COPD

Inhalers, nebulizers, antibiotics, and steroids – these are some of the most common tools in our pulmonary arsenal that we deploy on a daily basis. But, there is no treatment more fundamental to a pulmonary practitioner than oxygen. So how is it that something that naturally occurs and comprises 21% of ambient air has become so medicalized?

It is difficult (perhaps impossible) to find a pulmonologist or a hospitalist who has not included the phrase “obtain ambulatory saturation to qualify the patient for home oxygen” in at least one of their progress notes on a daily basis. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most common reason for the prescription of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), a large industry tightly regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The evidence for the use of LTOT in patients with COPD dates back to two seminal papers published in 1980 and 1981. The British Medical Research Council Working Party conducted the BMRC trial, in which 87 patients with a Pao2 of 40 mm Hg to 60 mm Hg, CO2 retention, and a history of congestive heart failure were randomized to treatment with 15 hours per day of home oxygen therapy, starting at 2 L and titrating to Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs. standard therapy without oxygen (Lancet. 1981;1[8222]:681-6). There was an impressive 22% mortality benefit at 3 years.

Another study published around the same time, the Continuous or nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive lung disease (NOTT) trial (Ann Intern Med. 1980;93[3]:391-8) directly compared continuous 24-hour to nocturnal home oxygen therapy in patients with COPD and severe hypoxemia with a Pao2 less than 55 mm Hg. Again, there was an impressive mortality benefit in favor of continuous home oxygen with a 9% and 18% mortality difference at 1 and 2 years of enrollment, respectively.

Afterward, it became universally accepted dogma that patients with COPD and severe hypoxemia stood to substantially benefit from LTOT. For years, it was the only therapy associated with a mortality reduction. The LOTT study (Albert RK, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375[17]:1617-27) included 768 patients with stable COPD and a resting or nocturnal Spo2 of 89% to93%, as well as patients with moderate exercise-induced desaturation (Spo2 of greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90% for greater than or equal to 10 seconds during the 6-minute walk test). Half of these patients received oxygen for 24 hours per day, during sleep, or during exercise (depending on when desaturation would occur) and half received no oxygen. There was no difference in time to death or first hospitalization or in rates of hospitalization or exacerbation. There was also no difference between groups in quality of life, lung function, or distance walked in 6 minutes.

The INOX (Lacasse Y, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383[12]:1129-38) trial, in which 243 patients with oxygen saturation less than 90% for at least 30% of the night were assigned to receive nocturnal vs sham oxygen, found similar results. There was no difference in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and progression to 24-7 oxygen requirement (according to the criteria originally defined by NOTT). A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis including six studies designed to assess the role of LTOT in patients with COPD and moderate desaturation, including LOTT and INOX, found no benefit to providing LTOT (Lacasse Y, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[11]:1029-37).

Based on these studies, a resting Spo2 of 88% seems to be the threshold below which LTOT improves outcomes. CMS lists four classes of patients eligible for LTOT: (1) Patients with Pao2 < 55 mm Hg or pulse oximetry less than or equal to 88% at rest or (2) during sleep or (3) during exercise, and (4) patients with Pao2 > 55 mm Hg but less than or equal to 59 mm Hg or pulse oximetry of 89% who have lower extremity edema, evidence of pulmonary hypertension, or erythrocythemia (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Coverage Database. 2021;100-103:240.2. These criteria reflect the inclusion criteria of the BMRC trial and NOTT.

COPD management has changed significantly in the 40 years since NOTT was published. In the early 1980s, standard of care included an inhaled beta-agonist and oral theophylline. We now prescribe a regimen of modern-day inhaler combinations, which can lead to a mortality benefit in the correct population. Additionally, rates of smoking are markedly lower now than they were in 1980. In the Minnesota Heart Survey, the prevalence of being an ever-smoking man or woman in 1980 compared with 2009 dropped from 71.6% and 54.7% to 44.2% and 39.6%, respectively (Filion KB, et al. Am J Public Health. 2012;102[4]:705-13). Treatment of common comorbid conditions has also dramatically improved.

A report containing all fee-for-service data published in 2021 by CMS reported oxygen therapy accounted for 9.8% of all DME costs covered by CMS and totaled approximately $800,000,000 (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. FFS Data. 2021. This represents a significant financial burden to our health system and government.

Two of the eligible groups per CMS (those with isolated ambulatory or nocturnal hypoxemia) do not benefit from LTOT in RCTs. The other two groups are eligible based on trial data from a small number of patients who were studied more than 40 years ago. These facts raise serious questions about the cost-efficacy of LTOT.

So where does this leave us?

There are significant barriers to repeating large randomized oxygen trials. Due to broad inclusion criteria for LTOT by CMS, there are undoubtedly many people prescribed LTOT for whom there is minimal to no benefit. Patients often feel restricted in their mobility and may feel isolated being tethered to medical equipment. It is good practice to think about LTOT the same way we do any other therapy we provide - as a medicine with associated risks, benefits, and costs.

Despite its ubiquity, oxygen remains an important therapeutic tool. Still, choosing wisely means recognizing that not all patients who qualify for LTOT by CMS criteria will benefit.

Drs. Kreisel and Sonti are with the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.

Inhalers, nebulizers, antibiotics, and steroids – these are some of the most common tools in our pulmonary arsenal that we deploy on a daily basis. But, there is no treatment more fundamental to a pulmonary practitioner than oxygen. So how is it that something that naturally occurs and comprises 21% of ambient air has become so medicalized?

It is difficult (perhaps impossible) to find a pulmonologist or a hospitalist who has not included the phrase “obtain ambulatory saturation to qualify the patient for home oxygen” in at least one of their progress notes on a daily basis. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most common reason for the prescription of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), a large industry tightly regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The evidence for the use of LTOT in patients with COPD dates back to two seminal papers published in 1980 and 1981. The British Medical Research Council Working Party conducted the BMRC trial, in which 87 patients with a Pao2 of 40 mm Hg to 60 mm Hg, CO2 retention, and a history of congestive heart failure were randomized to treatment with 15 hours per day of home oxygen therapy, starting at 2 L and titrating to Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs. standard therapy without oxygen (Lancet. 1981;1[8222]:681-6). There was an impressive 22% mortality benefit at 3 years.

Another study published around the same time, the Continuous or nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive lung disease (NOTT) trial (Ann Intern Med. 1980;93[3]:391-8) directly compared continuous 24-hour to nocturnal home oxygen therapy in patients with COPD and severe hypoxemia with a Pao2 less than 55 mm Hg. Again, there was an impressive mortality benefit in favor of continuous home oxygen with a 9% and 18% mortality difference at 1 and 2 years of enrollment, respectively.

Afterward, it became universally accepted dogma that patients with COPD and severe hypoxemia stood to substantially benefit from LTOT. For years, it was the only therapy associated with a mortality reduction. The LOTT study (Albert RK, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375[17]:1617-27) included 768 patients with stable COPD and a resting or nocturnal Spo2 of 89% to93%, as well as patients with moderate exercise-induced desaturation (Spo2 of greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90% for greater than or equal to 10 seconds during the 6-minute walk test). Half of these patients received oxygen for 24 hours per day, during sleep, or during exercise (depending on when desaturation would occur) and half received no oxygen. There was no difference in time to death or first hospitalization or in rates of hospitalization or exacerbation. There was also no difference between groups in quality of life, lung function, or distance walked in 6 minutes.

The INOX (Lacasse Y, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383[12]:1129-38) trial, in which 243 patients with oxygen saturation less than 90% for at least 30% of the night were assigned to receive nocturnal vs sham oxygen, found similar results. There was no difference in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and progression to 24-7 oxygen requirement (according to the criteria originally defined by NOTT). A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis including six studies designed to assess the role of LTOT in patients with COPD and moderate desaturation, including LOTT and INOX, found no benefit to providing LTOT (Lacasse Y, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[11]:1029-37).

Based on these studies, a resting Spo2 of 88% seems to be the threshold below which LTOT improves outcomes. CMS lists four classes of patients eligible for LTOT: (1) Patients with Pao2 < 55 mm Hg or pulse oximetry less than or equal to 88% at rest or (2) during sleep or (3) during exercise, and (4) patients with Pao2 > 55 mm Hg but less than or equal to 59 mm Hg or pulse oximetry of 89% who have lower extremity edema, evidence of pulmonary hypertension, or erythrocythemia (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Coverage Database. 2021;100-103:240.2. These criteria reflect the inclusion criteria of the BMRC trial and NOTT.

COPD management has changed significantly in the 40 years since NOTT was published. In the early 1980s, standard of care included an inhaled beta-agonist and oral theophylline. We now prescribe a regimen of modern-day inhaler combinations, which can lead to a mortality benefit in the correct population. Additionally, rates of smoking are markedly lower now than they were in 1980. In the Minnesota Heart Survey, the prevalence of being an ever-smoking man or woman in 1980 compared with 2009 dropped from 71.6% and 54.7% to 44.2% and 39.6%, respectively (Filion KB, et al. Am J Public Health. 2012;102[4]:705-13). Treatment of common comorbid conditions has also dramatically improved.

A report containing all fee-for-service data published in 2021 by CMS reported oxygen therapy accounted for 9.8% of all DME costs covered by CMS and totaled approximately $800,000,000 (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. FFS Data. 2021. This represents a significant financial burden to our health system and government.

Two of the eligible groups per CMS (those with isolated ambulatory or nocturnal hypoxemia) do not benefit from LTOT in RCTs. The other two groups are eligible based on trial data from a small number of patients who were studied more than 40 years ago. These facts raise serious questions about the cost-efficacy of LTOT.

So where does this leave us?

There are significant barriers to repeating large randomized oxygen trials. Due to broad inclusion criteria for LTOT by CMS, there are undoubtedly many people prescribed LTOT for whom there is minimal to no benefit. Patients often feel restricted in their mobility and may feel isolated being tethered to medical equipment. It is good practice to think about LTOT the same way we do any other therapy we provide - as a medicine with associated risks, benefits, and costs.

Despite its ubiquity, oxygen remains an important therapeutic tool. Still, choosing wisely means recognizing that not all patients who qualify for LTOT by CMS criteria will benefit.

Drs. Kreisel and Sonti are with the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.

Inhalers, nebulizers, antibiotics, and steroids – these are some of the most common tools in our pulmonary arsenal that we deploy on a daily basis. But, there is no treatment more fundamental to a pulmonary practitioner than oxygen. So how is it that something that naturally occurs and comprises 21% of ambient air has become so medicalized?

It is difficult (perhaps impossible) to find a pulmonologist or a hospitalist who has not included the phrase “obtain ambulatory saturation to qualify the patient for home oxygen” in at least one of their progress notes on a daily basis. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the most common reason for the prescription of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), a large industry tightly regulated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The evidence for the use of LTOT in patients with COPD dates back to two seminal papers published in 1980 and 1981. The British Medical Research Council Working Party conducted the BMRC trial, in which 87 patients with a Pao2 of 40 mm Hg to 60 mm Hg, CO2 retention, and a history of congestive heart failure were randomized to treatment with 15 hours per day of home oxygen therapy, starting at 2 L and titrating to Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs. standard therapy without oxygen (Lancet. 1981;1[8222]:681-6). There was an impressive 22% mortality benefit at 3 years.

Another study published around the same time, the Continuous or nocturnal oxygen therapy in hypoxemic chronic obstructive lung disease (NOTT) trial (Ann Intern Med. 1980;93[3]:391-8) directly compared continuous 24-hour to nocturnal home oxygen therapy in patients with COPD and severe hypoxemia with a Pao2 less than 55 mm Hg. Again, there was an impressive mortality benefit in favor of continuous home oxygen with a 9% and 18% mortality difference at 1 and 2 years of enrollment, respectively.

Afterward, it became universally accepted dogma that patients with COPD and severe hypoxemia stood to substantially benefit from LTOT. For years, it was the only therapy associated with a mortality reduction. The LOTT study (Albert RK, et al. N Engl J Med. 2016;375[17]:1617-27) included 768 patients with stable COPD and a resting or nocturnal Spo2 of 89% to93%, as well as patients with moderate exercise-induced desaturation (Spo2 of greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90% for greater than or equal to 10 seconds during the 6-minute walk test). Half of these patients received oxygen for 24 hours per day, during sleep, or during exercise (depending on when desaturation would occur) and half received no oxygen. There was no difference in time to death or first hospitalization or in rates of hospitalization or exacerbation. There was also no difference between groups in quality of life, lung function, or distance walked in 6 minutes.

The INOX (Lacasse Y, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383[12]:1129-38) trial, in which 243 patients with oxygen saturation less than 90% for at least 30% of the night were assigned to receive nocturnal vs sham oxygen, found similar results. There was no difference in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and progression to 24-7 oxygen requirement (according to the criteria originally defined by NOTT). A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis including six studies designed to assess the role of LTOT in patients with COPD and moderate desaturation, including LOTT and INOX, found no benefit to providing LTOT (Lacasse Y, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[11]:1029-37).

Based on these studies, a resting Spo2 of 88% seems to be the threshold below which LTOT improves outcomes. CMS lists four classes of patients eligible for LTOT: (1) Patients with Pao2 < 55 mm Hg or pulse oximetry less than or equal to 88% at rest or (2) during sleep or (3) during exercise, and (4) patients with Pao2 > 55 mm Hg but less than or equal to 59 mm Hg or pulse oximetry of 89% who have lower extremity edema, evidence of pulmonary hypertension, or erythrocythemia (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Coverage Database. 2021;100-103:240.2. These criteria reflect the inclusion criteria of the BMRC trial and NOTT.

COPD management has changed significantly in the 40 years since NOTT was published. In the early 1980s, standard of care included an inhaled beta-agonist and oral theophylline. We now prescribe a regimen of modern-day inhaler combinations, which can lead to a mortality benefit in the correct population. Additionally, rates of smoking are markedly lower now than they were in 1980. In the Minnesota Heart Survey, the prevalence of being an ever-smoking man or woman in 1980 compared with 2009 dropped from 71.6% and 54.7% to 44.2% and 39.6%, respectively (Filion KB, et al. Am J Public Health. 2012;102[4]:705-13). Treatment of common comorbid conditions has also dramatically improved.

A report containing all fee-for-service data published in 2021 by CMS reported oxygen therapy accounted for 9.8% of all DME costs covered by CMS and totaled approximately $800,000,000 (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. FFS Data. 2021. This represents a significant financial burden to our health system and government.

Two of the eligible groups per CMS (those with isolated ambulatory or nocturnal hypoxemia) do not benefit from LTOT in RCTs. The other two groups are eligible based on trial data from a small number of patients who were studied more than 40 years ago. These facts raise serious questions about the cost-efficacy of LTOT.

So where does this leave us?

There are significant barriers to repeating large randomized oxygen trials. Due to broad inclusion criteria for LTOT by CMS, there are undoubtedly many people prescribed LTOT for whom there is minimal to no benefit. Patients often feel restricted in their mobility and may feel isolated being tethered to medical equipment. It is good practice to think about LTOT the same way we do any other therapy we provide - as a medicine with associated risks, benefits, and costs.

Despite its ubiquity, oxygen remains an important therapeutic tool. Still, choosing wisely means recognizing that not all patients who qualify for LTOT by CMS criteria will benefit.

Drs. Kreisel and Sonti are with the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.

HONOLULU – Among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, treatment with a combination of long-acting bronchodilators was similar in safety and efficacy to a short-acting combination of albuterol and ipratropium.

The 2023 Gold Report on prevention, management, and diagnosis of COPD recommended switching to long-acting bronchodilators despite a lack of clinical evidence showing safety in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, according to Rajiv Dhand, MD, who presented the new study at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“We wanted to establish the safety, because long-acting agents are approved only for use in nonhospitalized patients. We established that it was safe and that it was comparably effective, but you could give 30% lower doses. Patients don’t have to be woken up to get the medication, and there’s a better chance that all the doses will be administered to these patients. So I think that it provides convenience with similar efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Dhand, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The researchers randomized 60 patients to receive nebulized albuterol (2.5 mg) and ipratropium (0.5 mg) every 6 hours (short-acting group) or nebulized formoterol (20 mcg) every 12 hours and revefenacin (175 mcg) every 24 hours (long-acting group). The mean age was 63.2 years, 58.3% were male, and 65% were current smokers.

The median decrease between day 1 and day 3 in the Modified Borg Dyspnea score was 4.0 in the long-acting group (P < .001), and 2.0 in the short-acting group, though the latter was not statistically significant (P = .134). Both groups had a decrease in supplemental oxygen requirement, with no difference between the two groups. There was also no difference in the number of respiratory visits for rescue therapy.

Respiratory therapists in the audience welcomed the new evidence. “As a respiratory therapist, I feel that we should move away from giving good short acting [therapies] ... the new guidelines state that we should move away from them, but I think that physicians in general have not gone that way. The way that we’re working, giving short acting every four hours – I don’t see that it’s a benefit to our patients,” said Sharon Armstead, who attended the session and was asked to comment on the study. She is a respiratory therapist at Ascension Health and an instructor at Concordia University, Austin, Texas. Ms. Armstead has asthma, and has first-hand experience as a patient when respiratory therapists are unable to attend to the patient every 4 hours.

She suggested that continued use of short-acting therapies may be due to inertia. “It’s easier [for a physician] to click a button on [a computer screen] than to actually slow down and write the order. If we need a rescue, then we’ll call for a rescue,” Ms. Armstead said.

She anticipates that long-acting therapies will ultimately lead to better outcomes because they will increase the time that respiratory therapists can spend with patients. “That’s what we really want to do. We want to spend time with our patients and stay there and watch our patients. But if you’re just telling us to [administer a therapy] every 4 hours, it’s not really giving the patient what they need.”

Specifically, there were concerns about cardiovascular safety, but the researchers found no between-group differences.

Asked for comment, session co-moderator Brittany Duchene, MD remarked: “It’s super interesting, but I worry about the cost. From a practical perspective, it’s challenging to get those drugs placed on an outpatient basis. They are very expensive, and they’re newer [drugs], but I think overall it’s good to give less,” said Dr. Duchene, a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

A potential concern raised by one audience member is that some patients are used to frequent treatment and may grow anxious with less frequent therapy. “I think we just need some reeducation that this is like a long-acting medicine. It also decreases the burden on our respiratory therapists, which is very good,” said Dr. Duchene.

The study was funded by Mylan/Theravance Biopharma. Dr. Dhand has received research support from Theravance, Mylan, and Viatris. He has received honoraria from Teva and UpToDate. Ms. Armstead and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.

HONOLULU – Among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, treatment with a combination of long-acting bronchodilators was similar in safety and efficacy to a short-acting combination of albuterol and ipratropium.

The 2023 Gold Report on prevention, management, and diagnosis of COPD recommended switching to long-acting bronchodilators despite a lack of clinical evidence showing safety in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, according to Rajiv Dhand, MD, who presented the new study at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“We wanted to establish the safety, because long-acting agents are approved only for use in nonhospitalized patients. We established that it was safe and that it was comparably effective, but you could give 30% lower doses. Patients don’t have to be woken up to get the medication, and there’s a better chance that all the doses will be administered to these patients. So I think that it provides convenience with similar efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Dhand, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The researchers randomized 60 patients to receive nebulized albuterol (2.5 mg) and ipratropium (0.5 mg) every 6 hours (short-acting group) or nebulized formoterol (20 mcg) every 12 hours and revefenacin (175 mcg) every 24 hours (long-acting group). The mean age was 63.2 years, 58.3% were male, and 65% were current smokers.

The median decrease between day 1 and day 3 in the Modified Borg Dyspnea score was 4.0 in the long-acting group (P < .001), and 2.0 in the short-acting group, though the latter was not statistically significant (P = .134). Both groups had a decrease in supplemental oxygen requirement, with no difference between the two groups. There was also no difference in the number of respiratory visits for rescue therapy.

Respiratory therapists in the audience welcomed the new evidence. “As a respiratory therapist, I feel that we should move away from giving good short acting [therapies] ... the new guidelines state that we should move away from them, but I think that physicians in general have not gone that way. The way that we’re working, giving short acting every four hours – I don’t see that it’s a benefit to our patients,” said Sharon Armstead, who attended the session and was asked to comment on the study. She is a respiratory therapist at Ascension Health and an instructor at Concordia University, Austin, Texas. Ms. Armstead has asthma, and has first-hand experience as a patient when respiratory therapists are unable to attend to the patient every 4 hours.

She suggested that continued use of short-acting therapies may be due to inertia. “It’s easier [for a physician] to click a button on [a computer screen] than to actually slow down and write the order. If we need a rescue, then we’ll call for a rescue,” Ms. Armstead said.

She anticipates that long-acting therapies will ultimately lead to better outcomes because they will increase the time that respiratory therapists can spend with patients. “That’s what we really want to do. We want to spend time with our patients and stay there and watch our patients. But if you’re just telling us to [administer a therapy] every 4 hours, it’s not really giving the patient what they need.”

Specifically, there were concerns about cardiovascular safety, but the researchers found no between-group differences.

Asked for comment, session co-moderator Brittany Duchene, MD remarked: “It’s super interesting, but I worry about the cost. From a practical perspective, it’s challenging to get those drugs placed on an outpatient basis. They are very expensive, and they’re newer [drugs], but I think overall it’s good to give less,” said Dr. Duchene, a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

A potential concern raised by one audience member is that some patients are used to frequent treatment and may grow anxious with less frequent therapy. “I think we just need some reeducation that this is like a long-acting medicine. It also decreases the burden on our respiratory therapists, which is very good,” said Dr. Duchene.

The study was funded by Mylan/Theravance Biopharma. Dr. Dhand has received research support from Theravance, Mylan, and Viatris. He has received honoraria from Teva and UpToDate. Ms. Armstead and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.

HONOLULU – Among patients hospitalized with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, treatment with a combination of long-acting bronchodilators was similar in safety and efficacy to a short-acting combination of albuterol and ipratropium.

The 2023 Gold Report on prevention, management, and diagnosis of COPD recommended switching to long-acting bronchodilators despite a lack of clinical evidence showing safety in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation, according to Rajiv Dhand, MD, who presented the new study at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“We wanted to establish the safety, because long-acting agents are approved only for use in nonhospitalized patients. We established that it was safe and that it was comparably effective, but you could give 30% lower doses. Patients don’t have to be woken up to get the medication, and there’s a better chance that all the doses will be administered to these patients. So I think that it provides convenience with similar efficacy and safety,” said Dr. Dhand, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

The researchers randomized 60 patients to receive nebulized albuterol (2.5 mg) and ipratropium (0.5 mg) every 6 hours (short-acting group) or nebulized formoterol (20 mcg) every 12 hours and revefenacin (175 mcg) every 24 hours (long-acting group). The mean age was 63.2 years, 58.3% were male, and 65% were current smokers.

The median decrease between day 1 and day 3 in the Modified Borg Dyspnea score was 4.0 in the long-acting group (P < .001), and 2.0 in the short-acting group, though the latter was not statistically significant (P = .134). Both groups had a decrease in supplemental oxygen requirement, with no difference between the two groups. There was also no difference in the number of respiratory visits for rescue therapy.

Respiratory therapists in the audience welcomed the new evidence. “As a respiratory therapist, I feel that we should move away from giving good short acting [therapies] ... the new guidelines state that we should move away from them, but I think that physicians in general have not gone that way. The way that we’re working, giving short acting every four hours – I don’t see that it’s a benefit to our patients,” said Sharon Armstead, who attended the session and was asked to comment on the study. She is a respiratory therapist at Ascension Health and an instructor at Concordia University, Austin, Texas. Ms. Armstead has asthma, and has first-hand experience as a patient when respiratory therapists are unable to attend to the patient every 4 hours.

She suggested that continued use of short-acting therapies may be due to inertia. “It’s easier [for a physician] to click a button on [a computer screen] than to actually slow down and write the order. If we need a rescue, then we’ll call for a rescue,” Ms. Armstead said.

She anticipates that long-acting therapies will ultimately lead to better outcomes because they will increase the time that respiratory therapists can spend with patients. “That’s what we really want to do. We want to spend time with our patients and stay there and watch our patients. But if you’re just telling us to [administer a therapy] every 4 hours, it’s not really giving the patient what they need.”

Specifically, there were concerns about cardiovascular safety, but the researchers found no between-group differences.

Asked for comment, session co-moderator Brittany Duchene, MD remarked: “It’s super interesting, but I worry about the cost. From a practical perspective, it’s challenging to get those drugs placed on an outpatient basis. They are very expensive, and they’re newer [drugs], but I think overall it’s good to give less,” said Dr. Duchene, a pulmonary critical care physician at Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital, St. Johnsbury.

A potential concern raised by one audience member is that some patients are used to frequent treatment and may grow anxious with less frequent therapy. “I think we just need some reeducation that this is like a long-acting medicine. It also decreases the burden on our respiratory therapists, which is very good,” said Dr. Duchene.

The study was funded by Mylan/Theravance Biopharma. Dr. Dhand has received research support from Theravance, Mylan, and Viatris. He has received honoraria from Teva and UpToDate. Ms. Armstead and Dr. Duchene have no relevant financial disclosures.

Click to read more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2023.

Click to read more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2023.

Click to read more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2023.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to AstraZeneca over the pharmaceutical company’s advertising of the efficacy of a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Promotional materials for the drug Breztri (budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate inhaled) suggest that the drug has a positive effect on all-cause mortality for COPD patients, but the referenced clinical trial does not support that claim, the FDA letter states.

The FDA issued the warning letter on Aug. 4 and published the letter online on Aug. 15.

The sales aid highlights a 49% observed relative difference in time to all-cause mortality (ACM) over 1 year between Breztri and long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta agonist (LAMA/LABA) inhalers.

Because of “statistical testing hierarchy failure” as well as confounding factors such as the removal of patients from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to entering the treatment arm of the trial, “no conclusions about the effect of Breztri on ACM can be drawn from the [clinical] trial,” the FDA wrote. “To date, no drug has been shown to improve ACM in COPD.”

The Breztri sales aid also states that there was a 20% reduction of severe exacerbations in patients using Breztri compared with patients using ICS/LABA. However, in the cited clinical trial, “the reduction in severe exacerbations was not statistically significant for patients treated with Breztri relative to comparator groups,” according to the FDA.

AstraZeneca has 15 working days from the receipt of the letter to respond in writing with “any plan for discontinuing use of such communications, or for ceasing distribution of Breztri,” the agency wrote.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to AstraZeneca over the pharmaceutical company’s advertising of the efficacy of a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Promotional materials for the drug Breztri (budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate inhaled) suggest that the drug has a positive effect on all-cause mortality for COPD patients, but the referenced clinical trial does not support that claim, the FDA letter states.

The FDA issued the warning letter on Aug. 4 and published the letter online on Aug. 15.

The sales aid highlights a 49% observed relative difference in time to all-cause mortality (ACM) over 1 year between Breztri and long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta agonist (LAMA/LABA) inhalers.

Because of “statistical testing hierarchy failure” as well as confounding factors such as the removal of patients from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to entering the treatment arm of the trial, “no conclusions about the effect of Breztri on ACM can be drawn from the [clinical] trial,” the FDA wrote. “To date, no drug has been shown to improve ACM in COPD.”

The Breztri sales aid also states that there was a 20% reduction of severe exacerbations in patients using Breztri compared with patients using ICS/LABA. However, in the cited clinical trial, “the reduction in severe exacerbations was not statistically significant for patients treated with Breztri relative to comparator groups,” according to the FDA.

AstraZeneca has 15 working days from the receipt of the letter to respond in writing with “any plan for discontinuing use of such communications, or for ceasing distribution of Breztri,” the agency wrote.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to AstraZeneca over the pharmaceutical company’s advertising of the efficacy of a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Promotional materials for the drug Breztri (budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate inhaled) suggest that the drug has a positive effect on all-cause mortality for COPD patients, but the referenced clinical trial does not support that claim, the FDA letter states.

The FDA issued the warning letter on Aug. 4 and published the letter online on Aug. 15.

The sales aid highlights a 49% observed relative difference in time to all-cause mortality (ACM) over 1 year between Breztri and long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta agonist (LAMA/LABA) inhalers.

Because of “statistical testing hierarchy failure” as well as confounding factors such as the removal of patients from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to entering the treatment arm of the trial, “no conclusions about the effect of Breztri on ACM can be drawn from the [clinical] trial,” the FDA wrote. “To date, no drug has been shown to improve ACM in COPD.”

The Breztri sales aid also states that there was a 20% reduction of severe exacerbations in patients using Breztri compared with patients using ICS/LABA. However, in the cited clinical trial, “the reduction in severe exacerbations was not statistically significant for patients treated with Breztri relative to comparator groups,” according to the FDA.

AstraZeneca has 15 working days from the receipt of the letter to respond in writing with “any plan for discontinuing use of such communications, or for ceasing distribution of Breztri,” the agency wrote.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sometimes we get what we pay for. Other times we pay too much. 

That’s the message of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, which finds that a generic maintenance inhaler is as effective at managing symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) as a pricier branded alternative. 

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Wixela Inhub (the combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta² adrenergic agonist fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris) as a generic dry powder inhaler for managing symptoms of COPD. This approval was based on evidence of the generic’s effectiveness against asthma, although COPD also was on the product label. The study authors compared Wixela’s effectiveness in controlling symptoms of COPD with that of the brand name inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline), which uses the same active ingredients.

The result: “The generic looks to be as safe and effective as the brand name. I don’t see a clinical reason why one would ever need to get the brand name over the generic version,” said study author William Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, a health services researcher and pulmonologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
 

Same types of patients, different inhalers, same outcomes

Dr. Feldman and colleagues compared the medical records of 10,000 patients with COPD who began using the branded inhaler to the records of another 10,000 patients with COPD who opted for the generic alternative. Participants in the two groups were evenly matched by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, region, severity of COPD, and presence of other comorbidities, according to the researchers. Participants were all older than age 40, and the average age in both groups was 72 years.

The researchers looked for a difference in a first episode of a moderate exacerbation of COPD, defined as requiring a course of prednisone for 5-14 days. They also looked for cases of severe COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the year after people began using either the generic or brand name inhaler. And they looked for differences across 1 year in rates of hospitalization for pneumonia.

For none of those outcomes, however, did the type of inhaler appear to matter. Compared with the brand-name drug, using the generic was associated with nearly identical rates of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.04. The same was true for the proportion of people who went to the hospital for pneumonia at least once (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15).

“To get through the FDA as an interchangeable generic, the generic firms have to show that their product can be used in just the same way as the brand-name version,” Dr. Feldman said, which may explain why the generic and brand-name versions of the inhaler performed so similarly.

Dr. Feldman cautioned that the price savings for patients who opt for the generic over the branded product are hard to determine, given the vagaries of different insurance plans and potential rebates when using the branded project. As a general matter, having a single generic competitor will not lower costs much, Dr. Feldman noted, pointing to 2017 research from Harvard that found a profusion of generic competitors is needed to significantly lower health care costs.

“I don’t want to in any way underestimate the importance of getting that first generic onto the market, because it sets the stage for future generics,” Dr. Feldman said.  

“There are very few generic options for patients with COPD,” said Surya Bhatt, MD, director of the Pulmonary Function and Exercise Physiology Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Even the rescue inhalers that people with COPD use to manage acute episodes of the condition are usually branded at this time, Dr. Bhatt noted, with few generic options.*

“The results are quite compelling,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was not involved in the research. Although the trial was not randomized, he commended the researchers for stratifying participants in the two groups to be as comparable as possible.

Dr. Bhatt noted that the FDA’s 2019 approval – given that the agency requires bioequivalence studies between branded and generic products – was enough to cause him to begin prescribing the generic inhaler. The fact that this approval was based on asthma but not also COPD is not a concern.

“There are so many similarities between asthma, COPD, and some obstructive lung diseases,” Dr. Bhatt noted.

In his experience, the only time someone with COPD continues using the branded inhaler – now that a potentially cheaper generic is available – is when their insurance plan makes their out-of-pocket cost minimal. Otherwise, brand loyalty does not exist.

“Patients are generally okay with being on a generic for inhalers, just because of the high cost,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was primarily supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Feldman reported funding from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the FDA, and consulting relationships with Alosa Health and Aetion. Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 8/16/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Bhatt's comments on the availability of generic options.

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

Sometimes we get what we pay for. Other times we pay too much. 

That’s the message of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, which finds that a generic maintenance inhaler is as effective at managing symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) as a pricier branded alternative. 

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Wixela Inhub (the combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta² adrenergic agonist fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris) as a generic dry powder inhaler for managing symptoms of COPD. This approval was based on evidence of the generic’s effectiveness against asthma, although COPD also was on the product label. The study authors compared Wixela’s effectiveness in controlling symptoms of COPD with that of the brand name inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline), which uses the same active ingredients.

The result: “The generic looks to be as safe and effective as the brand name. I don’t see a clinical reason why one would ever need to get the brand name over the generic version,” said study author William Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, a health services researcher and pulmonologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
 

Same types of patients, different inhalers, same outcomes

Dr. Feldman and colleagues compared the medical records of 10,000 patients with COPD who began using the branded inhaler to the records of another 10,000 patients with COPD who opted for the generic alternative. Participants in the two groups were evenly matched by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, region, severity of COPD, and presence of other comorbidities, according to the researchers. Participants were all older than age 40, and the average age in both groups was 72 years.

The researchers looked for a difference in a first episode of a moderate exacerbation of COPD, defined as requiring a course of prednisone for 5-14 days. They also looked for cases of severe COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the year after people began using either the generic or brand name inhaler. And they looked for differences across 1 year in rates of hospitalization for pneumonia.

For none of those outcomes, however, did the type of inhaler appear to matter. Compared with the brand-name drug, using the generic was associated with nearly identical rates of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.04. The same was true for the proportion of people who went to the hospital for pneumonia at least once (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15).

“To get through the FDA as an interchangeable generic, the generic firms have to show that their product can be used in just the same way as the brand-name version,” Dr. Feldman said, which may explain why the generic and brand-name versions of the inhaler performed so similarly.

Dr. Feldman cautioned that the price savings for patients who opt for the generic over the branded product are hard to determine, given the vagaries of different insurance plans and potential rebates when using the branded project. As a general matter, having a single generic competitor will not lower costs much, Dr. Feldman noted, pointing to 2017 research from Harvard that found a profusion of generic competitors is needed to significantly lower health care costs.

“I don’t want to in any way underestimate the importance of getting that first generic onto the market, because it sets the stage for future generics,” Dr. Feldman said.  

“There are very few generic options for patients with COPD,” said Surya Bhatt, MD, director of the Pulmonary Function and Exercise Physiology Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Even the rescue inhalers that people with COPD use to manage acute episodes of the condition are usually branded at this time, Dr. Bhatt noted, with few generic options.*

“The results are quite compelling,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was not involved in the research. Although the trial was not randomized, he commended the researchers for stratifying participants in the two groups to be as comparable as possible.

Dr. Bhatt noted that the FDA’s 2019 approval – given that the agency requires bioequivalence studies between branded and generic products – was enough to cause him to begin prescribing the generic inhaler. The fact that this approval was based on asthma but not also COPD is not a concern.

“There are so many similarities between asthma, COPD, and some obstructive lung diseases,” Dr. Bhatt noted.

In his experience, the only time someone with COPD continues using the branded inhaler – now that a potentially cheaper generic is available – is when their insurance plan makes their out-of-pocket cost minimal. Otherwise, brand loyalty does not exist.

“Patients are generally okay with being on a generic for inhalers, just because of the high cost,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was primarily supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Feldman reported funding from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the FDA, and consulting relationships with Alosa Health and Aetion. Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 8/16/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Bhatt's comments on the availability of generic options.

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

Sometimes we get what we pay for. Other times we pay too much. 

That’s the message of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, which finds that a generic maintenance inhaler is as effective at managing symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) as a pricier branded alternative. 

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Wixela Inhub (the combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta² adrenergic agonist fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris) as a generic dry powder inhaler for managing symptoms of COPD. This approval was based on evidence of the generic’s effectiveness against asthma, although COPD also was on the product label. The study authors compared Wixela’s effectiveness in controlling symptoms of COPD with that of the brand name inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline), which uses the same active ingredients.

The result: “The generic looks to be as safe and effective as the brand name. I don’t see a clinical reason why one would ever need to get the brand name over the generic version,” said study author William Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, a health services researcher and pulmonologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
 

Same types of patients, different inhalers, same outcomes

Dr. Feldman and colleagues compared the medical records of 10,000 patients with COPD who began using the branded inhaler to the records of another 10,000 patients with COPD who opted for the generic alternative. Participants in the two groups were evenly matched by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, region, severity of COPD, and presence of other comorbidities, according to the researchers. Participants were all older than age 40, and the average age in both groups was 72 years.

The researchers looked for a difference in a first episode of a moderate exacerbation of COPD, defined as requiring a course of prednisone for 5-14 days. They also looked for cases of severe COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the year after people began using either the generic or brand name inhaler. And they looked for differences across 1 year in rates of hospitalization for pneumonia.

For none of those outcomes, however, did the type of inhaler appear to matter. Compared with the brand-name drug, using the generic was associated with nearly identical rates of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.04. The same was true for the proportion of people who went to the hospital for pneumonia at least once (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15).

“To get through the FDA as an interchangeable generic, the generic firms have to show that their product can be used in just the same way as the brand-name version,” Dr. Feldman said, which may explain why the generic and brand-name versions of the inhaler performed so similarly.

Dr. Feldman cautioned that the price savings for patients who opt for the generic over the branded product are hard to determine, given the vagaries of different insurance plans and potential rebates when using the branded project. As a general matter, having a single generic competitor will not lower costs much, Dr. Feldman noted, pointing to 2017 research from Harvard that found a profusion of generic competitors is needed to significantly lower health care costs.

“I don’t want to in any way underestimate the importance of getting that first generic onto the market, because it sets the stage for future generics,” Dr. Feldman said.  

“There are very few generic options for patients with COPD,” said Surya Bhatt, MD, director of the Pulmonary Function and Exercise Physiology Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Even the rescue inhalers that people with COPD use to manage acute episodes of the condition are usually branded at this time, Dr. Bhatt noted, with few generic options.*

“The results are quite compelling,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was not involved in the research. Although the trial was not randomized, he commended the researchers for stratifying participants in the two groups to be as comparable as possible.

Dr. Bhatt noted that the FDA’s 2019 approval – given that the agency requires bioequivalence studies between branded and generic products – was enough to cause him to begin prescribing the generic inhaler. The fact that this approval was based on asthma but not also COPD is not a concern.

“There are so many similarities between asthma, COPD, and some obstructive lung diseases,” Dr. Bhatt noted.

In his experience, the only time someone with COPD continues using the branded inhaler – now that a potentially cheaper generic is available – is when their insurance plan makes their out-of-pocket cost minimal. Otherwise, brand loyalty does not exist.

“Patients are generally okay with being on a generic for inhalers, just because of the high cost,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was primarily supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Feldman reported funding from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the FDA, and consulting relationships with Alosa Health and Aetion. Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 8/16/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Bhatt's comments on the availability of generic options.

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a new phenotype of lung function impairment predicted progression of frailty in older adults, based on data from more than 5,000 individuals.

COPD has been associated with frailty, but longitudinal data on the association of COPD with progression of frailty are limited, as are data on the potential association of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) with frailty progression, wrote Di He, BS, of Zhejiang University, China, and colleagues. 

PRISm has been defined in recent studies as “proportional impairments in FEV1 and FVC, resulting in the normal ratio of FEV1 and FVC.” Individuals with PRISm may transition to normal spirometry or COPD over time, the researchers wrote.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 5,901 adults aged 50 years and older who were participating on the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a prospective cohort study. Of these, 3,765 were included in an additional analysis of the association between transitions from normal spirometry to PRISm and the progression of frailty. The mean age of the participants was 65.5 years; 54.9% were women.

The median follow-up period for analysis with frailty progression was 9.5 years for PRISm and COPD and 5.8 years for PRISm transitions. Lung function data were collected at baseline. Based on spirometry data, participants were divided into three lung function groups – normal spirometry, PRISm, and COPD – and each of these was classified based on severity. Frailty was assessed using the frailty index (FI) during the follow-up period.

Frailty progression based on FI was significantly accelerated in patients with PRISm and COPD, compared with individuals with normal spirometry, with additional annual increases of 0.301 and 0.172, respectively (P < .001 for both). 

When stratified by severity, individuals with more severe PRISm and with more COPD had higher baseline FI and faster FI progression, compared with those with mild PRISm and COPD. 

PRISm transitions were assessed over a 4-year interval at the start of the ELSA. Individuals with normal spirometry who transitioned to PRISm during the study had accelerated progression of frailty, as did those with COPD who transitioned to PRISm. However, no significant frailty progression occurred in those who changed from PRISm to normal spirometry. 

The mechanisms behind the associations of PRISm and COPD with frailty remain unclear, but the results were consistent after controlling for multiple confounders, “suggesting PRISm and COPD had independent pathophysiological mechanisms for frailty,” the researchers write in their discussion. Other recent studies have identified sarcopenia as a complication for individuals with lung function impairment, they noted. “Therefore, another plausible explanation could be that PRISm and COPD caused sarcopenia, which accelerated frailty progression,” they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and the potential underestimation of lung function in participants with reversible airflow obstruction because of the use of prebronchodilator spirometry in the cohort study, the researchers noted. 

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and high-quality data from the ELSA, as well as by the repeat measures of FI and lung function. The results were consistent after controlling for multiple confounders, and support the need for more research to explore the causality behind the association of PRISm and COPD with frailty, the researchers concluded. 

The study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Basic Public Welfare Research Project, the Zhoushan Science and Technology Project, and the Key Laboratory of Intelligent Preventive Medicine of Zhejiang Province. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a new phenotype of lung function impairment predicted progression of frailty in older adults, based on data from more than 5,000 individuals.

COPD has been associated with frailty, but longitudinal data on the association of COPD with progression of frailty are limited, as are data on the potential association of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) with frailty progression, wrote Di He, BS, of Zhejiang University, China, and colleagues. 

PRISm has been defined in recent studies as “proportional impairments in FEV1 and FVC, resulting in the normal ratio of FEV1 and FVC.” Individuals with PRISm may transition to normal spirometry or COPD over time, the researchers wrote.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 5,901 adults aged 50 years and older who were participating on the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a prospective cohort study. Of these, 3,765 were included in an additional analysis of the association between transitions from normal spirometry to PRISm and the progression of frailty. The mean age of the participants was 65.5 years; 54.9% were women.

The median follow-up period for analysis with frailty progression was 9.5 years for PRISm and COPD and 5.8 years for PRISm transitions. Lung function data were collected at baseline. Based on spirometry data, participants were divided into three lung function groups – normal spirometry, PRISm, and COPD – and each of these was classified based on severity. Frailty was assessed using the frailty index (FI) during the follow-up period.

Frailty progression based on FI was significantly accelerated in patients with PRISm and COPD, compared with individuals with normal spirometry, with additional annual increases of 0.301 and 0.172, respectively (P < .001 for both). 

When stratified by severity, individuals with more severe PRISm and with more COPD had higher baseline FI and faster FI progression, compared with those with mild PRISm and COPD. 

PRISm transitions were assessed over a 4-year interval at the start of the ELSA. Individuals with normal spirometry who transitioned to PRISm during the study had accelerated progression of frailty, as did those with COPD who transitioned to PRISm. However, no significant frailty progression occurred in those who changed from PRISm to normal spirometry. 

The mechanisms behind the associations of PRISm and COPD with frailty remain unclear, but the results were consistent after controlling for multiple confounders, “suggesting PRISm and COPD had independent pathophysiological mechanisms for frailty,” the researchers write in their discussion. Other recent studies have identified sarcopenia as a complication for individuals with lung function impairment, they noted. “Therefore, another plausible explanation could be that PRISm and COPD caused sarcopenia, which accelerated frailty progression,” they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and the potential underestimation of lung function in participants with reversible airflow obstruction because of the use of prebronchodilator spirometry in the cohort study, the researchers noted. 

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and high-quality data from the ELSA, as well as by the repeat measures of FI and lung function. The results were consistent after controlling for multiple confounders, and support the need for more research to explore the causality behind the association of PRISm and COPD with frailty, the researchers concluded. 

The study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Basic Public Welfare Research Project, the Zhoushan Science and Technology Project, and the Key Laboratory of Intelligent Preventive Medicine of Zhejiang Province. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a new phenotype of lung function impairment predicted progression of frailty in older adults, based on data from more than 5,000 individuals.

COPD has been associated with frailty, but longitudinal data on the association of COPD with progression of frailty are limited, as are data on the potential association of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) with frailty progression, wrote Di He, BS, of Zhejiang University, China, and colleagues. 

PRISm has been defined in recent studies as “proportional impairments in FEV1 and FVC, resulting in the normal ratio of FEV1 and FVC.” Individuals with PRISm may transition to normal spirometry or COPD over time, the researchers wrote.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 5,901 adults aged 50 years and older who were participating on the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), a prospective cohort study. Of these, 3,765 were included in an additional analysis of the association between transitions from normal spirometry to PRISm and the progression of frailty. The mean age of the participants was 65.5 years; 54.9% were women.

The median follow-up period for analysis with frailty progression was 9.5 years for PRISm and COPD and 5.8 years for PRISm transitions. Lung function data were collected at baseline. Based on spirometry data, participants were divided into three lung function groups – normal spirometry, PRISm, and COPD – and each of these was classified based on severity. Frailty was assessed using the frailty index (FI) during the follow-up period.

Frailty progression based on FI was significantly accelerated in patients with PRISm and COPD, compared with individuals with normal spirometry, with additional annual increases of 0.301 and 0.172, respectively (P < .001 for both). 

When stratified by severity, individuals with more severe PRISm and with more COPD had higher baseline FI and faster FI progression, compared with those with mild PRISm and COPD. 

PRISm transitions were assessed over a 4-year interval at the start of the ELSA. Individuals with normal spirometry who transitioned to PRISm during the study had accelerated progression of frailty, as did those with COPD who transitioned to PRISm. However, no significant frailty progression occurred in those who changed from PRISm to normal spirometry. 

The mechanisms behind the associations of PRISm and COPD with frailty remain unclear, but the results were consistent after controlling for multiple confounders, “suggesting PRISm and COPD had independent pathophysiological mechanisms for frailty,” the researchers write in their discussion. Other recent studies have identified sarcopenia as a complication for individuals with lung function impairment, they noted. “Therefore, another plausible explanation could be that PRISm and COPD caused sarcopenia, which accelerated frailty progression,” they say.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and the potential underestimation of lung function in participants with reversible airflow obstruction because of the use of prebronchodilator spirometry in the cohort study, the researchers noted. 

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and high-quality data from the ELSA, as well as by the repeat measures of FI and lung function. The results were consistent after controlling for multiple confounders, and support the need for more research to explore the causality behind the association of PRISm and COPD with frailty, the researchers concluded. 

The study was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Basic Public Welfare Research Project, the Zhoushan Science and Technology Project, and the Key Laboratory of Intelligent Preventive Medicine of Zhejiang Province. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD) whose condition was classified as severe using the Rome criteria had a higher risk of death at 1 year than those who were classified as having moderate or mild disease, as determined from data from more than 300 individuals.

Patients hospitalized with severe exacerbations of ECOPD are at increased risk for worse clinical outcomes and death, so early identification is important, Ernesto Crisafulli, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona, and colleagues wrote.

To help predict prognosis for patients with ECOPD, an expert opinion group updated the definition of ECOPD using a new severity classification known as the Rome definition, which grades ECOPD as mild, moderate, or severe on the basis of more objective and disease-related aspects. However, data on the clinical usefulness of the Rome criteria are limited.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers retrospectively categorized 347 adults hospitalized with ECOPD using the Rome severity classifications of mild, moderate, and severe.

Classifications were made using baseline, clinical and microbiological factors, as well as gas analysis and laboratory variables. The researchers also reviewed data on the length of hospital stay and mortality (in-hospital and over a follow-up of 6 months to 3 years).

Approximately one-third of the patients (39%) were classified as having mild disease, 31% as having moderate disease, and 30% as having severe illness. Overall, hospital stay was significantly longer for the patients with severe disease, although in-hospital mortality was similar across all three groups.

Patients classified as having severe disease also had a worse prognosis at all follow-up time points, and severe classification was significantly associated with worse cumulative survival at 1 year and 3 years (Gehan-Breslow-Wilson test, P = .032 and P = .004, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death at 1 year was significantly higher among patients classified as severe or moderate (hazard ratio, 1.99 and 1.47, respectively), compared with those classified as mild.

Mortality risk also was higher among patients aged 80 years and older and among those requiring long-term oxygen therapy or with a history of ECOPD episodes, the researchers noted. Body mass index in the range of 25-29 kg/m² was associated with lower risk.

The study was limited by several factors, including the replacement of dyspnea perception in the Rome classification with other objective measures, the researchers wrote. Other limitations include the retrospective design, small sample size, use of data from a single center, and lack of data on causes of mortality. Women were underrepresented in the study, and so additional research involving women is needed.

The results suggest that the Rome classification allows for the effective identification of patients with ECOPD who have a worse prognosis. The Rome classification may help guide disease management through targeted interventions and personalized care programs for this population, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD) whose condition was classified as severe using the Rome criteria had a higher risk of death at 1 year than those who were classified as having moderate or mild disease, as determined from data from more than 300 individuals.

Patients hospitalized with severe exacerbations of ECOPD are at increased risk for worse clinical outcomes and death, so early identification is important, Ernesto Crisafulli, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona, and colleagues wrote.

To help predict prognosis for patients with ECOPD, an expert opinion group updated the definition of ECOPD using a new severity classification known as the Rome definition, which grades ECOPD as mild, moderate, or severe on the basis of more objective and disease-related aspects. However, data on the clinical usefulness of the Rome criteria are limited.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers retrospectively categorized 347 adults hospitalized with ECOPD using the Rome severity classifications of mild, moderate, and severe.

Classifications were made using baseline, clinical and microbiological factors, as well as gas analysis and laboratory variables. The researchers also reviewed data on the length of hospital stay and mortality (in-hospital and over a follow-up of 6 months to 3 years).

Approximately one-third of the patients (39%) were classified as having mild disease, 31% as having moderate disease, and 30% as having severe illness. Overall, hospital stay was significantly longer for the patients with severe disease, although in-hospital mortality was similar across all three groups.

Patients classified as having severe disease also had a worse prognosis at all follow-up time points, and severe classification was significantly associated with worse cumulative survival at 1 year and 3 years (Gehan-Breslow-Wilson test, P = .032 and P = .004, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death at 1 year was significantly higher among patients classified as severe or moderate (hazard ratio, 1.99 and 1.47, respectively), compared with those classified as mild.

Mortality risk also was higher among patients aged 80 years and older and among those requiring long-term oxygen therapy or with a history of ECOPD episodes, the researchers noted. Body mass index in the range of 25-29 kg/m² was associated with lower risk.

The study was limited by several factors, including the replacement of dyspnea perception in the Rome classification with other objective measures, the researchers wrote. Other limitations include the retrospective design, small sample size, use of data from a single center, and lack of data on causes of mortality. Women were underrepresented in the study, and so additional research involving women is needed.

The results suggest that the Rome classification allows for the effective identification of patients with ECOPD who have a worse prognosis. The Rome classification may help guide disease management through targeted interventions and personalized care programs for this population, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD) whose condition was classified as severe using the Rome criteria had a higher risk of death at 1 year than those who were classified as having moderate or mild disease, as determined from data from more than 300 individuals.

Patients hospitalized with severe exacerbations of ECOPD are at increased risk for worse clinical outcomes and death, so early identification is important, Ernesto Crisafulli, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of Verona, and colleagues wrote.

To help predict prognosis for patients with ECOPD, an expert opinion group updated the definition of ECOPD using a new severity classification known as the Rome definition, which grades ECOPD as mild, moderate, or severe on the basis of more objective and disease-related aspects. However, data on the clinical usefulness of the Rome criteria are limited.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers retrospectively categorized 347 adults hospitalized with ECOPD using the Rome severity classifications of mild, moderate, and severe.

Classifications were made using baseline, clinical and microbiological factors, as well as gas analysis and laboratory variables. The researchers also reviewed data on the length of hospital stay and mortality (in-hospital and over a follow-up of 6 months to 3 years).

Approximately one-third of the patients (39%) were classified as having mild disease, 31% as having moderate disease, and 30% as having severe illness. Overall, hospital stay was significantly longer for the patients with severe disease, although in-hospital mortality was similar across all three groups.

Patients classified as having severe disease also had a worse prognosis at all follow-up time points, and severe classification was significantly associated with worse cumulative survival at 1 year and 3 years (Gehan-Breslow-Wilson test, P = .032 and P = .004, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death at 1 year was significantly higher among patients classified as severe or moderate (hazard ratio, 1.99 and 1.47, respectively), compared with those classified as mild.

Mortality risk also was higher among patients aged 80 years and older and among those requiring long-term oxygen therapy or with a history of ECOPD episodes, the researchers noted. Body mass index in the range of 25-29 kg/m² was associated with lower risk.

The study was limited by several factors, including the replacement of dyspnea perception in the Rome classification with other objective measures, the researchers wrote. Other limitations include the retrospective design, small sample size, use of data from a single center, and lack of data on causes of mortality. Women were underrepresented in the study, and so additional research involving women is needed.

The results suggest that the Rome classification allows for the effective identification of patients with ECOPD who have a worse prognosis. The Rome classification may help guide disease management through targeted interventions and personalized care programs for this population, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A potentially protective role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suggested by the finding that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are inversely associated with COPD incidence and mortality. COPD risk was 23% higher in people within the lowest quintile vs. the fourth quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, according to research appearing in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

While low vitamin D status has been linked to increased inflammatory diseases risk and to the regulation of pathogenic mechanisms in COPD, epidemiological evidence regarding the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD incidence and survival remains inconclusive, Zheng Zhu, MD, of Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China, and colleagues wrote.

From UK Biobank data recorded from 403,648 participants (mean age 56.4 years; 54% women) who were free of COPD at baseline and had 25(OH)D measurements, researchers estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD risk and survival. After median follow-up of 12.3 years (ending Sept. 30, 2021), with 11,008 COPD cases recorded, beyond the COPD and mortality increase (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31) in the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, risk for overall death was 38% higher, as well (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56). Serum concentrations were greater than 64.6 nmol/L in the highest (quintile 5) and less than 31.7 nmol/L in the lowest (quintile 1). Also, men and current smokers had higher COPD and mortality risk (P interaction for both: < .05).

While event rates tracked generally inversely with 25(OH)D concentrations, overall the event curves were non-linear. Dr Zhu and associates reported that the decreasing risk of COPD appeared to be lowest at 55 nmol/L of 25(OH)D within quintile 4 (51.8 to < 64.6 nmol/L). Furthermore, lower prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a significant decrease in overall and COPD-specific survival.

Smoking is the most commonly encountered risk factor for COPD, the researchers noted, and their findings indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with COPD risk in both smokers and never-smokers. In a fully adjusted model, compared with quintile 4, the quintile 1 increase in COPD risk was 25% in never-smokers and 23% in smokers.

“Our findings imply that vitamin D might play a role in progression of COPD,” the authors stated. They added, “Whether lower concentrations of 25(OH)D are causal or contributory to COPD risk may spur future long-duration and large-scale RCTs.”

“Vitamin D has an important function in the immune system and lower serum levels have been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases,” commented associate professor of medicine Diego J. Maselli, MD, who is chief of the division of pulmonary diseases & critical care at UT Health San Antonio. “Patients with COPD often have lower levels of vitamin D compared to healthy individuals. COPD patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have a higher risk of exacerbations and worse lung function.”

He added, “The research by Zhu and colleagues adds to the field of study and highlights the potential role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of COPD. It is important to remember that these associations do not establish causality, as patients with chronic and debilitating diseases may have limited sunlight exposure, poor nutritional intake, and other behaviors that may affect vitamin D levels. There are mixed results in studies evaluating the role of supplementing vitamin D in COPD with regards to disease progression and exacerbation reduction. While there are some studies that report that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce COPD exacerbations, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies that explore if the supplementation of vitamin D can prevent the development of COPD, particularly in those who actively smoke. Yet, it is reasonable to evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in COPD patients who have had exacerbations and supplement when there is a severe deficiency.” 

Given that the majority of participants in this study were from the United Kingdom, the researchers stated, a study limitation is that findings might not apply to other populations.

No disclosures were reported by Dr. Zhu or by Dr. Maselli.

A potentially protective role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suggested by the finding that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are inversely associated with COPD incidence and mortality. COPD risk was 23% higher in people within the lowest quintile vs. the fourth quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, according to research appearing in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

While low vitamin D status has been linked to increased inflammatory diseases risk and to the regulation of pathogenic mechanisms in COPD, epidemiological evidence regarding the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD incidence and survival remains inconclusive, Zheng Zhu, MD, of Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China, and colleagues wrote.

From UK Biobank data recorded from 403,648 participants (mean age 56.4 years; 54% women) who were free of COPD at baseline and had 25(OH)D measurements, researchers estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD risk and survival. After median follow-up of 12.3 years (ending Sept. 30, 2021), with 11,008 COPD cases recorded, beyond the COPD and mortality increase (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31) in the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, risk for overall death was 38% higher, as well (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56). Serum concentrations were greater than 64.6 nmol/L in the highest (quintile 5) and less than 31.7 nmol/L in the lowest (quintile 1). Also, men and current smokers had higher COPD and mortality risk (P interaction for both: < .05).

While event rates tracked generally inversely with 25(OH)D concentrations, overall the event curves were non-linear. Dr Zhu and associates reported that the decreasing risk of COPD appeared to be lowest at 55 nmol/L of 25(OH)D within quintile 4 (51.8 to < 64.6 nmol/L). Furthermore, lower prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a significant decrease in overall and COPD-specific survival.

Smoking is the most commonly encountered risk factor for COPD, the researchers noted, and their findings indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with COPD risk in both smokers and never-smokers. In a fully adjusted model, compared with quintile 4, the quintile 1 increase in COPD risk was 25% in never-smokers and 23% in smokers.

“Our findings imply that vitamin D might play a role in progression of COPD,” the authors stated. They added, “Whether lower concentrations of 25(OH)D are causal or contributory to COPD risk may spur future long-duration and large-scale RCTs.”

“Vitamin D has an important function in the immune system and lower serum levels have been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases,” commented associate professor of medicine Diego J. Maselli, MD, who is chief of the division of pulmonary diseases & critical care at UT Health San Antonio. “Patients with COPD often have lower levels of vitamin D compared to healthy individuals. COPD patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have a higher risk of exacerbations and worse lung function.”

He added, “The research by Zhu and colleagues adds to the field of study and highlights the potential role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of COPD. It is important to remember that these associations do not establish causality, as patients with chronic and debilitating diseases may have limited sunlight exposure, poor nutritional intake, and other behaviors that may affect vitamin D levels. There are mixed results in studies evaluating the role of supplementing vitamin D in COPD with regards to disease progression and exacerbation reduction. While there are some studies that report that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce COPD exacerbations, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies that explore if the supplementation of vitamin D can prevent the development of COPD, particularly in those who actively smoke. Yet, it is reasonable to evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in COPD patients who have had exacerbations and supplement when there is a severe deficiency.” 

Given that the majority of participants in this study were from the United Kingdom, the researchers stated, a study limitation is that findings might not apply to other populations.

No disclosures were reported by Dr. Zhu or by Dr. Maselli.

A potentially protective role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suggested by the finding that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are inversely associated with COPD incidence and mortality. COPD risk was 23% higher in people within the lowest quintile vs. the fourth quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, according to research appearing in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

While low vitamin D status has been linked to increased inflammatory diseases risk and to the regulation of pathogenic mechanisms in COPD, epidemiological evidence regarding the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD incidence and survival remains inconclusive, Zheng Zhu, MD, of Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China, and colleagues wrote.

From UK Biobank data recorded from 403,648 participants (mean age 56.4 years; 54% women) who were free of COPD at baseline and had 25(OH)D measurements, researchers estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD risk and survival. After median follow-up of 12.3 years (ending Sept. 30, 2021), with 11,008 COPD cases recorded, beyond the COPD and mortality increase (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31) in the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, risk for overall death was 38% higher, as well (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56). Serum concentrations were greater than 64.6 nmol/L in the highest (quintile 5) and less than 31.7 nmol/L in the lowest (quintile 1). Also, men and current smokers had higher COPD and mortality risk (P interaction for both: < .05).

While event rates tracked generally inversely with 25(OH)D concentrations, overall the event curves were non-linear. Dr Zhu and associates reported that the decreasing risk of COPD appeared to be lowest at 55 nmol/L of 25(OH)D within quintile 4 (51.8 to < 64.6 nmol/L). Furthermore, lower prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a significant decrease in overall and COPD-specific survival.

Smoking is the most commonly encountered risk factor for COPD, the researchers noted, and their findings indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with COPD risk in both smokers and never-smokers. In a fully adjusted model, compared with quintile 4, the quintile 1 increase in COPD risk was 25% in never-smokers and 23% in smokers.

“Our findings imply that vitamin D might play a role in progression of COPD,” the authors stated. They added, “Whether lower concentrations of 25(OH)D are causal or contributory to COPD risk may spur future long-duration and large-scale RCTs.”

“Vitamin D has an important function in the immune system and lower serum levels have been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases,” commented associate professor of medicine Diego J. Maselli, MD, who is chief of the division of pulmonary diseases & critical care at UT Health San Antonio. “Patients with COPD often have lower levels of vitamin D compared to healthy individuals. COPD patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have a higher risk of exacerbations and worse lung function.”

He added, “The research by Zhu and colleagues adds to the field of study and highlights the potential role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of COPD. It is important to remember that these associations do not establish causality, as patients with chronic and debilitating diseases may have limited sunlight exposure, poor nutritional intake, and other behaviors that may affect vitamin D levels. There are mixed results in studies evaluating the role of supplementing vitamin D in COPD with regards to disease progression and exacerbation reduction. While there are some studies that report that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce COPD exacerbations, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies that explore if the supplementation of vitamin D can prevent the development of COPD, particularly in those who actively smoke. Yet, it is reasonable to evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in COPD patients who have had exacerbations and supplement when there is a severe deficiency.” 

Given that the majority of participants in this study were from the United Kingdom, the researchers stated, a study limitation is that findings might not apply to other populations.

No disclosures were reported by Dr. Zhu or by Dr. Maselli.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

It’s tough to keep up with the proliferation of monoclonal antibodies. Seems every day I’m confronted by a patient who’s using a new drug with a name ending in “mab.” That drug blocks a cellular receptor I haven’t heard of that’s involved in a cascade of interactions I haven’t thought about since medical school. The resulting disruption reduces disease burden, typically at great expense to the medical system, the patient, or both. We’ve truly entered the era of precision medicine. It’s not enough to understand disease; you also must know its heterogeneous expression so that you can prescribe the ‘mab that targets the biology responsible for variants in behavior. All diseases are, in fact, syndromes. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s a challenge.

A series of ‘mabs have been approved for treating type 2 high (TH2) or eosinophilic asthma. We refer to this group of ‘mabs generically as biologics. The group includes omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, and tezepelumab. While mechanism of action varies slightly across drugs, the biologics all target a specific arm of the immune system. Efficacy is linearly related to serum eosinophil count and there’s little clinically or pharmacologically to distinguish one from another. Of course, no head-to-head comparisons of efficacy are available and there’s no financial incentive for them to be performed.
 

Latest research

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of dupilumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adds to the aforementioned biologic knowledge base. Turns out it works as long as the patients are carefully selected. Researchers enrolled GOLD D (or E depending on which iteration of the GOLD Statement you use) patients on triple inhaler therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]/long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) with two moderate exacerbations or one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the past year. Blood eosinophil counts were > 300 cells/mcL and chronic bronchitis was present clinically. The primary and multiple secondary outcomes were improved with dupilumab.

This is welcome news. I’ve treated countless patients with severe COPD who have repeated exacerbations despite my efforts to prevent them. These patients are on ICS/LABA/LAMA and azithromycin or roflumilast, and occasionally both. While every COPD guideline known to man forbids using chronic oral corticosteroids (OCS), I’ve prescribed them repeatedly because the benefits to keeping a recalcitrant, exacerbating patient out of the hospital seem to outweigh OCS risks. It would be nice to have a better option. Although we were taught that they were immutably distinct in medical school, every first-year pulmonary fellow knows that asthma and COPD share more similarities than differences, so it makes sense that proven asthma therapies would work for some patients with COPD.

However, the dupilumab study must be placed in context. Past studies haven’t been as positive. In 2017, two separate RCTs found that mepolizumab reduced the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (primary outcome) in one trial but not the other. Interpretation gets more complicated when broken down by intention to treat (ITT) vs. modified ITT and when secondary outcomes are considered. Sparing you those details, this trial does not instill confidence, leading the Food and Drug Administration to refuse approval for mepolizumab for COPD. A second RCT of benralizumab for COPD was published in 2019. Much less cognitive load was required to interpret this one; it was negative. FDA approval was not requested.

Looking through the trial designs for the three RCTs of biologics for COPD, I couldn’t find major differences that could explain the discordant results. Sample size and enrollment criteria were similar. As stated, I don’t believe that the biologic data in asthma allow for predicting efficacy in one eosinophilic patient vs. another and I assume the same would be true for COPD. All three trials found that eosinophils were eliminated, so responses were biologically equivalent.
 

Key takeaways

If trial design and pharmacology don’t account for the disparate outcomes, how do we explain them? More important, how do we translate these trials into clinical practice? I looked for a review or editorial by a scientist-clinician smarter than I so I could steal their ideas and express them as pedantic euphemisms here. I found it curious that I was unable to find one. A recent publication in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine suggests that the answer lies within the complex lattice of eosinophil subtypes, but I’m unqualified to judge the veracity of this “phenotype within a phenotype” theory.

For now, there will be no biologics prescribed for COPD – at least not by me. More trials in COPD are being done. We should have results on tezepelumab, that great savior that may cover noneosinophilic asthma phenotypes, within the next few years. Until then, we’re stuck defying guidelines with the anachronistic use of OCS for the COPD patient who exacerbates through ICS/LABA/LAMA, roflumilast, and azithromycin.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported receiving income from CHEST College, Metapharm, and WebMD.

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

It’s tough to keep up with the proliferation of monoclonal antibodies. Seems every day I’m confronted by a patient who’s using a new drug with a name ending in “mab.” That drug blocks a cellular receptor I haven’t heard of that’s involved in a cascade of interactions I haven’t thought about since medical school. The resulting disruption reduces disease burden, typically at great expense to the medical system, the patient, or both. We’ve truly entered the era of precision medicine. It’s not enough to understand disease; you also must know its heterogeneous expression so that you can prescribe the ‘mab that targets the biology responsible for variants in behavior. All diseases are, in fact, syndromes. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s a challenge.

A series of ‘mabs have been approved for treating type 2 high (TH2) or eosinophilic asthma. We refer to this group of ‘mabs generically as biologics. The group includes omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, and tezepelumab. While mechanism of action varies slightly across drugs, the biologics all target a specific arm of the immune system. Efficacy is linearly related to serum eosinophil count and there’s little clinically or pharmacologically to distinguish one from another. Of course, no head-to-head comparisons of efficacy are available and there’s no financial incentive for them to be performed.
 

Latest research

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of dupilumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adds to the aforementioned biologic knowledge base. Turns out it works as long as the patients are carefully selected. Researchers enrolled GOLD D (or E depending on which iteration of the GOLD Statement you use) patients on triple inhaler therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]/long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) with two moderate exacerbations or one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the past year. Blood eosinophil counts were > 300 cells/mcL and chronic bronchitis was present clinically. The primary and multiple secondary outcomes were improved with dupilumab.

This is welcome news. I’ve treated countless patients with severe COPD who have repeated exacerbations despite my efforts to prevent them. These patients are on ICS/LABA/LAMA and azithromycin or roflumilast, and occasionally both. While every COPD guideline known to man forbids using chronic oral corticosteroids (OCS), I’ve prescribed them repeatedly because the benefits to keeping a recalcitrant, exacerbating patient out of the hospital seem to outweigh OCS risks. It would be nice to have a better option. Although we were taught that they were immutably distinct in medical school, every first-year pulmonary fellow knows that asthma and COPD share more similarities than differences, so it makes sense that proven asthma therapies would work for some patients with COPD.

However, the dupilumab study must be placed in context. Past studies haven’t been as positive. In 2017, two separate RCTs found that mepolizumab reduced the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (primary outcome) in one trial but not the other. Interpretation gets more complicated when broken down by intention to treat (ITT) vs. modified ITT and when secondary outcomes are considered. Sparing you those details, this trial does not instill confidence, leading the Food and Drug Administration to refuse approval for mepolizumab for COPD. A second RCT of benralizumab for COPD was published in 2019. Much less cognitive load was required to interpret this one; it was negative. FDA approval was not requested.

Looking through the trial designs for the three RCTs of biologics for COPD, I couldn’t find major differences that could explain the discordant results. Sample size and enrollment criteria were similar. As stated, I don’t believe that the biologic data in asthma allow for predicting efficacy in one eosinophilic patient vs. another and I assume the same would be true for COPD. All three trials found that eosinophils were eliminated, so responses were biologically equivalent.
 

Key takeaways

If trial design and pharmacology don’t account for the disparate outcomes, how do we explain them? More important, how do we translate these trials into clinical practice? I looked for a review or editorial by a scientist-clinician smarter than I so I could steal their ideas and express them as pedantic euphemisms here. I found it curious that I was unable to find one. A recent publication in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine suggests that the answer lies within the complex lattice of eosinophil subtypes, but I’m unqualified to judge the veracity of this “phenotype within a phenotype” theory.

For now, there will be no biologics prescribed for COPD – at least not by me. More trials in COPD are being done. We should have results on tezepelumab, that great savior that may cover noneosinophilic asthma phenotypes, within the next few years. Until then, we’re stuck defying guidelines with the anachronistic use of OCS for the COPD patient who exacerbates through ICS/LABA/LAMA, roflumilast, and azithromycin.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported receiving income from CHEST College, Metapharm, and WebMD.

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

It’s tough to keep up with the proliferation of monoclonal antibodies. Seems every day I’m confronted by a patient who’s using a new drug with a name ending in “mab.” That drug blocks a cellular receptor I haven’t heard of that’s involved in a cascade of interactions I haven’t thought about since medical school. The resulting disruption reduces disease burden, typically at great expense to the medical system, the patient, or both. We’ve truly entered the era of precision medicine. It’s not enough to understand disease; you also must know its heterogeneous expression so that you can prescribe the ‘mab that targets the biology responsible for variants in behavior. All diseases are, in fact, syndromes. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s a challenge.

A series of ‘mabs have been approved for treating type 2 high (TH2) or eosinophilic asthma. We refer to this group of ‘mabs generically as biologics. The group includes omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, and tezepelumab. While mechanism of action varies slightly across drugs, the biologics all target a specific arm of the immune system. Efficacy is linearly related to serum eosinophil count and there’s little clinically or pharmacologically to distinguish one from another. Of course, no head-to-head comparisons of efficacy are available and there’s no financial incentive for them to be performed.
 

Latest research

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of dupilumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adds to the aforementioned biologic knowledge base. Turns out it works as long as the patients are carefully selected. Researchers enrolled GOLD D (or E depending on which iteration of the GOLD Statement you use) patients on triple inhaler therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]/long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) with two moderate exacerbations or one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the past year. Blood eosinophil counts were > 300 cells/mcL and chronic bronchitis was present clinically. The primary and multiple secondary outcomes were improved with dupilumab.

This is welcome news. I’ve treated countless patients with severe COPD who have repeated exacerbations despite my efforts to prevent them. These patients are on ICS/LABA/LAMA and azithromycin or roflumilast, and occasionally both. While every COPD guideline known to man forbids using chronic oral corticosteroids (OCS), I’ve prescribed them repeatedly because the benefits to keeping a recalcitrant, exacerbating patient out of the hospital seem to outweigh OCS risks. It would be nice to have a better option. Although we were taught that they were immutably distinct in medical school, every first-year pulmonary fellow knows that asthma and COPD share more similarities than differences, so it makes sense that proven asthma therapies would work for some patients with COPD.

However, the dupilumab study must be placed in context. Past studies haven’t been as positive. In 2017, two separate RCTs found that mepolizumab reduced the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (primary outcome) in one trial but not the other. Interpretation gets more complicated when broken down by intention to treat (ITT) vs. modified ITT and when secondary outcomes are considered. Sparing you those details, this trial does not instill confidence, leading the Food and Drug Administration to refuse approval for mepolizumab for COPD. A second RCT of benralizumab for COPD was published in 2019. Much less cognitive load was required to interpret this one; it was negative. FDA approval was not requested.

Looking through the trial designs for the three RCTs of biologics for COPD, I couldn’t find major differences that could explain the discordant results. Sample size and enrollment criteria were similar. As stated, I don’t believe that the biologic data in asthma allow for predicting efficacy in one eosinophilic patient vs. another and I assume the same would be true for COPD. All three trials found that eosinophils were eliminated, so responses were biologically equivalent.
 

Key takeaways

If trial design and pharmacology don’t account for the disparate outcomes, how do we explain them? More important, how do we translate these trials into clinical practice? I looked for a review or editorial by a scientist-clinician smarter than I so I could steal their ideas and express them as pedantic euphemisms here. I found it curious that I was unable to find one. A recent publication in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine suggests that the answer lies within the complex lattice of eosinophil subtypes, but I’m unqualified to judge the veracity of this “phenotype within a phenotype” theory.

For now, there will be no biologics prescribed for COPD – at least not by me. More trials in COPD are being done. We should have results on tezepelumab, that great savior that may cover noneosinophilic asthma phenotypes, within the next few years. Until then, we’re stuck defying guidelines with the anachronistic use of OCS for the COPD patient who exacerbates through ICS/LABA/LAMA, roflumilast, and azithromycin.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported receiving income from CHEST College, Metapharm, and WebMD.

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