Collaboration between explainable artificial intelligence and pulmonologists improves the accuracy of pulmonary function test interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the collaborative potential between artificial intelligence (AI) and pulmonologists for diagnosing pulmonary disease. We hypothesised that the collaboration between a pulmonologist and AI with explanations (explainable AI (XAI)) is superior in diagnostic interpretation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) than the pulmonologist without support. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases, a monocentre study (phase 1) and a multicentre intervention study (phase 2). Each phase utilised two different sets of 24 PFT reports of patients with a clinically validated gold standard diagnosis. Each PFT was interpreted without (control) and with XAI's suggestions (intervention). Pulmonologists provided a differential diagnosis consisting of a preferential diagnosis and optionally up to three additional diagnoses. The primary end-point compared accuracy of preferential and additional diagnoses between control and intervention. Secondary end-points were the number of diagnoses in differential diagnosis, diagnostic confidence and inter-rater agreement. We also analysed how XAI influenced pulmonologists' decisions. RESULTS: In phase 1 (n=16 pulmonologists), mean preferential and differential diagnostic accuracy significantly increased by 10.4% and 9.4%, respectively, between control and intervention (p<0.001). Improvements were somewhat lower but highly significant (p<0.0001) in phase 2 (5.4% and 8.7%, respectively; n=62 pulmonologists). In both phases, the number of diagnoses in the differential diagnosis did not reduce, but diagnostic confidence and inter-rater agreement significantly increased during intervention. Pulmonologists updated their decisions with XAI's feedback and consistently improved their baseline performance if AI provided correct predictions. CONCLUSION: A collaboration between a pulmonologist and XAI is better at interpreting PFTs than individual pulmonologists reading without XAI support or XAI alone.

Quality Standard Position Statements for Health System Policy Changes in Diagnosis and Management of COPD: A Global Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Despite being a leading cause of death worldwide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is underdiagnosed and underprioritized within healthcare systems. Existing healthcare policies should be revisited to include COPD prevention and management as a global priority. Here, we propose and describe health system quality standard position statements that should be implemented as a consistent standard of care for patients with COPD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in COPD management together with patient advocates from eight countries participated in a quality standards review meeting convened in April 2021. The principal objective was to achieve consensus on global health system priorities to ensure consistent standards of care for COPD. These quality standard position statements were either evidence-based or reflected the combined views of the panel. RESULTS: On the basis of discussions, the experts adopted five quality standard position statements, including the rationale for their inclusion, supporting clinical evidence, and essential criteria for quality metrics. These quality standard position statements emphasize the core elements of COPD care, including (1) diagnosis, (2) adequate patient and caregiver education, (3) access to medical and nonmedical treatments aligned with the latest evidence-based recommendations and appropriate management by a respiratory specialist when required, (4) appropriate management of acute COPD exacerbations, and (5) regular patient and caregiver follow-up for care plan reviews. CONCLUSIONS: These practical quality standards may be applicable to and implemented at both local and national levels. While universally applicable to the core elements of appropriate COPD care, they can be adapted to consider differences in healthcare resources and priorities, organizational structure, and care delivery capabilities of individual healthcare systems. We encourage the adoption of these global quality standards by policymakers and healthcare practitioners alike to inform national and regional health system policy revisions to improve the quality and consistency of COPD care worldwide.

How to Choose the Right Inhaler Using a Patient-Centric Approach?

There are many different inhaler devices and medications on the market for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with over 230 drug-delivery system combinations available. However, despite the abundance of effective treatment options, the achieved disease control in clinical practice often remains unsatisfactory. In this context, a key determining factor is the match or mismatch of an inhalation device with the characteristics or needs of an individual patient. Indeed, to date, no ideal device exists that fits all patients, and a personalized approach needs to be considered. Several useful choice-guiding algorithms have been developed in the recent years to improve inhaler-patient matching, but a comprehensive tool that translates the multifactorial complexity of inhalation therapy into a user-friendly algorithm is still lacking. To address this, a multidisciplinary expert panel has developed an evidence-based practical treatment tool that allows a straightforward way of choosing the right inhaler for each patient.

Matching the Inhaler to the Patient in COPD.

Selecting the most appropriate inhalation device from the wide range available is essential for the successful management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Although choice is good for healthcare professionals, knowing which inhaler to prescribe is a complex consideration. Among the key factors to consider are quality of disease control, inhaler technique, inhaler resistance and inspiratory flow, inhaler design and mechanisms of drug delivery, insurance and reimbursement restrictions, and environmental impact. In this article, we offer a simple, practical tool that brings together all these factors and includes hyperlinks to other published resources from the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands.

Towards Rational Prescription of Common Inhaler Medication in the Multimorbid COPD Patient.

COPD is a chronic disease, typically accompanied by multiple comorbid conditions. The need to apply several, and sometimes conflicting, disease-specific treatment guidelines, complicates the management of individual patients. Moreover, national and international recommendations evolve rapidly but provide limited guidance on the integrated approach in the multimorbid patient. Particularly bothersome is the fact that the presence of comorbidities may deteriorate the course of COPD, and inversely COPD may affect the outcome of the comorbid diseases. In addition, some effects of commonly prescribed COPD inhaler medications, including beta2-agonists, long-acting antimuscarinics and especially inhaled corticosteroids, mimic or worsen COPD-related comorbidities. Therefore, the authors combined their perspectives to formulate advice that may help physicians to improve COPD patient care in daily practice when comorbidities are present. Diabetes, atrial fibrillation, osteoporosis/fractures, infections (pneumonia and tuberculosis) and asthma were identified as areas where practicing clinicians should give special attention to the risk-benefit ratio of the inhaled medication. Overall, the presence of multimorbidity in a COPD patient should act as a signal to carefully reconsider the treatment choices.

Severe asthma: oral corticosteroid alternatives and the need for optimal referral pathways.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with severe asthma require high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, with or without add-on treatments, to maintain asthma control. Because symptom control remains unsatisfactory in some patients despite these therapies, maintenance therapy with oral corticosteroids (OCS) remains considered a treatment option by physicians. Besides physician-diagnosed exacerbations, many patients intermittently self-medicate with OCS during episodes of worsening symptoms or as a prevention of such episodes. However, long-term OCS use is associated with several comorbidities that may decrease health-related quality of life, worsen prognosis, and should ideally require monitoring and management. In this review, we discuss the adverse effects of OCS use, the OCS-sparing effect of biologics in severe asthma, and the need for optimal referral pathways to ensure the best outcomes for those at-risk asthma patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies with results on the OCS-sparing effect of biologics in adult severe asthma were selected. RESULTS: Chronic and intermittent OCS use in asthma is associated with considerable adverse effects in asthma. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab reduce the need for OCS in severe asthma, while also reducing the exacerbation rate and improving several patient-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: Targeted biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of uncontrolled severe asthma by reducing or even eliminating the need for OCS and improving other major outcomes. Novel agents are now rapidly increasing the therapeutic armamentarium, but additional efforts are needed to optimize referral pathways in order to ensure sustainable access to these therapies.

Azithromycin during Acute Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations Requiring Hospitalization (BACE). A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

Rationale: Azithromycin prevents acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPDs); however, its value in the treatment of an AECOPD requiring hospitalization remains to be defined.Objectives: We investigated whether a 3-month intervention with low-dose azithromycin could decrease treatment failure (TF) when initiated at hospital admission and added to standard care.Methods: In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients who had been hospitalized for an AECOPD and had a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years and one or more exacerbations in the previous year were randomized (1:1) within 48 hours of hospital admission to azithromycin or placebo. The study drug (500 mg/d for 3 d) was administered on top of a standardized acute treatment of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics, and subsequently continued for 3 months (250 mg/2 d). The patients were followed for 6 months thereafter. Time-to-first-event analyses evaluated the TF rate within 3 months as a novel primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population, with TF defined as the composite of treatment intensification with systemic corticosteroids and/or antibiotics, a step-up in hospital care or readmission for respiratory reasons, or all-cause mortality.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 301 patients were randomized to azithromycin (n = 147) or placebo (n = 154). The TF rate within 3 months was 49% in the azithromycin group and 60% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.01; P = 0.0526). Treatment intensification, step-up in hospital care, and mortality rates within 3 months were 47% versus 60% (P = 0.0272), 13% versus 28% (P = 0.0024), and 2% versus 4% (P = 0.5075) in the azithromycin and placebo groups, respectively. Clinical benefits were lost 6 months after withdrawal.Conclusions: Three months of azithromycin for an infectious AECOPD requiring hospitalization may significantly reduce TF during the highest-risk period. Prolonged treatment seems to be necessary to maintain clinical benefits.

Overuse of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: five questions for withdrawal in daily practice.

Evidence and guidelines are becoming increasingly clear about imbalance between the risks and benefits of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in patients with COPD. While selected patients may benefit from ICS-containing regimens, ICSs are often inappropriately prescribed with - according to Belgian market research data - up to 70% of patients in current practice receiving ICSs, usually as a fixed combination with a long-acting ß2-adrenoreceptor agonist. Studies and recommendations support withdrawal of ICSs in a large group of patients with COPD. However, historical habits appear difficult to change even in the light of recent scientific evidence. We have built a collaborative educational platform with chest physicians and primary care physicians to increase awareness and provide guidance and support in this matter.

A Belgian survey on the diagnosis of asthma-COPD overlap syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic airway disease may present features of both asthma and COPD, commonly referred to as asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). Recommendations on their diagnosis are diffuse and inconsistent. This survey aimed to identify consensus on criteria for diagnosing ACOS. METHODS: A Belgian expert panel developed a survey on ACOS diagnosis, which was completed by 87 pulmonologists. Answers chosen by ≥70% of survey respondents were considered as useful criteria for ACOS diagnosis. The two most frequently selected answers were considered as major criteria, others as minor criteria. The expert panel proposed a minimal requirement of two major criteria and one minor criterion for ACOS diagnosis. Respondents were also asked which criteria are important for considering inhaled corticosteroids prescription in a COPD patient. RESULTS: To diagnose ACOS in COPD patients, major criteria were "high degree of variability in airway obstruction over time (change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≥400 mL)" and "high degree of response to bronchodilators (>200 mL and ≥12% predicted above baseline)". Minor criteria were "personal/family history of atopy and/or IgE sensitivity to ≥1 airborne allergen", "elevated blood/sputum eosinophil levels and/or increased fractional exhaled nitric oxide", "diagnosis of asthma <40 years of age"; "symptom variability", and "age (in favor of asthma)". To diagnose ACOS in asthma patients, major criteria were "persistence of airflow obstruction over time (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio <0.7)" and "exposure to noxious particles/gases, with ≥10 pack-years for (ex-)smokers"; minor criteria were "lack of response on acute bronchodilator test"; "reduced diffusion capacity"; "limited variability in airway obstruction"; "age >40 years"; "emphysema on chest computed tomography scan". CONCLUSION: Specific criteria were identified that may guide physicians to a more uniform diagnostic approach for ACOS in COPD or asthma patients. These criteria are largely similar to those used to prescribe inhaled corticosteroids in COPD.

New developments in inhaler devices within pharmaceutical companies: A systematic review of the impact on clinical outcomes and patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical companies offer an increasing number of inhaler devices, whether or not together with new substances, for maintenance treatment of patients with COPD or asthma. However, well-designed studies to support these developments are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to evaluate how far new developments of inhaler devices are scientifically supported and translate into improvements of patient preferences and/or clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to retrieve randomised controlled trials in patients with COPD or asthma that studied the in-company evolution of inhaler devices. Results were tabulated and discussed. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were found comparing Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®), Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)) vs. Diskhaler(®)(Rotadisk(®)) or pMDI, Ellipta(®) vs. Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)), Nexthaler(®) vs. pMDI, or Breezhaler(®) vs. Aerolizer(®). These studies show that developments of inhaler devices may improve patient satisfaction but do not lead to demonstrable improvements in clinical efficacy. Current changes of devices are most commonly parallelled by changes in administration frequency towards once daily treatment. The only well-documented effect was found for the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler, which realises a more than 3-fold lowering of the once-daily tiotropium dose through increased performance of the inhaler device. There are however, no data on clinical efficacy or safety comparing the two devices at the same dosage. CONCLUSIONS: Future developments of inhaler devices should all require well-designed studies to demonstrate patient benefit.

Real-life effectiveness of extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol in adults with persistent asthma according to smoking status.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate 100 µg/formoterol 6 µg (BDP/F HFA) pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma, has been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this prospective observational study was to assess real-life effectiveness in terms of asthma control in smoking (most of the time excluded from RCTs) and non-smoking asthmatics. METHODS: Adult patients with persistent asthma, in whom treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß(2)-agonist (ICS/LABA) combination is indicated, were included. Pulmonary function (FEV1%pred or PEF absolute value), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and asthma control according to GINA criteria were measured at baseline as well as 2-8 months and >8-14 months after treatment initiation with BDP/F HFA. RESULTS: Overall, 619 patients were enrolled by 97 investigators. In the effectiveness cohort (N = 568), at baseline, smoking asthmatics (N = 123) had higher ACQ6 (p < 0.0001) and lower asthma control (p = 0.021) than non-smoking asthmatics. Treatment with BDP/F HFA pMDI was associated with significant (p < 0.0001) improvements in pulmonary function (+7.1% in FEV1% pred), ACQ6 (-1.32) and GINA asthma control (improvement of control in 49.8% of patients). Importantly, the same treatment benefits were observed in former or current smokers compared with non-smoking asthmatics. There was a reduction in the dose of ICS from 489 ± 192 µg BDP extrafine equivalents at baseline to 265 ± 125 µg after one year. The drug was well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: This prospective cohort study demonstrates the real-life effectiveness and safety of BDP/F HFA in adult asthma patients, including smokers, in normal clinical practice.

Efficacy of add-on montelukast in patients with non-controlled asthma: a Belgian open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of add-on montelukast on asthma control and allergic rhinitis symptoms in asthmatic patients still symptomatic with chronic treatment with inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2) agonist (ICS/LABA), irrespective of the dose. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 2-month, open-label, real-life, multicentre, observational study was undertaken by 499 general practitioners in Belgium. Patients (>or= 4 years old) with uncontrolled asthma despite fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol therapy had oral montelukast 4, 5, or 10 mg daily added to their therapy, depending on the registered dose for their age. Asthma control, assessed by the 6-item Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) was recorded at baseline and after 2 months of treatment with montelukast and the patients' global evaluation of asthma was also recorded at the end of the study. Concomitant allergic rhinitis symptoms were evaluated according to the patients' perception. RESULTS: A total of 5769 patients were eligible for analysis. Addition of montelukast was associated with significant decrease in mean (SD) ACQ score (from 1.97 [0.77] at baseline to 1.05 [0.69] after add-on treatment, p < 0.001). There was also a significant improvement in all individual symptoms of the ACQ score (p < 0.001). After 2 months, 89% of the patients reported global improvement of their asthma, with a good correlation between patients' global evaluation and change in ACQ scores. Of the 2442 patients who reported allergic rhinitis symptoms at baseline, 91% showed a global improvement of their asthma symptoms and 82% in their rhinitis symptoms after adding montelukast. CONCLUSION: This open-label observational study showed an improvement, after 2 months of add-on therapy with montelukast, in both asthma and allergic rhinitis symptoms in patients not adequately controlled on a fixed association of ICS/LABA.

Improving asthma control in patients suboptimally controlled on inhaled steroids and long-acting beta2-agonists: addition of montelukast in an open-label pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Airway inflammation and symptoms often persist in asthma patients despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA). It is hypothesized that the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast, treating a pathway of inflammation distinct from that of ICS, might confer additional benefit. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of montelukast in improving asthma control in patients symptomatic on a fixed-association (FA) medium dose of ICS and LABA. METHODS: A 2-month, open-label, real-life observational study was undertaken by 131 Belgian pulmonologists. Patients (> or = 15 years old) suffering from persistent asthma (pre-bronchodilator FEV1 > or = 60% of predicted value) and insufficiently controlled on a FA therapy of fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol were given montelukast 10 mg daily as add-on therapy. Asthma control was assessed by the standardized Juniper asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) at baseline and after a 2-month treatment with montelukast. Global evaluation of therapy was made both by the patients and physicians. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were eligible for analysis. Forty-nine per cent received inhaled fluticasone/salmeterol and the rest budesonide/formoterol. Mean ACQ score decreased significantly on montelukast (13.9 +/- 5.1 at baseline versus 7.4 +/- 4.7 on montelukast, p < 0.001), with a significant improvement in all individual symptom scores (p < 0.001) and in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 score (from 2.2 +/- 1.5 to 1.6 +/- 1.4; p < 0.001). Parallel to these results, 78.6% of the patients reported a global improvement of their asthma. The same proportion of improvement was observed in the global evaluation made by the physicians (kappa = 0.66). CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that addition of montelukast in patients symptomatic on a FA of ICS and LABA may result in significant improvements in asthma control. A randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial seems warranted.