Bronchodilators in Tobacco-Exposed Persons with Symptoms and Preserved Lung Function.

BACKGROUND: Many persons with a history of smoking tobacco have clinically significant respiratory symptoms despite an absence of airflow obstruction as assessed by spirometry. They are often treated with medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but supporting evidence for this treatment is lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned persons who had a tobacco-smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, respiratory symptoms as defined by a COPD Assessment Test score of at least 10 (scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), and preserved lung function on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ≥0.70 and FVC ≥70% of the predicted value after bronchodilator use) to receive either indacaterol (27.5 µg) plus glycopyrrolate (15.6 µg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was at least a 4-point decrease (i.e., improvement) in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health status) after 12 weeks without treatment failure (defined as an increase in lower respiratory symptoms treated with a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, glucocorticoid, or antibiotic agent). RESULTS: A total of 535 participants underwent randomization. In the modified intention-to-treat population (471 participants), 128 of 227 participants (56.4%) in the treatment group and 144 of 244 (59.0%) in the placebo group had at least a 4-point decrease in the SGRQ score (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.6 to 6.3; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.37; P = 0.65). The mean change in the percent of predicted FEV1 was 2.48 percentage points (95% CI, 1.49 to 3.47) in the treatment group and -0.09 percentage points (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.89) in the placebo group, and the mean change in the inspiratory capacity was 0.12 liters (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) in the treatment group and 0.02 liters (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events occurred in the treatment group, and 11 occurred in the placebo group; none were deemed potentially related to the treatment or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled dual bronchodilator therapy did not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with preserved lung function as assessed by spirometry. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; RETHINC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867761.).

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

Clinical Trial of Losartan for Pulmonary Emphysema: Pulmonary Trials Cooperative Losartan Effects on Emphysema Progression Clinical Trial.

Rationale: There are no pharmacologic agents that modify emphysema progression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of losartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, to reduce emphysema progression. Methods: The trial was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted between May 2017 and January 2021. Eligible participants were aged ⩾40 years, had moderate to severe airflow obstruction, ⩾10 pack-years of smoking, mild-moderate emphysema on high-resolution computed tomography, and no medical indication for or intolerance of angiotensin receptor blockers. Treatment with losartan 100 mg daily or matching placebo (1:1) was randomly assigned. The primary outcome was emphysema progression on high-resolution computed tomography over 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, the COPD Assessment Test, and the Physical Function-Short Form 20a. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 220 participants were enrolled; 58% were men, 19% were African American, and 24% were current smokers. The medians (interquartile ranges) for age were 65 (61-73) years and 48 (36-59) for percent predicted FEV1 after bronchodilator use. The mean (95% confidence interval) percentage emphysema progression was 1.35% (0.67-2.03) in the losartan group versus 0.66% (0.09-1.23) in the placebo group (P = NS). Conclusions: Losartan did not prevent emphysema progression in people with COPD with mild-moderate emphysema. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02696564).

Longitudinal Follow-Up of Participants With Tobacco Exposure and Preserved Spirometry.

Importance: People who smoked cigarettes may experience respiratory symptoms without spirometric airflow obstruction. These individuals are typically excluded from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials and lack evidence-based therapies. Objective: To define the natural history of persons with tobacco exposure and preserved spirometry (TEPS) and symptoms (symptomatic TEPS). Design, Setting, and Participants: SPIROMICS II was an extension of SPIROMICS I, a multicenter study of persons aged 40 to 80 years who smoked cigarettes (>20 pack-years) with or without COPD and controls without tobacco exposure or airflow obstruction. Participants were enrolled in SPIROMICS I and II from November 10, 2010, through July 31, 2015, and followed up through July 31, 2021. Exposures: Participants in SPIROMICS I underwent spirometry, 6-minute walk distance testing, assessment of respiratory symptoms, and computed tomography of the chest at yearly visits for 3 to 4 years. Participants in SPIROMICS II had 1 additional in-person visit 5 to 7 years after enrollment in SPIROMICS I. Respiratory symptoms were assessed with the COPD Assessment Test (range, 0 to 40; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry (postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity >0.70) and COPD Assessment Test scores of 10 or greater. Participants with asymptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry and COPD Assessment Test scores of less than 10. Patient-reported respiratory symptoms and exacerbations were assessed every 4 months via phone calls. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was assessment for accelerated decline in lung function (FEV1) in participants with symptomatic TEPS vs asymptomatic TEPS. Secondary outcomes included development of COPD defined by spirometry, respiratory symptoms, rates of respiratory exacerbations, and progression of computed tomographic-defined airway wall thickening or emphysema. Results: Of 1397 study participants, 226 had symptomatic TEPS (mean age, 60.1 [SD, 9.8] years; 134 were women [59%]) and 269 had asymptomatic TEPS (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 9.1] years; 134 were women [50%]). At a median follow-up of 5.76 years, the decline in FEV1 was -31.3 mL/y for participants with symptomatic TEPS vs -38.8 mL/y for those with asymptomatic TEPS (between-group difference, -7.5 mL/y [95% CI, -16.6 to 1.6 mL/y]). The cumulative incidence of COPD was 33.0% among participants with symptomatic TEPS vs 31.6% among those with asymptomatic TEPS (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.46]). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had significantly more respiratory exacerbations than those with asymptomatic TEPS (0.23 vs 0.08 exacerbations per person-year, respectively; rate ratio, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.31], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Participants with symptomatic TEPS did not have accelerated rates of decline in FEV1 or increased incidence of COPD vs those with asymptomatic TEPS, but participants with symptomatic TEPS did experience significantly more respiratory exacerbations over a median follow-up of 5.8 years.

Metoprolol for the Prevention of Acute Exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that beta-blockers may reduce the risk of exacerbations and death in patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but these findings have not been confirmed in randomized trials. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized trial, we assigned patients between the ages of 40 and 85 years who had COPD to receive either a beta-blocker (extended-release metoprolol) or placebo. All the patients had a clinical history of COPD, along with moderate airflow limitation and an increased risk of exacerbations, as evidenced by a history of exacerbations during the previous year or the prescribed use of supplemental oxygen. We excluded patients who were already taking a beta-blocker or who had an established indication for the use of such drugs. The primary end point was the time until the first exacerbation of COPD during the treatment period, which ranged from 336 to 350 days, depending on the adjusted dose of metoprolol. RESULTS: A total of 532 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 65.0±7.8 years; the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 41.1±16.3% of the predicted value. The trial was stopped early because of futility with respect to the primary end point and safety concerns. There was no significant between-group difference in the median time until the first exacerbation, which was 202 days in the metoprolol group and 222 days in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metoprolol vs. placebo, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.32; P = 0.66). Metoprolol was associated with a higher risk of exacerbation leading to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.83). The frequency of side effects that were possibly related to metoprolol was similar in the two groups, as was the overall rate of nonrespiratory serious adverse events. During the treatment period, there were 11 deaths in the metoprolol group and 5 in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with moderate or severe COPD who did not have an established indication for beta-blocker use, the time until the first COPD exacerbation was similar in the metoprolol group and the placebo group. Hospitalization for exacerbation was more common among the patients treated with metoprolol. (Funded by the Department of Defense; BLOCK COPD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02587351.).

Step-Up Therapy in Black Children and Adults with Poorly Controlled Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity from asthma is disproportionately higher among black patients than among white patients, and black patients constitute the minority of participants in trials informing treatment. Data indicate that patients with inadequately controlled asthma benefit more from addition of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) than from increased glucocorticoids; however, these data may not be informative for treatment in black patients. METHODS: We conducted two prospective, randomized, double-blind trials: one involving children and the other involving adolescents and adults. In both trials, the patients had at least one grandparent who identified as black and had asthma that was inadequately controlled with low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids. We compared combinations of therapy, which included the addition of a LABA (salmeterol) to an inhaled glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate), a step-up to double to quintuple the dose of fluticasone, or both. The treatments were compared with the use of a composite measure that evaluated asthma exacerbations, asthma-control days, and lung function; data were stratified according to genotypic African ancestry. RESULTS: When quintupling the dose of fluticasone (to 250 µg twice a day) was compared with adding salmeterol (50 µg twice a day) and doubling the fluticasone (to 100 µg twice a day), a superior response occurred in 46% of the children with quintupling the fluticasone and in 46% of the children with doubling the fluticasone and adding salmeterol (P = 0.99). In contrast, more adolescents and adults had a superior response to added salmeterol than to an increase in fluticasone (salmeterol-low-dose fluticasone vs. medium-dose fluticasone, 49% vs. 28% [P = 0.003]; salmeterol-medium-dose fluticasone vs. high-dose fluticasone, 49% vs. 31% [P = 0.02]). Neither the degree of African ancestry nor baseline biomarkers predicted a superior response to specific treatments. The increased dose of inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with a decrease in the ratio of urinary cortisol to creatinine in children younger than 8 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to black adolescents and adults, almost half the black children with poorly controlled asthma had a superior response to an increase in the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid and almost half had a superior response to the addition of a LABA. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967173.).

Mometasone or Tiotropium in Mild Asthma with a Low Sputum Eosinophil Level.

BACKGROUND: In many patients with mild, persistent asthma, the percentage of eosinophils in sputum is less than 2% (low eosinophil level). The appropriate treatment for these patients is unknown. METHODS: In this 42-week, double-blind, crossover trial, we assigned 295 patients who were at least 12 years of age and who had mild, persistent asthma to receive mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist), or placebo. The patients were categorized according to the sputum eosinophil level (<2% or ≥2%). The primary outcome was the response to mometasone as compared with placebo and to tiotropium as compared with placebo among patients with a low sputum eosinophil level who had a prespecified differential response to one of the trial agents. The response was determined according to a hierarchical composite outcome that incorporated treatment failure, asthma control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second; a two-sided P value of less than 0.025 denoted statistical significance. A secondary outcome was a comparison of results in patients with a high sputum eosinophil level and those with a low level. RESULTS: A total of 73% of the patients had a low eosinophil level; of these patients, 59% had a differential response to a trial agent. However, there was no significant difference in the response to mometasone or tiotropium, as compared with placebo. Among the patients with a low eosinophil level who had a differential treatment response, 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 66) had a better response to mometasone, and 43% (95% CI, 34 to 52) had a better response to placebo (P = 0.14). In contrast 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) had a better response to tiotropium, whereas 40% (95% CI, 32 to 49) had a better response to placebo (P = 0.029). Among patients with a high eosinophil level, the response to mometasone was significantly better than the response to placebo (74% vs. 26%) but the response to tiotropium was not (57% vs. 43%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with mild, persistent asthma had a low sputum eosinophil level and had no significant difference in their response to either mometasone or tiotropium as compared with placebo. These data provide equipoise for a clinically directive trial to compare an inhaled glucocorticoid with other treatments in patients with a low eosinophil level. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; SIENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066298.).

Mucus Plugs and Emphysema in the Pathophysiology of Airflow Obstruction and Hypoxemia in Smokers.

Rationale: The relative roles of mucus plugs and emphysema in mechanisms of airflow limitation and hypoxemia in smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are uncertain.Objectives: To relate image-based measures of mucus plugs and emphysema to measures of airflow obstruction and oxygenation in patients with COPD.Methods: We analyzed computed tomographic (CT) lung images and lung function in participants in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study. Radiologists scored mucus plugs on CT lung images, and imaging software automatically quantified emphysema percentage. Unadjusted and adjusted relationships between mucus plug score, emphysema percentage, and lung function were determined using regression.Measurements and Main Results: Among 400 smokers, 229 (57%) had mucus plugs and 207 (52%) had emphysema, and subgroups could be identified with mucus-dominant and emphysema-dominant disease. Only 33% of smokers with high mucus plug scores had mucus symptoms. Mucus plug score and emphysema percentage were independently associated with lower values for FEV1 and peripheral oxygen saturation (P < 0.001). The relationships between mucus plug score and lung function outcomes were strongest in smokers with limited emphysema (P < 0.001). Compared with smokers with low mucus plug scores, those with high scores had worse COPD Assessment Test scores (17.4 ± 7.7 vs. 14.4 ± 13.3), more frequent annual exacerbations (0.75 ± 1.1 vs. 0.43 ± 0.85), and shorter 6-minute-walk distance (329 ± 115 vs. 392 ± 117 m) (P < 0.001).Conclusions: Symptomatically silent mucus plugs are highly prevalent in smokers and independently associate with lung function outcomes. These data provide rationale for targeting patients with mucus-high/emphysema-low COPD in clinical trials of mucoactive treatments.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01969344).

Quintupling Inhaled Glucocorticoids to Prevent Childhood Asthma Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations occur frequently despite the regular use of asthma-controller therapies, such as inhaled glucocorticoids. Clinicians commonly increase the doses of inhaled glucocorticoids at early signs of loss of asthma control. However, data on the safety and efficacy of this strategy in children are limited. METHODS: We studied 254 children, 5 to 11 years of age, who had mild-to-moderate persistent asthma and had had at least one asthma exacerbation treated with systemic glucocorticoids in the previous year. Children were treated for 48 weeks with maintenance low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids (fluticasone propionate at a dose of 44 µg per inhalation, two inhalations twice daily) and were randomly assigned to either continue the same dose (low-dose group) or use a quintupled dose (high-dose group; fluticasone at a dose of 220 µg per inhalation, two inhalations twice daily) for 7 days at the early signs of loss of asthma control ("yellow zone"). Treatment was provided in a double-blind fashion. The primary outcome was the rate of severe asthma exacerbations treated with systemic glucocorticoids. RESULTS: The rate of severe asthma exacerbations treated with systemic glucocorticoids did not differ significantly between groups (0.48 exacerbations per year in the high-dose group and 0.37 exacerbations per year in the low-dose group; relative rate, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 2.1; P=0.30). The time to the first exacerbation, the rate of treatment failure, symptom scores, and albuterol use during yellow-zone episodes did not differ significantly between groups. The total glucocorticoid exposure was 16% higher in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group. The difference in linear growth between the high-dose group and the low-dose group was -0.23 cm per year (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma treated with daily inhaled glucocorticoids, quintupling the dose at the early signs of loss of asthma control did not reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations or improve other asthma outcomes and may be associated with diminished linear growth. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; STICS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066129 .).

Epigenetic marker of telomeric age is associated with exacerbations and hospitalizations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an age-related condition that has been associated with early telomere attrition; the clinical implications of telomere shortening in COPD are not well known. In this study we aimed to determine the relationship of the epigenetic regulation of telomeric length in peripheral blood with the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization in patients with COPD. METHODS: Blood DNA methylation profiles were obtained from 292 patients with COPD enrolled in the placebo arm of the Macrolide Azithromycin to Prevent Rapid Worsening of Symptoms Associated with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (MACRO) Study and who were followed for 1-year. We calculated telomere length based on DNA methylation markers (DNAmTL) and related this biomarker to the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization and health status (St. George Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) score over time using a Cox proportional hazards model. We also used linear models to investigate the associations of DNAmTL with the rates of exacerbation and hospitalization (adjusted for chronological age, lung function, race, sex, smoking, body mass index and cell composition). RESULTS: Participants with short DNAmTL demonstrated increased risk of exacerbation (P = 0.02) and hospitalization (P = 0.03) compared to those with longer DNAmTL. DNAmTL age acceleration was associated with higher rates of exacerbation (P = 1.35 × 10-04) and hospitalization (P = 5.21 × 10-03) and poor health status (lower SGRQ scores) independent of chronological age (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Telomeric age based on blood DNA methylation is associated with COPD exacerbation and hospitalization and thus a promising biomarker for poor outcomes in COPD.

Exacerbation-prone asthma in the context of race and ancestry in Asthma Clinical Research Network trials.

BACKGROUND: Minority groups of African descent experience disproportionately greater asthma morbidity compared with other racial groups, suggesting that genetic variation from a common ancestry could influence exacerbation risk. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated clinical trial measures in the context of self-reported race and genetic ancestry to identify risk factors for asthma exacerbations. METHODS: One thousand eight hundred forty multiethnic subjects from 12 Asthma Clinical Research Network and AsthmaNet trials were analyzed for incident asthma exacerbations with Poisson regression models that included clinical measures, self-reported race (black, non-Hispanic white, and other), and estimates of global genetic African ancestry in a subgroup (n = 760). RESULTS: Twenty-four percent of 1840 subjects self-identified as black. Black and white subjects had common risk factors for exacerbations, including a history of 2 or more exacerbations in the previous year and FEV1 percent predicted values, whereas chronic sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease were only associated with increased exacerbation risk in black subjects. In the combined multiethnic cohort, neither race (P = .30) nor percentage of genetic African ancestry as a continuous variable associated with exacerbation risk (adjusted rate ratio [RR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.94-1.70; P = .13]; RR per 1-SD change [32% ancestry], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78-1.19; P = .74]). However, in 161 black subjects with genetic data, those with African ancestry greater than the median (≥82%) had a significantly greater risk of exacerbation (RR, 3.06 [95% CI, 1.09-8.6; P = .03]). CONCLUSION: Black subjects have unique risk factors for asthma exacerbations, of which global African genetic ancestry had the strongest effect.

Clinical Significance of Symptoms in Smokers with Preserved Pulmonary Function.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 as assessed by spirometry after bronchodilator use. However, many smokers who do not meet this definition have respiratory symptoms. METHODS: We conducted an observational study involving 2736 current or former smokers and controls who had never smoked and measured their respiratory symptoms using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT; scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms). We examined whether current or former smokers who had preserved pulmonary function as assessed by spirometry (FEV1:FVC ≥0.70 and an FVC above the lower limit of the normal range after bronchodilator use) and had symptoms (CAT score, ≥10) had a higher risk of respiratory exacerbations than current or former smokers with preserved pulmonary function who were asymptomatic (CAT score, <10) and whether those with symptoms had different findings from the asymptomatic group with respect to the 6-minute walk distance, lung function, or high-resolution computed tomographic (HRCT) scan of the chest. RESULTS: Respiratory symptoms were present in 50% of current or former smokers with preserved pulmonary function. The mean (±SD) rate of respiratory exacerbations among symptomatic current or former smokers was significantly higher than the rates among asymptomatic current or former smokers and among controls who never smoked (0.27±0.67 vs. 0.08±0.31 and 0.03±0.21 events, respectively, per year; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Symptomatic current or former smokers, regardless of history of asthma, also had greater limitation of activity, slightly lower FEV1, FVC, and inspiratory capacity, and greater airway-wall thickening without emphysema according to HRCT than did asymptomatic current or former smokers. Among symptomatic current or former smokers, 42% used bronchodilators and 23% used inhaled glucocorticoids. CONCLUSIONS: Although they do not meet the current criteria for COPD, symptomatic current or former smokers with preserved pulmonary function have exacerbations, activity limitation, and evidence of airway disease. They currently use a range of respiratory medications without any evidence base. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health; SPIROMICS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01969344.).

Acetaminophen versus Ibuprofen in Young Children with Mild Persistent Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested an association between frequent acetaminophen use and asthma-related complications among children, leading some physicians to recommend that acetaminophen be avoided in children with asthma; however, appropriately designed trials evaluating this association in children are lacking. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial, we enrolled 300 children (age range, 12 to 59 months) with mild persistent asthma and assigned them to receive either acetaminophen or ibuprofen when needed for the alleviation of fever or pain over the course of 48 weeks. The primary outcome was the number of asthma exacerbations that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids. Children in both groups received standardized asthma-controller therapies that were used in a simultaneous, factorially linked trial. RESULTS: Participants received a median of 5.5 doses (interquartile range, 1.0 to 15.0) of trial medication; there was no significant between-group difference in the median number of doses received (P=0.47). The number of asthma exacerbations did not differ significantly between the two groups, with a mean of 0.81 per participant with acetaminophen and 0.87 per participant with ibuprofen over 46 weeks of follow-up (relative rate of asthma exacerbations in the acetaminophen group vs. the ibuprofen group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.28; P=0.67). In the acetaminophen group, 49% of participants had at least one asthma exacerbation and 21% had at least two, as compared with 47% and 24%, respectively, in the ibuprofen group. Similarly, no significant differences were detected between acetaminophen and ibuprofen with respect to the percentage of asthma-control days (85.8% and 86.8%, respectively; P=0.50), use of an albuterol rescue inhaler (2.8 and 3.0 inhalations per week, respectively; P=0.69), unscheduled health care utilization for asthma (0.75 and 0.76 episodes per participant, respectively; P=0.94), or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among young children with mild persistent asthma, as-needed use of acetaminophen was not shown to be associated with a higher incidence of asthma exacerbations or worse asthma control than was as-needed use of ibuprofen. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; AVICA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01606319.).

Obesity's effect on asthma extends to diagnostic criteria.

BACKGROUND: The use of inflammatory biomarkers to delineate the type of lung inflammation present in asthmatic subjects is increasingly common. However, the effect of obesity on these markers is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the effect of obesity on conventional markers of inflammation in asthmatic subjects. METHODS: We performed secondary analysis of data from 652 subjects previously enrolled in 2 Asthma Clinical Research Network trials. We performed linear correlations between biomarkers and logistic regression analysis to determine the predictive value of IgE levels, blood eosinophil counts, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide values in relationship to sputum eosinophil counts (>2%), as well as to determine whether cut points existed that would maximize the sensitivity and specificity for predicting sputum eosinophilia in the 3 weight groups. RESULTS: Overall, statistically significant but relatively weak correlations were observed among all 4 markers of inflammation. Within obese subjects, the only significant correlation found was between IgE levels and blood eosinophil counts (r = 0.33, P < .001); furthermore, all other correlations between inflammatory markers were approximately 0, including correlations with sputum eosinophil counts. In addition, the predictive value of each biomarker alone or in combination was poor in obese subjects. In fact, in obese subjects none of the biomarkers of inflammation significantly predicted the presence of high sputum eosinophil counts. Obese asthmatic subjects have lower cut points for IgE levels (268 IU), fraction of exhaled nitric oxide values (14.5 ppb), and blood eosinophil counts (96 cells/µL) than all other groups. CONCLUSIONS: In obese asthmatic subjects conventional biomarkers of inflammation are poorly predictive of eosinophilic airway inflammation. As such, biomarkers currently used to delineate eosinophilic inflammation in asthmatic subjects should be approached with caution in these subjects.

Serum IgG subclass levels and risk of exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The literature is scarce regarding the prevalence and clinical impact of IgG subclass deficiency in COPD. We investigated the prevalence of IgG subclass deficiencies and their association with exacerbations and hospitalizations using subjects from two COPD cohorts. METHODS: We measured IgG subclass levels using immunonephelometry in serum samples from participants enrolled in two previous COPD trials: Macrolide Azithromycin for Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD (MACRO; n = 976) and Simvastatin for the Prevention of Exacerbations in Moderate-to-Severe COPD (STATCOPE; n = 653). All samples were collected from clinically stable participants upon entry into both studies. IgG subclass deficiency was diagnosed when IgG subclass levels were below their respective lower limit of normal: IgG1 < 2.8 g/L; IgG2 < 1.15 g/L; IgG3 < 0.24 g/L; and IgG4 < 0.052 g/L. To investigate the impact of IgG subclass levels on time to first exacerbation or hospitalization, we log-transformed IgG levels and performed Cox regression models, with adjustments for confounders. RESULTS: One or more IgG subclass deficiencies were found in 173 (17.7%) and 133 (20.4%) participants in MACRO and STATCOPE, respectively. Lower IgG1 or IgG2 levels resulted in increased risk of exacerbations with adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.10-1.54, p < 0.01) and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.05-1.35, p < 0.01), respectively in the MACRO study, with STATCOPE yielding similar results. Reduced IgG1 or IgG2 levels were also associated with increased risk of hospitalizations: the adjusted HR for IgG1 and IgG2 was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.15-2.02, p < 0.01) and 1.33 (95% CI, 1.08-1.64, p < 0.01), respectively for the MACRO study; in STATCOPE, only IgG2 was an independent predictor of hospitalization. In our multivariate Cox models, IgG3 and IgG4 levels did not result in significant associations for both outcomes in either MACRO or STATCOPE cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 5 COPD patients had one or more IgG subclass deficiencies. Reduced IgG subclass levels were independent risk factors for both COPD exacerbations (IgG1 and IgG2) and hospitalizations (IgG2) in two COPD cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study used serum samples from participants of the MACRO ( NCT00325897 ) and STATCOPE ( NCT01061671 ) trials.

Race is associated with differences in airway inflammation in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: African American subjects have a greater burden from asthma compared with white subjects. Whether the pattern of airway inflammation differs between African American and white subjects is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare sputum airway inflammatory phenotypes of African American and white subjects treated or not with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; ICS+ and ICS-, respectively). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of self-identified African American and white subjects with asthma enrolled in clinical trials conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Asthma Clinical Research Network and AsthmaNet. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and sputum cytology after sputum induction were examined. We used a sputum eosinophil 2% cut point to define subjects with either an eosinophilic (≥2%) or noneosinophilic (<2%) inflammatory phenotype. RESULTS: Among 1018 participants, African American subjects (n = 264) had a lower FEV1 percent predicted (80% vs 85%, P < .01), greater total IgE levels (197 vs 120 IU/mL, P < .01), and a greater proportion with uncontrolled asthma (43% vs 28%, P < .01) compared with white subjects (n = 754). There were 922 subjects in the ICS+ group (248 African American and 674 white subjects) and 298 subjects in the ICS- group (49 African American and 249 white subjects). Eosinophilic airway inflammation was not significantly different between African American and white subjects in either group (percentage with eosinophilic phenotype: ICS+ group: 19% vs 16%, P = .28; ICS- group: 39% vs 35%, P = .65; respectively). However, when adjusted for confounding factors, African American subjects were more likely to exhibit eosinophilic airway inflammation than white subjects in the ICS+ group (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.48; P = .046) but not in the ICS- group (P = .984). CONCLUSION: African American subjects exhibit greater eosinophilic airway inflammation, which might explain the greater asthma burden in this population.

Features of the bronchial bacterial microbiome associated with atopy, asthma, and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroid treatment.

BACKGROUND: Compositional differences in the bronchial bacterial microbiota have been associated with asthma, but it remains unclear whether the findings are attributable to asthma, to aeroallergen sensitization, or to inhaled corticosteroid treatment. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the bronchial bacterial microbiota in adults with steroid-naive atopic asthma, subjects with atopy but no asthma, and nonatopic healthy control subjects and to determine relationships of the bronchial microbiota to phenotypic features of asthma. METHODS: Bacterial communities in protected bronchial brushings from 42 atopic asthmatic subjects, 21 subjects with atopy but no asthma, and 21 healthy control subjects were profiled by using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Bacterial composition and community-level functions inferred from sequence profiles were analyzed for between-group differences. Associations with clinical and inflammatory variables were examined, including markers of type 2-related inflammation and change in airway hyperresponsiveness after 6 weeks of fluticasone treatment. RESULTS: The bronchial microbiome differed significantly among the 3 groups. Asthmatic subjects were uniquely enriched in members of the Haemophilus, Neisseria, Fusobacterium, and Porphyromonas species and the Sphingomonodaceae family and depleted in members of the Mogibacteriaceae family and Lactobacillales order. Asthma-associated differences in predicted bacterial functions included involvement of amino acid and short-chain fatty acid metabolism pathways. Subjects with type 2-high asthma harbored significantly lower bronchial bacterial burden. Distinct changes in specific microbiota members were seen after fluticasone treatment. Steroid responsiveness was linked to differences in baseline compositional and functional features of the bacterial microbiome. CONCLUSION: Even in subjects with mild steroid-naive asthma, differences in the bronchial microbiome are associated with immunologic and clinical features of the disease. The specific differences identified suggest possible microbiome targets for future approaches to asthma treatment or prevention.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists With Asthma Control in Patients With Uncontrolled, Persistent Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a potential adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of persistent asthma. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects associated with LAMA vs placebo or vs other controllers as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and the use of a LAMA as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs; hereafter referred to as triple therapy) vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries (earliest date through November 28, 2017). Study Selection: Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating a LAMA vs placebo or vs another controller as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids or triple therapy vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma reporting on an outcome of interest. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Meta-analyses using a random-effects model was conducted to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength-of-evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Asthma exacerbations. Results: Of 1326 records identified, 15 randomized clinical trials (N = 7122 patients) were included. Most trials assessed adding LAMA vs placebo or LAMA vs LABA to inhaled corticosteroids. Adding LAMA vs placebo to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a significantly reduced risk of exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92]; RD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.00]). Compared with adding LABA, adding LAMA to inhaled corticosteroids was not associated with significant improvements in exacerbation risk (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.42]; RD, 0.00 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02]), or any other outcomes of interest. Triple therapy was not significantly associated with improved exacerbation risk vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.22]; RD, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.08 to 0.07]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of LAMA compared with placebo as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations; however, the association of LAMA with benefit may not be greater than that with LABA. Triple therapy was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting ß-Agonists as Controller and Quick Relief Therapy With Exacerbations and Symptom Control in Persistent Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Combined use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs) as the controller and the quick relief therapy termed single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) is a potential therapeutic regimen for the management of persistent asthma. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of SMART in patients with persistent asthma. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception through August 2016 and updated through November 28, 2017. Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating SMART vs inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA used as the controller therapy and short-acting ß-agonists as the relief therapy for patients aged 5 years or older with persistent asthma and reporting on an outcome of interest. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength of evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Asthma exacerbations. Results: The analyses included 16 randomized clinical trials (N = 22 748 patients), 15 of which evaluated SMART as a combination therapy with budesonide and formoterol in a dry-powder inhaler. Among patients aged 12 years or older (n = 22 524; mean age, 42 years; 14 634 [65%] were female), SMART was associated with a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations compared with the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.80]; RD, -6.4% [95% CI, -10.2% to -2.6%]) and a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98]; RD, -2.8% [95% CI, -5.2% to -0.3%]). Similar results were seen when SMART was compared with inhaled corticosteroids alone as the controller therapy. Among patients aged 4 to 11 years (n = 341; median age, 8 [range, 4-11] years; 69 [31%] were female), SMART was associated with a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations compared with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids as the controller therapy (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94]; RD, -12.0% [95% CI, -22.5% to -1.5%]) or the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.63]; RD, -23.2% [95% CI, -33.6% to -12.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of patients with persistent asthma, the use of single maintenance and reliever therapy compared with inhaled corticosteroids as the controller therapy (with or without a long-acting ß-agonist) and short-acting ß-agonists as the relief therapy was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations. Evidence for patients aged 4 to 11 years was limited.

Simvastatin for the prevention of exacerbations in moderate-to-severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have shown that statins decrease the rate and severity of exacerbations, the rate of hospitalization, and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We prospectively studied the efficacy of simvastatin in preventing exacerbations in a large, multicenter, randomized trial. METHODS: We designed the Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Simvastatin in the Prevention of COPD Exacerbations (STATCOPE) as a randomized, controlled trial of simvastatin (at a daily dose of 40 mg) versus placebo, with annual exacerbation rates as the primary outcome. Patients were eligible if they were 40 to 80 years of age, had COPD (defined by a forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] of less than 80% and a ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity of less than 70%), and had a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years, were receiving supplemental oxygen or treatment with glucocorticoids or antibiotic agents, or had had an emergency department visit or hospitalization for COPD within the past year. Patients with diabetes or cardiovascular disease and those who were taking statins or who required statins on the basis of Adult Treatment Panel III criteria were excluded. Participants were treated from 12 to 36 months at 45 centers. RESULTS: A total of 885 participants with COPD were enrolled for approximately 641 days; 44% of the patients were women. The patients had a mean (±SD) age of 62.2±8.4 years, an FEV1 that was 41.6±17.7% of the predicted value, and a smoking history of 50.6±27.4 pack-years. At the time of study closeout, the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were lower in the simvastatin-treated patients than in those who received placebo. The mean number of exacerbations per person-year was similar in the simvastatin and placebo groups: 1.36±1.61 exacerbations and 1.39±1.73 exacerbations, respectively (P=0.54). The median number of days to the first exacerbation was also similar: 223 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 195 to 275) and 231 days (95% CI, 193 to 303), respectively (P=0.34). The number of nonfatal serious adverse events per person-year was similar, as well: 0.63 events with simvastatin and 0.62 events with placebo. There were 30 deaths in the placebo group and 28 in the simvastatin group (P=0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin at a daily dose of 40 mg did not affect exacerbation rates or the time to a first exacerbation in patients with COPD who were at high risk for exacerbations. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; STATCOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01061671.).