagnoses of COPD, asthma, and ACO are poorly correlated with objective data in this cohort,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors and Dr. Yorgancıoğlu disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major driver of disease-related morbidity. Their prevention and treatment are a focus of COPD management. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, and nebulized bronchodilators are all given to patients with AECOPD, and while the supporting data aren’t perfect, there’s little debate surrounding their use. These medications are well known to most physicians; we’re comfortable with their efficacy and aware of their side effects. They are nothing if not familiar.

What about magnesium (Mg), though? Apparently, in the emergency room (ER) it is part of the standard AECOPD cocktail. I would argue that Mg is familiar to most too; every internal medicine trainee in the United States is taught to infuse 2 g of Mg intravenously for any inpatient (ICU or otherwise) with a serum level <2.0 mg/dL. In fact, “electrolyte protocols” are part of the order sets at most hospitals where I’ve worked. Mg is infused reflexively when it drops below certain levels.

I’m less familiar with using Mg in the setting of an AECOPD, though. A recent online post by an academic ER physician (Richard Pescatore, DO) urged caution in this setting. He argues that too many in the ER are embracing the “Dutch Hypothesis” and treating asthma and COPD as the same disease. Dr. Pescatore believes that Mg works for asthma exacerbations because asthma is a disease of smooth muscle and large airways, while COPD is not. COPD, he says, is a disease of the small airways, largely resulting from parenchymal distortions due to emphysema. Therefore, Mg, which is thought to act on the smooth muscle surrounding the large airways, won’t be beneficial for AECOPD and may even cause harm.

Data are lacking

What data exist for using Mg for AECOPD? The best randomized controlled trial (RCT) I could find was published in 1995 and is cited in the reader’s rebuttal. The trial found a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) with Mg and a nonsignificant reduction in hospitalizations.

A poorly done systematic review of RCTs using Mg for AECOPD was published in 2014, and in 2020 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) included Mg in its well-executed meta-analysis of pharmacologic treatments for AECOPD. Data across the four to five Mg RCTs included in each of the reviews (study inclusion criteria were slightly different) could not be combined. All RCTs were small, and only soft outcomes like PEFR and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) seemed to improve with Mg. No adverse events were noted, but this should be interpreted with caution given that many studies did not report on adverse events at all.

A small RCT published this year (after both systematic reviews were completed) showed that using intravenous magnesium sulfate had no significant effect on FEV1, vital signs, or symptoms.

In summary, the data aren’t great. Mg doesn’t show up at all as a treatment option in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report on COPD, and the authors of the AHRQ review concluded that large, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the impact of Mg in AECOPD. Although I didn’t do an extensive review of Mg for asthma exacerbations, it’s not clear that the data here are much better. Mg gets an honorable mention (add for severe exacerbations when there’s inadequate response to standard treatments) in both the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline and the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guide. The 2020 update to the 2007 NHLBI guideline is more targeted in its review and does not cover Mg as a treatment option. On the basis of my anecdotal clinical experience and on networking with airway experts, I do think Mg is used more often for asthma than for AECOPD.

Final thoughts on using Mg for AECOPD

All that being said, is it reasonable to use Mg for AECOPD? I think so. I’d stick to using it for severe cases where conventional treatments have failed, just like the NHLBI and GINA advise for asthma. I’d also limit it to 2-3 g, which is the dosing range employed by several of the existing AECOPD RCTs. The assertion that Mg may be harmful in AECOPD because COPD affects the small airways, and asthma does not, is misguided. Both affect the small airways. Furthermore, none of our inhaled therapies reach the small airways, so one can’t argue against using Mg because it only targets larger airways without abandoning albuterol and ipratropium as well. I don’t think anyone would advise that. Given what we now know about asthma and COPD phenotypes and asthma-COPD overlap, I’d caution against pedantic theories about response to therapies.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He has received research grants from Fisher-Paykel and has received payments from the American College of Chest Physicians.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major driver of disease-related morbidity. Their prevention and treatment are a focus of COPD management. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, and nebulized bronchodilators are all given to patients with AECOPD, and while the supporting data aren’t perfect, there’s little debate surrounding their use. These medications are well known to most physicians; we’re comfortable with their efficacy and aware of their side effects. They are nothing if not familiar.

What about magnesium (Mg), though? Apparently, in the emergency room (ER) it is part of the standard AECOPD cocktail. I would argue that Mg is familiar to most too; every internal medicine trainee in the United States is taught to infuse 2 g of Mg intravenously for any inpatient (ICU or otherwise) with a serum level <2.0 mg/dL. In fact, “electrolyte protocols” are part of the order sets at most hospitals where I’ve worked. Mg is infused reflexively when it drops below certain levels.

I’m less familiar with using Mg in the setting of an AECOPD, though. A recent online post by an academic ER physician (Richard Pescatore, DO) urged caution in this setting. He argues that too many in the ER are embracing the “Dutch Hypothesis” and treating asthma and COPD as the same disease. Dr. Pescatore believes that Mg works for asthma exacerbations because asthma is a disease of smooth muscle and large airways, while COPD is not. COPD, he says, is a disease of the small airways, largely resulting from parenchymal distortions due to emphysema. Therefore, Mg, which is thought to act on the smooth muscle surrounding the large airways, won’t be beneficial for AECOPD and may even cause harm.

Data are lacking

What data exist for using Mg for AECOPD? The best randomized controlled trial (RCT) I could find was published in 1995 and is cited in the reader’s rebuttal. The trial found a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) with Mg and a nonsignificant reduction in hospitalizations.

A poorly done systematic review of RCTs using Mg for AECOPD was published in 2014, and in 2020 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) included Mg in its well-executed meta-analysis of pharmacologic treatments for AECOPD. Data across the four to five Mg RCTs included in each of the reviews (study inclusion criteria were slightly different) could not be combined. All RCTs were small, and only soft outcomes like PEFR and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) seemed to improve with Mg. No adverse events were noted, but this should be interpreted with caution given that many studies did not report on adverse events at all.

A small RCT published this year (after both systematic reviews were completed) showed that using intravenous magnesium sulfate had no significant effect on FEV1, vital signs, or symptoms.

In summary, the data aren’t great. Mg doesn’t show up at all as a treatment option in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report on COPD, and the authors of the AHRQ review concluded that large, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the impact of Mg in AECOPD. Although I didn’t do an extensive review of Mg for asthma exacerbations, it’s not clear that the data here are much better. Mg gets an honorable mention (add for severe exacerbations when there’s inadequate response to standard treatments) in both the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline and the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guide. The 2020 update to the 2007 NHLBI guideline is more targeted in its review and does not cover Mg as a treatment option. On the basis of my anecdotal clinical experience and on networking with airway experts, I do think Mg is used more often for asthma than for AECOPD.

Final thoughts on using Mg for AECOPD

All that being said, is it reasonable to use Mg for AECOPD? I think so. I’d stick to using it for severe cases where conventional treatments have failed, just like the NHLBI and GINA advise for asthma. I’d also limit it to 2-3 g, which is the dosing range employed by several of the existing AECOPD RCTs. The assertion that Mg may be harmful in AECOPD because COPD affects the small airways, and asthma does not, is misguided. Both affect the small airways. Furthermore, none of our inhaled therapies reach the small airways, so one can’t argue against using Mg because it only targets larger airways without abandoning albuterol and ipratropium as well. I don’t think anyone would advise that. Given what we now know about asthma and COPD phenotypes and asthma-COPD overlap, I’d caution against pedantic theories about response to therapies.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He has received research grants from Fisher-Paykel and has received payments from the American College of Chest Physicians.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major driver of disease-related morbidity. Their prevention and treatment are a focus of COPD management. Antibiotics, corticosteroids, and nebulized bronchodilators are all given to patients with AECOPD, and while the supporting data aren’t perfect, there’s little debate surrounding their use. These medications are well known to most physicians; we’re comfortable with their efficacy and aware of their side effects. They are nothing if not familiar.

What about magnesium (Mg), though? Apparently, in the emergency room (ER) it is part of the standard AECOPD cocktail. I would argue that Mg is familiar to most too; every internal medicine trainee in the United States is taught to infuse 2 g of Mg intravenously for any inpatient (ICU or otherwise) with a serum level <2.0 mg/dL. In fact, “electrolyte protocols” are part of the order sets at most hospitals where I’ve worked. Mg is infused reflexively when it drops below certain levels.

I’m less familiar with using Mg in the setting of an AECOPD, though. A recent online post by an academic ER physician (Richard Pescatore, DO) urged caution in this setting. He argues that too many in the ER are embracing the “Dutch Hypothesis” and treating asthma and COPD as the same disease. Dr. Pescatore believes that Mg works for asthma exacerbations because asthma is a disease of smooth muscle and large airways, while COPD is not. COPD, he says, is a disease of the small airways, largely resulting from parenchymal distortions due to emphysema. Therefore, Mg, which is thought to act on the smooth muscle surrounding the large airways, won’t be beneficial for AECOPD and may even cause harm.

Data are lacking

What data exist for using Mg for AECOPD? The best randomized controlled trial (RCT) I could find was published in 1995 and is cited in the reader’s rebuttal. The trial found a significant improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) with Mg and a nonsignificant reduction in hospitalizations.

A poorly done systematic review of RCTs using Mg for AECOPD was published in 2014, and in 2020 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) included Mg in its well-executed meta-analysis of pharmacologic treatments for AECOPD. Data across the four to five Mg RCTs included in each of the reviews (study inclusion criteria were slightly different) could not be combined. All RCTs were small, and only soft outcomes like PEFR and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) seemed to improve with Mg. No adverse events were noted, but this should be interpreted with caution given that many studies did not report on adverse events at all.

A small RCT published this year (after both systematic reviews were completed) showed that using intravenous magnesium sulfate had no significant effect on FEV1, vital signs, or symptoms.

In summary, the data aren’t great. Mg doesn’t show up at all as a treatment option in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report on COPD, and the authors of the AHRQ review concluded that large, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the impact of Mg in AECOPD. Although I didn’t do an extensive review of Mg for asthma exacerbations, it’s not clear that the data here are much better. Mg gets an honorable mention (add for severe exacerbations when there’s inadequate response to standard treatments) in both the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline and the 2019 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guide. The 2020 update to the 2007 NHLBI guideline is more targeted in its review and does not cover Mg as a treatment option. On the basis of my anecdotal clinical experience and on networking with airway experts, I do think Mg is used more often for asthma than for AECOPD.

Final thoughts on using Mg for AECOPD

All that being said, is it reasonable to use Mg for AECOPD? I think so. I’d stick to using it for severe cases where conventional treatments have failed, just like the NHLBI and GINA advise for asthma. I’d also limit it to 2-3 g, which is the dosing range employed by several of the existing AECOPD RCTs. The assertion that Mg may be harmful in AECOPD because COPD affects the small airways, and asthma does not, is misguided. Both affect the small airways. Furthermore, none of our inhaled therapies reach the small airways, so one can’t argue against using Mg because it only targets larger airways without abandoning albuterol and ipratropium as well. I don’t think anyone would advise that. Given what we now know about asthma and COPD phenotypes and asthma-COPD overlap, I’d caution against pedantic theories about response to therapies.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is an associate professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University and program director of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He has received research grants from Fisher-Paykel and has received payments from the American College of Chest Physicians.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) as a complication of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have worse functional impairment and higher mortality, compared with patients who have idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH).

Despite these factors, some patients with more severe PH in COPD may respond to treatment and show clinical improvement after treatment, according to recent research published in the journal CHEST^®.

Carmine Dario Vizza, MD, of the pulmonary hypertension unit, department of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases at Sapienza University of Rome, and colleagues evaluated patients in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) database, enrolled up to August 2020, identifying 68 patients with moderate PH and COPD and 307 patients with severe PH and COPD. The researchers compared the PH and COPD groups with 307 patients who had idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Overall, mostly older men made up the group of patients with moderate (50%; mean, 68.5 years) and severe PH in COPD (61%; mean 68.4 years), compared with those who had IPAH (37%; mean 61.7 years. Oral monotherapy for patients with PH and COPD was the main treatment, consisting of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, while most patients with IPAH received endothelin receptor antagonists.

On functional tests, patients in the PH and COPD group tended to perform poorer on the 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) and World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC) than patients with IPAH. Specifically, among 42.7% of patients in both group for whom follow-up data were available, there was a similar frequency of improvement for 6MWD of 30 meters or more from baseline for both PH and COPD and IPAH groups (46.9% vs. 52.6%; P = .294), but there were significant differences between 6MWD between patients with moderate and severe PH and COPD (51.6% vs. 31.6%; P = .04). There was a nonsignificant improvement in WHO FC improvement of one or more classes for 65.6% of patients with PH and COPD and 58.3% of patients with IPAH with follow-up data available, with 28.5% of patients with PH in COPD improving compared with 35.8% of patients with IPAH (P = .078) and nonsignificant differences between moderate and severe PH and COPD (19.0% vs. 30.4%; P = .188).

Comparing outcomes

Follow-up data were available for 84% of patients with IPAH and 94% of patients with PH and COPD. Dr. Dario Vizza and colleagues found 45.7% of patients in the PH and COPD group and 24.9% of patients in the IPAH group died during follow-up, while 1.1% in the PH and COPD group and 1.5% of patients in the IPAH group underwent lung transplantations. For patients with moderate PH and COPD, 31.3% died and none underwent lung transplantation, while 49.0% of patients in the severe PH and COPD group died and 1.4% underwent lung transplantations.

Patients in the moderate PH and COPD group were more likely to discontinue treatment (10.9%), compared with patients with IPAH (6.6%) and patients with severe PH and COPD (5.2%). The most common reasons for discontinuations were tolerability and efficacy failure; the IPAH group had 63% of patients discontinue because of tolerability and 7% for efficacy failure, 47% of patients in the severe PH and COPD group discontinued because of tolerability and efficacy, and 29% discontinued treatment for tolerability and 57% for efficacy failure in the moderate and COPD group.

The researchers said male sex, low 6MWD, and high pulmonary vascular resistance at baseline were predictive of poorer outcomes for PH and COPD, but patients with more severe PH and COPD had better outcomes if they improved by 30 meters or more in 6MWD, or improved in WHO FC after receiving medical therapy. For patients with IPAH response to therapy was better among patients who were younger, had higher WHO FC, had high diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, had high mean pulmonary artery pressure, and had low PCO₂.

“Our data suggest that PH-targeted drug therapy in patients with COPD and severe PH may improve exercise tolerance and WHO FC in a subgroup of patients and that patients with COPD and PH who respond to therapy may have a better prognosis than patients who do not show clinical improvement. These findings need to be explored further in prospective, randomized controlled clinical studies,” the authors concluded.
 

More research needed

In a related editorial, James R. Klinger, MD, a pulmonologist with Brown University, Providence, R.I., and the director of the Rhode Island Hospital Pulmonary Hypertension Center in East Providence, said there is a “keen interest” in treating PH in COPD despite a lack of consistency on whether treatment is effective in this patient population. About 80% of PH centers in the United States treat PH in COPD when they treat conditions like lung disease with PAH medication, he pointed out. However, he questioned whether current medications designed for PAH could improve pulmonary hemodynamics for PH in COPD.

“Reasons that the pathobiologic condition of PH-COPD may differ from PAH include the likely exposure of the pulmonary circulation to greater degrees of hypoxia and hypercapnia and the greater loss of alveolar capillaries associated with emphysema,” he said.

The study by Dr. Dario Vizza and colleagues is an attempt to evaluate treatment response for patients with PH and COPD “in a way that allows comparison with patients who have been treated with similar drugs for PAH,” Dr. Klinger said. He noted the study’s retrospective nature, lack of control group, and lack of information on lung disease severity could limit the findings.

“These limitations preclude recommendations for the routine treatment of patients with PH-COPD, but the findings suggest that, despite greater morbidity at baseline, patients with PH-COPD may be nearly as likely to benefit from PAH medications as patients with IPAH,” he said.

“What is needed now is well-designed randomized controlled studies to determine whether improved outcomes can be achieved in this population and which patients are most likely to benefit,” he concluded. “Simply put: How bad does PH need to be in patients with COPD before treatment is helpful, and how severe does COPD need to be before PH treatment is futile?”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, advisory board memberships, speakers bureau appointments, honoraria, patents, grant and research funding, lectures, travel compensation, and steering committee positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, journals, medical publishing companies, and other organizations. Dr. Klinger reported his institution receives grant support from Acceleron and United Therapeutics in the area of PH, and he has been an unpaid consultant for Bayer.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) as a complication of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have worse functional impairment and higher mortality, compared with patients who have idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH).

Despite these factors, some patients with more severe PH in COPD may respond to treatment and show clinical improvement after treatment, according to recent research published in the journal CHEST^®.

Carmine Dario Vizza, MD, of the pulmonary hypertension unit, department of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases at Sapienza University of Rome, and colleagues evaluated patients in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) database, enrolled up to August 2020, identifying 68 patients with moderate PH and COPD and 307 patients with severe PH and COPD. The researchers compared the PH and COPD groups with 307 patients who had idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Overall, mostly older men made up the group of patients with moderate (50%; mean, 68.5 years) and severe PH in COPD (61%; mean 68.4 years), compared with those who had IPAH (37%; mean 61.7 years. Oral monotherapy for patients with PH and COPD was the main treatment, consisting of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, while most patients with IPAH received endothelin receptor antagonists.

On functional tests, patients in the PH and COPD group tended to perform poorer on the 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) and World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC) than patients with IPAH. Specifically, among 42.7% of patients in both group for whom follow-up data were available, there was a similar frequency of improvement for 6MWD of 30 meters or more from baseline for both PH and COPD and IPAH groups (46.9% vs. 52.6%; P = .294), but there were significant differences between 6MWD between patients with moderate and severe PH and COPD (51.6% vs. 31.6%; P = .04). There was a nonsignificant improvement in WHO FC improvement of one or more classes for 65.6% of patients with PH and COPD and 58.3% of patients with IPAH with follow-up data available, with 28.5% of patients with PH in COPD improving compared with 35.8% of patients with IPAH (P = .078) and nonsignificant differences between moderate and severe PH and COPD (19.0% vs. 30.4%; P = .188).

Comparing outcomes

Follow-up data were available for 84% of patients with IPAH and 94% of patients with PH and COPD. Dr. Dario Vizza and colleagues found 45.7% of patients in the PH and COPD group and 24.9% of patients in the IPAH group died during follow-up, while 1.1% in the PH and COPD group and 1.5% of patients in the IPAH group underwent lung transplantations. For patients with moderate PH and COPD, 31.3% died and none underwent lung transplantation, while 49.0% of patients in the severe PH and COPD group died and 1.4% underwent lung transplantations.

Patients in the moderate PH and COPD group were more likely to discontinue treatment (10.9%), compared with patients with IPAH (6.6%) and patients with severe PH and COPD (5.2%). The most common reasons for discontinuations were tolerability and efficacy failure; the IPAH group had 63% of patients discontinue because of tolerability and 7% for efficacy failure, 47% of patients in the severe PH and COPD group discontinued because of tolerability and efficacy, and 29% discontinued treatment for tolerability and 57% for efficacy failure in the moderate and COPD group.

The researchers said male sex, low 6MWD, and high pulmonary vascular resistance at baseline were predictive of poorer outcomes for PH and COPD, but patients with more severe PH and COPD had better outcomes if they improved by 30 meters or more in 6MWD, or improved in WHO FC after receiving medical therapy. For patients with IPAH response to therapy was better among patients who were younger, had higher WHO FC, had high diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, had high mean pulmonary artery pressure, and had low PCO₂.

“Our data suggest that PH-targeted drug therapy in patients with COPD and severe PH may improve exercise tolerance and WHO FC in a subgroup of patients and that patients with COPD and PH who respond to therapy may have a better prognosis than patients who do not show clinical improvement. These findings need to be explored further in prospective, randomized controlled clinical studies,” the authors concluded.
 

More research needed

In a related editorial, James R. Klinger, MD, a pulmonologist with Brown University, Providence, R.I., and the director of the Rhode Island Hospital Pulmonary Hypertension Center in East Providence, said there is a “keen interest” in treating PH in COPD despite a lack of consistency on whether treatment is effective in this patient population. About 80% of PH centers in the United States treat PH in COPD when they treat conditions like lung disease with PAH medication, he pointed out. However, he questioned whether current medications designed for PAH could improve pulmonary hemodynamics for PH in COPD.

“Reasons that the pathobiologic condition of PH-COPD may differ from PAH include the likely exposure of the pulmonary circulation to greater degrees of hypoxia and hypercapnia and the greater loss of alveolar capillaries associated with emphysema,” he said.

The study by Dr. Dario Vizza and colleagues is an attempt to evaluate treatment response for patients with PH and COPD “in a way that allows comparison with patients who have been treated with similar drugs for PAH,” Dr. Klinger said. He noted the study’s retrospective nature, lack of control group, and lack of information on lung disease severity could limit the findings.

“These limitations preclude recommendations for the routine treatment of patients with PH-COPD, but the findings suggest that, despite greater morbidity at baseline, patients with PH-COPD may be nearly as likely to benefit from PAH medications as patients with IPAH,” he said.

“What is needed now is well-designed randomized controlled studies to determine whether improved outcomes can be achieved in this population and which patients are most likely to benefit,” he concluded. “Simply put: How bad does PH need to be in patients with COPD before treatment is helpful, and how severe does COPD need to be before PH treatment is futile?”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, advisory board memberships, speakers bureau appointments, honoraria, patents, grant and research funding, lectures, travel compensation, and steering committee positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, journals, medical publishing companies, and other organizations. Dr. Klinger reported his institution receives grant support from Acceleron and United Therapeutics in the area of PH, and he has been an unpaid consultant for Bayer.

Patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) as a complication of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have worse functional impairment and higher mortality, compared with patients who have idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH).

Despite these factors, some patients with more severe PH in COPD may respond to treatment and show clinical improvement after treatment, according to recent research published in the journal CHEST^®.

Carmine Dario Vizza, MD, of the pulmonary hypertension unit, department of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases at Sapienza University of Rome, and colleagues evaluated patients in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) database, enrolled up to August 2020, identifying 68 patients with moderate PH and COPD and 307 patients with severe PH and COPD. The researchers compared the PH and COPD groups with 307 patients who had idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Overall, mostly older men made up the group of patients with moderate (50%; mean, 68.5 years) and severe PH in COPD (61%; mean 68.4 years), compared with those who had IPAH (37%; mean 61.7 years. Oral monotherapy for patients with PH and COPD was the main treatment, consisting of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, while most patients with IPAH received endothelin receptor antagonists.

On functional tests, patients in the PH and COPD group tended to perform poorer on the 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) and World Health Organization functional class (WHO FC) than patients with IPAH. Specifically, among 42.7% of patients in both group for whom follow-up data were available, there was a similar frequency of improvement for 6MWD of 30 meters or more from baseline for both PH and COPD and IPAH groups (46.9% vs. 52.6%; P = .294), but there were significant differences between 6MWD between patients with moderate and severe PH and COPD (51.6% vs. 31.6%; P = .04). There was a nonsignificant improvement in WHO FC improvement of one or more classes for 65.6% of patients with PH and COPD and 58.3% of patients with IPAH with follow-up data available, with 28.5% of patients with PH in COPD improving compared with 35.8% of patients with IPAH (P = .078) and nonsignificant differences between moderate and severe PH and COPD (19.0% vs. 30.4%; P = .188).

Comparing outcomes

Follow-up data were available for 84% of patients with IPAH and 94% of patients with PH and COPD. Dr. Dario Vizza and colleagues found 45.7% of patients in the PH and COPD group and 24.9% of patients in the IPAH group died during follow-up, while 1.1% in the PH and COPD group and 1.5% of patients in the IPAH group underwent lung transplantations. For patients with moderate PH and COPD, 31.3% died and none underwent lung transplantation, while 49.0% of patients in the severe PH and COPD group died and 1.4% underwent lung transplantations.

Patients in the moderate PH and COPD group were more likely to discontinue treatment (10.9%), compared with patients with IPAH (6.6%) and patients with severe PH and COPD (5.2%). The most common reasons for discontinuations were tolerability and efficacy failure; the IPAH group had 63% of patients discontinue because of tolerability and 7% for efficacy failure, 47% of patients in the severe PH and COPD group discontinued because of tolerability and efficacy, and 29% discontinued treatment for tolerability and 57% for efficacy failure in the moderate and COPD group.

The researchers said male sex, low 6MWD, and high pulmonary vascular resistance at baseline were predictive of poorer outcomes for PH and COPD, but patients with more severe PH and COPD had better outcomes if they improved by 30 meters or more in 6MWD, or improved in WHO FC after receiving medical therapy. For patients with IPAH response to therapy was better among patients who were younger, had higher WHO FC, had high diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, had high mean pulmonary artery pressure, and had low PCO₂.

“Our data suggest that PH-targeted drug therapy in patients with COPD and severe PH may improve exercise tolerance and WHO FC in a subgroup of patients and that patients with COPD and PH who respond to therapy may have a better prognosis than patients who do not show clinical improvement. These findings need to be explored further in prospective, randomized controlled clinical studies,” the authors concluded.
 

More research needed

In a related editorial, James R. Klinger, MD, a pulmonologist with Brown University, Providence, R.I., and the director of the Rhode Island Hospital Pulmonary Hypertension Center in East Providence, said there is a “keen interest” in treating PH in COPD despite a lack of consistency on whether treatment is effective in this patient population. About 80% of PH centers in the United States treat PH in COPD when they treat conditions like lung disease with PAH medication, he pointed out. However, he questioned whether current medications designed for PAH could improve pulmonary hemodynamics for PH in COPD.

“Reasons that the pathobiologic condition of PH-COPD may differ from PAH include the likely exposure of the pulmonary circulation to greater degrees of hypoxia and hypercapnia and the greater loss of alveolar capillaries associated with emphysema,” he said.

The study by Dr. Dario Vizza and colleagues is an attempt to evaluate treatment response for patients with PH and COPD “in a way that allows comparison with patients who have been treated with similar drugs for PAH,” Dr. Klinger said. He noted the study’s retrospective nature, lack of control group, and lack of information on lung disease severity could limit the findings.

“These limitations preclude recommendations for the routine treatment of patients with PH-COPD, but the findings suggest that, despite greater morbidity at baseline, patients with PH-COPD may be nearly as likely to benefit from PAH medications as patients with IPAH,” he said.

“What is needed now is well-designed randomized controlled studies to determine whether improved outcomes can be achieved in this population and which patients are most likely to benefit,” he concluded. “Simply put: How bad does PH need to be in patients with COPD before treatment is helpful, and how severe does COPD need to be before PH treatment is futile?”

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, advisory board memberships, speakers bureau appointments, honoraria, patents, grant and research funding, lectures, travel compensation, and steering committee positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, journals, medical publishing companies, and other organizations. Dr. Klinger reported his institution receives grant support from Acceleron and United Therapeutics in the area of PH, and he has been an unpaid consultant for Bayer.

Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is bound to be increasing because of the rising obesity epidemic but is underrecognized and “frequently underdiagnosed,” Saiprakash B. Venkateshiah, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The condition, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, is defined by the combination of obesity and awake alveolar hypoventilation (PaCO₂ ≥45 mm Hg), with the exclusion of alternate causes of hypoventilation. Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is almost universally present, with approximately 90% of individuals with OHS also having obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), most often severe, and approximately 10% having sleep-related hypoventilation, or a “pure hypoventilation subtype, if you will,” said Dr. Venkateshiah, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

The prevalence of OHS in the general population is unknown, but its prevalence in patients who present for the evaluation of SDB has ranged from 8%-20% across multiple studies, he said. Up to 40% of patients with OHS present for the first time with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, which has an in-hospital mortality of 18%.

Postmenopausal women appear to have a higher prevalence, compared with premenopausal women and men, he noted, and women appear to be more likely than men to present with the clinical phenotype of OHS without associated OSA.

The arterial blood gas measurement needed to document alveolar hypoventilation and definitively diagnosis OHA is a “simple and economical test,” he said, “but it is logistically very difficult to obtain [these measurements] routinely in all patients in the clinic ... and is one of the reasons why OSH is underdiagnosed.”
 

Guideline advice

A practice guideline published in 2019 by the American Thoracic Society suggests that, for obese patients with SDB and a low to moderate probability of having OSH, a serum bicarbonate level be measured first. “In patients with serum bicarbonate less than 27 mmol/L, clinicians might forgo measuring PaCO₂, as the diagnosis in them is very unlikely,” Dr. Venkateshiah said, referring to the guideline. “In patients with a serum bicarbonate greater than 27, you might need to measure PaCO₂ to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of OHS.”

(Patients strongly suspected of having OHS, with more than a low to moderate probability – those in whom arterial blood gases should be measured – are “usually severely obese with typical signs and symptoms such as dyspnea, nocturia, lower-extremity edema, excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, loud disruptive snoring, witnessed apneas, as well as mild hypoxemia during wake and/or significant hypoxemia during sleep,” the ATS guideline says.)

The guideline panel considered the use of oxygen saturation measured with pulse oximetry during wakefulness to screen for OHS and decided to advise against it because of the paucity of evidence-based literature, Dr. Venkateshiah noted. (In making its five conditional recommendations, the guideline panel cited an overall very low quality of evidence.)

Symptoms of OHS overlap with those of OSA (for example, daytime hypersomnolence, witnessed apneas, loud snoring, and morning headaches), so “symptoms alone cannot be used to discriminate between the two disorders,” he advised. Signs of OHS commonly seen in clinical exams, however, are low resting daytime oxygen saturations and lower-extremity edema. A sleep study, he added, is needed to document and characterize SDB in patients with OHS.

Positive airway pressure therapy is the first-line treatment for OHS, and long-term outcomes of patients with OHS on PAP treatment are significantly better, compared with untreated individuals. There is no strong evidence to recommend one form of PAP therapy over another for patients with OHS and concomitant severe OSA, he said, but “the bottom line” from both short- and long-term randomized clinical trials comparing CPAP with noninvasive ventilation “is that CPAP is equivalent to noninvasive ventilation as far as outcomes are concerned.”

The ATS guideline panel recommends continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with OHS and severe OSA. And for OHS with nonsevere OSA, bilevel PAP is traditionally used – including pure hypoventilators, Dr. Venkateshiah said.

Weight-loss interventions are paramount, since “the primary driver of OHS is obesity,” he said at the meeting. There are only a few studies that have looked at bariatric surgery in patients with OHS, he said, “but they did note significant improvements in gas exchange, sleep apnea, lung volumes and pulmonary hypertension.”

The ATS guideline suggests weight-loss interventions that produce sustained weight loss of 25%-30% of the actual body weight. Such interventions are “most likely required to achieve resolution of hypoventilation,” Dr. Venkateshiah said.
 

OHS vs. COPD

In a separate presentation on OHS, Michelle Cao, DO, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized the importance of distinguishing the patient with OHS from the patient with hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spirometry and the flow volume curve can help rule out hypercapnic COPD and other conditions that cause daytime hypoventilation.

A study published in 2016 of 600 hospitalized patients determined to have unequivocal OHS found that 43% had been misdiagnosed as having COPD and none had been previously diagnosed with OHS, Dr. Cao noted. Patients in the study had a mean age of 58 and a mean body mass index of 48.2 kg/m²; 64% were women.

Dr. Venkateshiah and Dr. Cao had no relevant disclosures.

Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is bound to be increasing because of the rising obesity epidemic but is underrecognized and “frequently underdiagnosed,” Saiprakash B. Venkateshiah, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The condition, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, is defined by the combination of obesity and awake alveolar hypoventilation (PaCO₂ ≥45 mm Hg), with the exclusion of alternate causes of hypoventilation. Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is almost universally present, with approximately 90% of individuals with OHS also having obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), most often severe, and approximately 10% having sleep-related hypoventilation, or a “pure hypoventilation subtype, if you will,” said Dr. Venkateshiah, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

The prevalence of OHS in the general population is unknown, but its prevalence in patients who present for the evaluation of SDB has ranged from 8%-20% across multiple studies, he said. Up to 40% of patients with OHS present for the first time with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, which has an in-hospital mortality of 18%.

Postmenopausal women appear to have a higher prevalence, compared with premenopausal women and men, he noted, and women appear to be more likely than men to present with the clinical phenotype of OHS without associated OSA.

The arterial blood gas measurement needed to document alveolar hypoventilation and definitively diagnosis OHA is a “simple and economical test,” he said, “but it is logistically very difficult to obtain [these measurements] routinely in all patients in the clinic ... and is one of the reasons why OSH is underdiagnosed.”
 

Guideline advice

A practice guideline published in 2019 by the American Thoracic Society suggests that, for obese patients with SDB and a low to moderate probability of having OSH, a serum bicarbonate level be measured first. “In patients with serum bicarbonate less than 27 mmol/L, clinicians might forgo measuring PaCO₂, as the diagnosis in them is very unlikely,” Dr. Venkateshiah said, referring to the guideline. “In patients with a serum bicarbonate greater than 27, you might need to measure PaCO₂ to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of OHS.”

(Patients strongly suspected of having OHS, with more than a low to moderate probability – those in whom arterial blood gases should be measured – are “usually severely obese with typical signs and symptoms such as dyspnea, nocturia, lower-extremity edema, excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, loud disruptive snoring, witnessed apneas, as well as mild hypoxemia during wake and/or significant hypoxemia during sleep,” the ATS guideline says.)

The guideline panel considered the use of oxygen saturation measured with pulse oximetry during wakefulness to screen for OHS and decided to advise against it because of the paucity of evidence-based literature, Dr. Venkateshiah noted. (In making its five conditional recommendations, the guideline panel cited an overall very low quality of evidence.)

Symptoms of OHS overlap with those of OSA (for example, daytime hypersomnolence, witnessed apneas, loud snoring, and morning headaches), so “symptoms alone cannot be used to discriminate between the two disorders,” he advised. Signs of OHS commonly seen in clinical exams, however, are low resting daytime oxygen saturations and lower-extremity edema. A sleep study, he added, is needed to document and characterize SDB in patients with OHS.

Positive airway pressure therapy is the first-line treatment for OHS, and long-term outcomes of patients with OHS on PAP treatment are significantly better, compared with untreated individuals. There is no strong evidence to recommend one form of PAP therapy over another for patients with OHS and concomitant severe OSA, he said, but “the bottom line” from both short- and long-term randomized clinical trials comparing CPAP with noninvasive ventilation “is that CPAP is equivalent to noninvasive ventilation as far as outcomes are concerned.”

The ATS guideline panel recommends continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with OHS and severe OSA. And for OHS with nonsevere OSA, bilevel PAP is traditionally used – including pure hypoventilators, Dr. Venkateshiah said.

Weight-loss interventions are paramount, since “the primary driver of OHS is obesity,” he said at the meeting. There are only a few studies that have looked at bariatric surgery in patients with OHS, he said, “but they did note significant improvements in gas exchange, sleep apnea, lung volumes and pulmonary hypertension.”

The ATS guideline suggests weight-loss interventions that produce sustained weight loss of 25%-30% of the actual body weight. Such interventions are “most likely required to achieve resolution of hypoventilation,” Dr. Venkateshiah said.
 

OHS vs. COPD

In a separate presentation on OHS, Michelle Cao, DO, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized the importance of distinguishing the patient with OHS from the patient with hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spirometry and the flow volume curve can help rule out hypercapnic COPD and other conditions that cause daytime hypoventilation.

A study published in 2016 of 600 hospitalized patients determined to have unequivocal OHS found that 43% had been misdiagnosed as having COPD and none had been previously diagnosed with OHS, Dr. Cao noted. Patients in the study had a mean age of 58 and a mean body mass index of 48.2 kg/m²; 64% were women.

Dr. Venkateshiah and Dr. Cao had no relevant disclosures.

Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is bound to be increasing because of the rising obesity epidemic but is underrecognized and “frequently underdiagnosed,” Saiprakash B. Venkateshiah, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The condition, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, is defined by the combination of obesity and awake alveolar hypoventilation (PaCO₂ ≥45 mm Hg), with the exclusion of alternate causes of hypoventilation. Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is almost universally present, with approximately 90% of individuals with OHS also having obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), most often severe, and approximately 10% having sleep-related hypoventilation, or a “pure hypoventilation subtype, if you will,” said Dr. Venkateshiah, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

The prevalence of OHS in the general population is unknown, but its prevalence in patients who present for the evaluation of SDB has ranged from 8%-20% across multiple studies, he said. Up to 40% of patients with OHS present for the first time with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, which has an in-hospital mortality of 18%.

Postmenopausal women appear to have a higher prevalence, compared with premenopausal women and men, he noted, and women appear to be more likely than men to present with the clinical phenotype of OHS without associated OSA.

The arterial blood gas measurement needed to document alveolar hypoventilation and definitively diagnosis OHA is a “simple and economical test,” he said, “but it is logistically very difficult to obtain [these measurements] routinely in all patients in the clinic ... and is one of the reasons why OSH is underdiagnosed.”
 

Guideline advice

A practice guideline published in 2019 by the American Thoracic Society suggests that, for obese patients with SDB and a low to moderate probability of having OSH, a serum bicarbonate level be measured first. “In patients with serum bicarbonate less than 27 mmol/L, clinicians might forgo measuring PaCO₂, as the diagnosis in them is very unlikely,” Dr. Venkateshiah said, referring to the guideline. “In patients with a serum bicarbonate greater than 27, you might need to measure PaCO₂ to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of OHS.”

(Patients strongly suspected of having OHS, with more than a low to moderate probability – those in whom arterial blood gases should be measured – are “usually severely obese with typical signs and symptoms such as dyspnea, nocturia, lower-extremity edema, excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, loud disruptive snoring, witnessed apneas, as well as mild hypoxemia during wake and/or significant hypoxemia during sleep,” the ATS guideline says.)

The guideline panel considered the use of oxygen saturation measured with pulse oximetry during wakefulness to screen for OHS and decided to advise against it because of the paucity of evidence-based literature, Dr. Venkateshiah noted. (In making its five conditional recommendations, the guideline panel cited an overall very low quality of evidence.)

Symptoms of OHS overlap with those of OSA (for example, daytime hypersomnolence, witnessed apneas, loud snoring, and morning headaches), so “symptoms alone cannot be used to discriminate between the two disorders,” he advised. Signs of OHS commonly seen in clinical exams, however, are low resting daytime oxygen saturations and lower-extremity edema. A sleep study, he added, is needed to document and characterize SDB in patients with OHS.

Positive airway pressure therapy is the first-line treatment for OHS, and long-term outcomes of patients with OHS on PAP treatment are significantly better, compared with untreated individuals. There is no strong evidence to recommend one form of PAP therapy over another for patients with OHS and concomitant severe OSA, he said, but “the bottom line” from both short- and long-term randomized clinical trials comparing CPAP with noninvasive ventilation “is that CPAP is equivalent to noninvasive ventilation as far as outcomes are concerned.”

The ATS guideline panel recommends continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with OHS and severe OSA. And for OHS with nonsevere OSA, bilevel PAP is traditionally used – including pure hypoventilators, Dr. Venkateshiah said.

Weight-loss interventions are paramount, since “the primary driver of OHS is obesity,” he said at the meeting. There are only a few studies that have looked at bariatric surgery in patients with OHS, he said, “but they did note significant improvements in gas exchange, sleep apnea, lung volumes and pulmonary hypertension.”

The ATS guideline suggests weight-loss interventions that produce sustained weight loss of 25%-30% of the actual body weight. Such interventions are “most likely required to achieve resolution of hypoventilation,” Dr. Venkateshiah said.
 

OHS vs. COPD

In a separate presentation on OHS, Michelle Cao, DO, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, emphasized the importance of distinguishing the patient with OHS from the patient with hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spirometry and the flow volume curve can help rule out hypercapnic COPD and other conditions that cause daytime hypoventilation.

A study published in 2016 of 600 hospitalized patients determined to have unequivocal OHS found that 43% had been misdiagnosed as having COPD and none had been previously diagnosed with OHS, Dr. Cao noted. Patients in the study had a mean age of 58 and a mean body mass index of 48.2 kg/m²; 64% were women.

Dr. Venkateshiah and Dr. Cao had no relevant disclosures.

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Medicare exacts a penalty whenever it deems that hospitals have too many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who have been re-admitted within 30 days of discharge for care related to the disease. For acute-care hospitals the solution to reducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) re-admissions has been elusive, but members of a COPD chronic care management collaborative think they have found at least a partial solution.

Among 33 centers participating in the performance improvement program, the aggregated cost avoidance for emergency department (ED) visits was estimated at $351,000, and the savings for hospital re-visits avoided was an estimated $2.6 million, reported Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago, and co-authors from the health care performance-improvement company Vizient.

The investigators described their chronic care management collaborative in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1688).

“I’ve been working in the space of COPD re-admissions pretty much since Medicare started its penalty program,” Dr. Press said in an interview.

“At both my own institution and nationally, we’ve been trying to understand the policy that went into place to reduce what was considered to be excessive readmissions after a COPD admission, but there really wasn’t a lot of evidence to suggest how to do this at the time the policy went into place,” she said.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program for COPD in 2014.

“The challenge with COPD is that we have not found really successful interventions to decrease readmissions,” commented Laura C. Myers, MD, MPH, in an interview. Dr. Myers, who studies optimal care delivery models for patients with COPD at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, was not involved in the study.

She said that although the aggregate cost savings in the study by Dr. Press and colleagues are relatively modest, “if you extrapolate across the country, then those numbers could potentially be impressive.”
 

Collaboration details

Dr. Press was a subject matter expert for the collaborative, which included 47 Vizient member sites in the Southeast, Southwest, Midwest, and Northeast and Northwest coasts. Of these centers, 33 completed both parts of the collaboration.

The program included bi-monthly didactic sessions and site report and discussion sessions with peer-to-peer networking for a total of 6 months. During the sessions, meeting participants discussed best practices, received expert coaching, and provided progress updates on performance improvement projects.

“The goal was for them to identify the gaps or needs they had at their hospitals or practices, and then to try to put in place one or more interventions,” Dr. Press said. “This wasn’t a research program. It wasn’t standardized, and not all hospitals had to do the same program.”

The participants submitted reports for baseline and post-collaboration periods on both an intervention’s “reach,” defined as the percentage of patients who received a specified intervention, and on two outcome measures.

The interventions measured included spirometry, follow-up visits scheduled within 7 to 14 days of discharge, patients receiving COPD education, pulmonary referrals, and adherence to the COPD clinical pathway.

The outcome measures were the rate of COPD-related ED visits and hospital readmissions.
 

Revisits reduced

At the end of the program, 83% of participating sites had reductions in either ED visits or readmissions, and of this group, five sites had decreases in both measures.

Among all sites with improved metrics, the average rate of COPD-related ED revisits declined from 12.7% to 9%, and average inpatient readmissions declined from 20.1% to 15.6%.

As noted, the estimated cost savings in ED revisits avoided was $351,00, and the estimated savings in hospital readmission costs was $2.6 million.

“Although the centers didn’t have to participate in both parts, we did see in our results that the programs that participated fully had better results,” Dr. Press said.

“Historically, we’ve had such difficulty in decreasing COPD readmissions, and it’s nice to see something that actually works, both for patients and for conserving health resources,” Dr. Myers commented.

The study was supported by Vizient. Dr. Press disclosed honoraria from the company in her role as subject matter expert. Dr. Myers reported no conflicts of interest.

Medicare exacts a penalty whenever it deems that hospitals have too many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who have been re-admitted within 30 days of discharge for care related to the disease. For acute-care hospitals the solution to reducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) re-admissions has been elusive, but members of a COPD chronic care management collaborative think they have found at least a partial solution.

Among 33 centers participating in the performance improvement program, the aggregated cost avoidance for emergency department (ED) visits was estimated at $351,000, and the savings for hospital re-visits avoided was an estimated $2.6 million, reported Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago, and co-authors from the health care performance-improvement company Vizient.

The investigators described their chronic care management collaborative in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1688).

“I’ve been working in the space of COPD re-admissions pretty much since Medicare started its penalty program,” Dr. Press said in an interview.

“At both my own institution and nationally, we’ve been trying to understand the policy that went into place to reduce what was considered to be excessive readmissions after a COPD admission, but there really wasn’t a lot of evidence to suggest how to do this at the time the policy went into place,” she said.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program for COPD in 2014.

“The challenge with COPD is that we have not found really successful interventions to decrease readmissions,” commented Laura C. Myers, MD, MPH, in an interview. Dr. Myers, who studies optimal care delivery models for patients with COPD at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, was not involved in the study.

She said that although the aggregate cost savings in the study by Dr. Press and colleagues are relatively modest, “if you extrapolate across the country, then those numbers could potentially be impressive.”
 

Collaboration details

Dr. Press was a subject matter expert for the collaborative, which included 47 Vizient member sites in the Southeast, Southwest, Midwest, and Northeast and Northwest coasts. Of these centers, 33 completed both parts of the collaboration.

The program included bi-monthly didactic sessions and site report and discussion sessions with peer-to-peer networking for a total of 6 months. During the sessions, meeting participants discussed best practices, received expert coaching, and provided progress updates on performance improvement projects.

“The goal was for them to identify the gaps or needs they had at their hospitals or practices, and then to try to put in place one or more interventions,” Dr. Press said. “This wasn’t a research program. It wasn’t standardized, and not all hospitals had to do the same program.”

The participants submitted reports for baseline and post-collaboration periods on both an intervention’s “reach,” defined as the percentage of patients who received a specified intervention, and on two outcome measures.

The interventions measured included spirometry, follow-up visits scheduled within 7 to 14 days of discharge, patients receiving COPD education, pulmonary referrals, and adherence to the COPD clinical pathway.

The outcome measures were the rate of COPD-related ED visits and hospital readmissions.
 

Revisits reduced

At the end of the program, 83% of participating sites had reductions in either ED visits or readmissions, and of this group, five sites had decreases in both measures.

Among all sites with improved metrics, the average rate of COPD-related ED revisits declined from 12.7% to 9%, and average inpatient readmissions declined from 20.1% to 15.6%.

As noted, the estimated cost savings in ED revisits avoided was $351,00, and the estimated savings in hospital readmission costs was $2.6 million.

“Although the centers didn’t have to participate in both parts, we did see in our results that the programs that participated fully had better results,” Dr. Press said.

“Historically, we’ve had such difficulty in decreasing COPD readmissions, and it’s nice to see something that actually works, both for patients and for conserving health resources,” Dr. Myers commented.

The study was supported by Vizient. Dr. Press disclosed honoraria from the company in her role as subject matter expert. Dr. Myers reported no conflicts of interest.

Medicare exacts a penalty whenever it deems that hospitals have too many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who have been re-admitted within 30 days of discharge for care related to the disease. For acute-care hospitals the solution to reducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) re-admissions has been elusive, but members of a COPD chronic care management collaborative think they have found at least a partial solution.

Among 33 centers participating in the performance improvement program, the aggregated cost avoidance for emergency department (ED) visits was estimated at $351,000, and the savings for hospital re-visits avoided was an estimated $2.6 million, reported Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago, and co-authors from the health care performance-improvement company Vizient.

The investigators described their chronic care management collaborative in a thematic poster presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1688).

“I’ve been working in the space of COPD re-admissions pretty much since Medicare started its penalty program,” Dr. Press said in an interview.

“At both my own institution and nationally, we’ve been trying to understand the policy that went into place to reduce what was considered to be excessive readmissions after a COPD admission, but there really wasn’t a lot of evidence to suggest how to do this at the time the policy went into place,” she said.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program for COPD in 2014.

“The challenge with COPD is that we have not found really successful interventions to decrease readmissions,” commented Laura C. Myers, MD, MPH, in an interview. Dr. Myers, who studies optimal care delivery models for patients with COPD at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, was not involved in the study.

She said that although the aggregate cost savings in the study by Dr. Press and colleagues are relatively modest, “if you extrapolate across the country, then those numbers could potentially be impressive.”
 

Collaboration details

Dr. Press was a subject matter expert for the collaborative, which included 47 Vizient member sites in the Southeast, Southwest, Midwest, and Northeast and Northwest coasts. Of these centers, 33 completed both parts of the collaboration.

The program included bi-monthly didactic sessions and site report and discussion sessions with peer-to-peer networking for a total of 6 months. During the sessions, meeting participants discussed best practices, received expert coaching, and provided progress updates on performance improvement projects.

“The goal was for them to identify the gaps or needs they had at their hospitals or practices, and then to try to put in place one or more interventions,” Dr. Press said. “This wasn’t a research program. It wasn’t standardized, and not all hospitals had to do the same program.”

The participants submitted reports for baseline and post-collaboration periods on both an intervention’s “reach,” defined as the percentage of patients who received a specified intervention, and on two outcome measures.

The interventions measured included spirometry, follow-up visits scheduled within 7 to 14 days of discharge, patients receiving COPD education, pulmonary referrals, and adherence to the COPD clinical pathway.

The outcome measures were the rate of COPD-related ED visits and hospital readmissions.
 

Revisits reduced

At the end of the program, 83% of participating sites had reductions in either ED visits or readmissions, and of this group, five sites had decreases in both measures.

Among all sites with improved metrics, the average rate of COPD-related ED revisits declined from 12.7% to 9%, and average inpatient readmissions declined from 20.1% to 15.6%.

As noted, the estimated cost savings in ED revisits avoided was $351,00, and the estimated savings in hospital readmission costs was $2.6 million.

“Although the centers didn’t have to participate in both parts, we did see in our results that the programs that participated fully had better results,” Dr. Press said.

“Historically, we’ve had such difficulty in decreasing COPD readmissions, and it’s nice to see something that actually works, both for patients and for conserving health resources,” Dr. Myers commented.

The study was supported by Vizient. Dr. Press disclosed honoraria from the company in her role as subject matter expert. Dr. Myers reported no conflicts of interest.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Adults in their 30s, 40s and 50s with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience significant morbidity and excess mortality from the disease, results of a population-based study show.

Among adults aged 35-55 years with COPD in Ontario in a longitudinal population cohort study, the overall mortality rate was fivefold higher, compared with other adults in the same age range without COPD.

In contrast, the mortality rate among adults 65 years and older with COPD was 2.5-fold higher than that of their peers without COPD, reported Alina J. Blazer, MSc, MD, a clinical and research fellow at the University of Toronto.

“Overall, our study has shown that younger adults with COPD experience significant morbidity, as evidence by their elevated rates of health care use and excess mortality from their disease. This study provides further evidence that so-called ‘early’ COPD is not a benign disease, and suggests that we should focus clinical efforts on identifying COPD in younger patients, in the hopes that earlier intervention may improve their current health, reduce resource utilization, and prevent further disease progression,” she said during a minisymposium at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1131).

COPD is widely regarded as a disease affecting only older adults, but it can also occur in those younger than 65, and although it is commonly assumed that COPD diagnosed earlier in life will be milder in severity, this assumption has not been fully explored in real-world settings, Dr. Blazer said.

She and her colleagues conducted a study to examine disease burden as measured by health services utilization and mortality among younger adults with COPD, and compared the rates with those of older adults with COPD.

The sample for this study included 194,759 adults with COPD aged 35-55 years in Ontario in 2016. COPD was identified from health administrative data for three or more outpatient claims or one or more hospitalization claims for COPD over a 2-year period.

For context, the data were compared with those for 496,2113 COPD patients aged 65 years and older.

They found that, compared with their peers without the disease, younger adults had a 3.1-fold higher rate of hospitalization for any cause, a 2.2-fold higher rate of all-cause ED visits, and a 1.7-fold higher rate of outpatient visits for any cause.

In contrast, the comparative rates for seniors with versus without COPD were 2.1-fold, 1.8-fold, and 1.4-fold, respectively.

As noted before, the mortality rate for younger adults with COPD was 5-fold higher than for those without COPD, compared with 2.5-fold among older adults with COPD versus those without.
 

Earlier diagnosis, follow-up

“A very important talk,” commented session comoderator Valerie Press, MD, MPH, from the University of Chicago. “I know that there’s a lot of work to be done in earlier diagnosis in general, and I think starting with the younger population is a really important area.”

She asked Dr. Blazer about the possibility of asthma codiagnosis or misdiagnosis in the younger patients.

“We use a very specific, validated case definition in the study that our group has used before, and the specificity is over 96% for physician-diagnosed COPD, at the expense of sensitivity, so if anything we probably underestimated the rate of COPD in our study,” Dr. Blazer said.

Audience member Sherry Rogers, MD, an allergist and immunologist in private practice in Syracuse, N.Y., asked whether the investigators could determine what proportion of the excess mortality they saw was attributable to COPD.

“This was looking at all-cause mortality, so we don’t know that it’s necessarily all attributable to COPD per se but perhaps also to COPD-attributable comorbidities,” Dr. Blazer said. “It would be important to piece out the actual causes of mortality that are contributing to that elevated [morality] in that population.”

She added that the next step could include examining rates of specialty referrals and pharmacotherapy to see whether younger patients with COPD are receiving appropriate care, and to ascertain how they are being followed.

The study was supported by the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Research Institute. Dr. Blazer reported no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

The benefits of a triple fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting beta₂ agonist combination extend to patients with moderate as well as severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

That’s according to investigators in the ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial (NCT02465567).

In a subanalysis of data on patients with moderate COPD who were enrolled in the comparison trial, the single-inhaler combination of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) budesonide, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrrolate, and the long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (BGF) showed benefits in terms of COPD exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, and quality-of-life compared with either of two dual therapy combinations (glycopyrrolate or budesonide with formoterol [GFF/BFF]).

“A moderate benefit:risk ratio was demonstrated in patients with moderate COPD, consistent with the results of the overall ETHOS population, indicating the results of the ETHOS study were not driven by patients with severe or very severe COPD,” wrote Gary T. Ferguson, MD, from the Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan in Farmington Hills, and colleagues. Their poster was presented during the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference. (Abstract A2244).

As reported at ATS 2020, in the overall ETHOS population of 8,509 patients with moderate to very severe COPD the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations was 1.08 and 1.07 for the triple combinations with 320-mcg and 160-mcg doses of budesonide, respectively, compared with 1.42 for glycopyrrolate-formoterol, and 1.24 for budesonide-formoterol.

Both triple combinations were significantly superior to the dual therapies for controlling exacerbations, Klaus F. Rabe, MD, PhD, of LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel (Germany), and colleagues found.
 

Subanalysis details

At the 2021 iteration of ATS, ETHOS investigator Dr. Ferguson and colleagues reported results for 613 patients with moderate COPD assigned to BGF 320 mcg, 604 assigned to BGF 160 mcg, 596 assigned to GFF, and 614 randomized to BFF.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar among the groups, including age, sex, smoking status, mean COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, mean blood eosinophil count, ICS use at screening, exacerbations in the previous year, mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) percentage of predicted, and mean postbronchodilator percentage reversibility.

A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations over 52 weeks with BGF 320 mcg was 21% lower than with GFF (P = .0123), but only 4% lower than with BFF, a difference that was not statistically significant.

The BGF 160-mg dose was associated with a 30% reduction in exacerbations vs. GFF (P = .0002), and with a nonsignificant reduction of 15% compared with BFF.

­There was a numerical but not statistically significant improvement from baseline at week 24 in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ between the BGF 320-mcg dose and GFF (difference 47 mL), and a significant improvement (90 mL) with BGF compared with BFF (P = .0006). The BGF 160-mcg dose was associated with a larger improvement (89 mL) compared with BFF (P = .0004) but not with GFF.

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics from 0 to 4 hours was superior with BGF at both doses compared with both GFF and BFF.

Patients who used BGF 320 mcg also used significantly less rescue medication over 24 weeks compared with patients who used GFF (P < .0001) or BFF (P = .0001). There were no significant differences in rescue medication use between the BGF 160-mg dose and either of the dual therapy combinations.

Time to clinically important deterioration – defined as a greater than ­100 mL decrease in trough FEV₁, or a ­4 units increase in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, or a treatment-emergent moderate/severe COPD exacerbation occurring up to week 52 – was significantly longer with the 320-mcg but not 160-mcg BGF dose compared with GFF (P = .0295) or BFF (P = .0172).
 

Safety

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in about two-thirds of patients in each trial arm, although TEAEs related to study treatment were more common with the two triple-therapy combinations and with BFF than with GFF.

TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of patients on BGF 320 mcg, 4% on BGF 160 mcg, 4.5% on GFF, and 3.2% on BFF.

Confirmed major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 0.8% and 1.5% in the BGF 320- and 160-mcg groups, respectively, in 1.8% of patients in the GFF arm, and 1.5% in the BFF arm.

Confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.6% of patients in each BGF arm, 2.2% in the GFF arm, and 3.6% in the BFF arm.
 

Selected population

In a comment, David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, noted that the enrollment criteria for ETHOS tended to skew the population toward patients with severe disease.

In the trial, all patients were receiving at least two inhaled maintenance therapies at the time of screening, and had a postbronchodilator ratio of FEV₁ to forced vital capacity of less than 0.7, with a postbronchodilator FEV₁ of 25%-65% of the predicted normal value. The patients all had a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years and a documented history of at least one moderate or severe COPD exacerbation in the year before screening.

“The question was whether they would see the same results in people with more moderate impairment, and the answer in this subanalysis is ‘yes.’ The findings weren’t identical between patients with severe and moderate disease, but there were similarities with what was seen in the overall ETHOS study,” he said.

The ETHOS Trial was supported by Pearl Therapeutics. Dr. Ferguson reported grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; and grants, fees, and nonfinancial support from Pearl and others. Dr. Mannino reports recruitment to an advisory board for AstraZeneca.