Five-Year Outcomes Among U.S. Bronchiectasis and Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Registry Patients.

RATIONALE: Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are prevalent among patients with bronchiectasis. However, the long-term natural history of patients with NTM and bronchiectasis is not well described. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of NTM on 5-year clinical outcomes and mortality in patients with bronchiectasis. METHODS: Patients in the United States Bronchiectasis and Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Research Registry with ≥5 years of follow-up were eligible. Data were collected for all-cause mortality, lung function, exacerbations, hospitalizations, and disease severity. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without NTM at baseline. Mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models and the log-rank test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 2,634 patients were included: 1,549 (58.8%) with and 1,085 (41.2%) without NTM at baseline. All-cause mortality (95% confidence interval) at Year 5 was 12.1% (10.5%, 13.7%) overall, 12.6% (10.5%, 14.8%) in patients with NTM, and 11.5% (9.0%, 13.9%) in patients without NTM. Independent predictors of 5-year mortality were baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted, age, hospitalization within 2 years before baseline, body mass index, and gender (all p<0.01). The probabilities of acquiring NTM or Pseudomonas aeruginosa were approximately 4% and 3% per year, respectively. Spirometry, exacerbations, and hospitalizations were similar irrespective of NTM status, except that annual exacerbations were lower in patients with NTM (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes including exacerbations, hospitalizations, rate of loss of lung function, and mortality rate were similar across 5 years in patients with bronchiectasis with or without NTM.

Discriminative Accuracy of the CAPTURE Tool for Identifying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in US Primary Care Settings.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is underdiagnosed in primary care. Objective: To evaluate the operating characteristics of the CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk) screening tool for identifying US primary care patients with undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 4679 primary care patients aged 45 years to 80 years without a prior COPD diagnosis were enrolled by 7 primary care practice-based research networks across the US between October 12, 2018, and April 1, 2022. The CAPTURE questionnaire responses, peak expiratory flow rate, COPD Assessment Test scores, history of acute respiratory illnesses, demographics, and spirometry results were collected. Exposure: Undiagnosed COPD. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the CAPTURE tool's sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD. The secondary outcomes included the analyses of varying thresholds for defining a positive screening result for clinically significant COPD. A positive screening result was defined as (1) a CAPTURE questionnaire score of 5 or 6 or (2) a questionnaire score of 2, 3, or 4 together with a peak expiratory flow rate of less than 250 L/min for females or less than 350 L/min for males. Clinically significant COPD was defined as spirometry-defined COPD (postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FEV1:FVC] <0.70 or prebronchodilator FEV1:FVC <0.65 if postbronchodilator spirometry was not completed) combined with either an FEV1 less than 60% of the predicted value or a self-reported history of an acute respiratory illness within the past 12 months. Results: Of the 4325 patients who had adequate data for analysis (63.0% were women; the mean age was 61.6 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 44.6% had ever smoked cigarettes, 18.3% reported a prior asthma diagnosis or use of inhaled respiratory medications, 13.2% currently smoked cigarettes, and 10.0% reported at least 1 cardiovascular comorbidity. Among the 110 patients (2.5% of 4325) with undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD, 53 had a positive screening result with a sensitivity of 48.2% (95% CI, 38.6%-57.9%) and a specificity of 88.6% (95% CI, 87.6%-89.6%). The area under the receiver operating curve for varying positive screening thresholds was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85). Conclusions and Relevance: Within this US primary care population, the CAPTURE screening tool had a low sensitivity but a high specificity for identifying clinically significant COPD defined by presence of airflow obstruction that is of moderate severity or accompanied by a history of acute respiratory illness. Further research is needed to optimize performance of the screening tool and to understand whether its use affects clinical outcomes.

Effect of Recent Exacerbation History on the Efficacy of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the FULFIL Trial.

Background: In the FULFIL trial, once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) resulted in reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) dual therapy. Methods: FULFIL was a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD were randomized 1:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg or BUD/FOR 400/12 mcg. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized by exacerbation history in the year prior to study entry (≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation [recent exacerbation] versus no recent exacerbation). Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations up to Week 24, annual rate of on-treatment severe exacerbations up to Week 24, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24, and change from baseline in health status as measured by St George's respiratory questionnaire total score at Week 24. Results: Of the 1810 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 1180 (65%) had one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the year prior to entry, while 630 (35%) patients did not. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.19 vs 0.29; rate ratio [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.64: [0.45, 0.91]; p=0.014) and numerically reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the no recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.29 vs 0.43; rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.43, 1.04]; p=0.073). Severe exacerbation rates were numerically reduced with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR treatment across both subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR, regardless of recent exacerbation history. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of recent exacerbation history.

Tobacco industry ownership of pharmaceutical companies: an international survey of people with respiratory disease.

The 2021 purchase of the respiratory pharmaceutical company Vectura by Phillip Morris International has been criticised by the public health and medical community, as a conflict of interest, with little input to date, from the patient community or the public. To address this gap, the COPD Foundation, along with global partners, surveyed 1196 people with chronic respiratory disease. 70% were bothered by a tobacco company making an inhaler to treat lung conditions and 48% reported that they would want to switch inhalers if they knew that a tobacco company made or sold their inhaler devices. Patients care about who makes the therapies used to treat their diseases.

Higher COPD Assessment Test Score Associated With Greater Exacerbations Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes. METHODS: IMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score. RESULTS: Moderate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score. CONCLUSIONS: The CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

A rapidly changing understanding of COPD: World COPD Day from the COPD Foundation.

World COPD Day raises awareness about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD accounts for over 150,000 US deaths per year. A major challenge is that COPD receives only a fraction of the research funding provided to other major diseases. Control of COPD is dependent on developing new approaches to diagnose the disease earlier with a recognition of either pre-COPD or established COPD based on symptoms, lung structural change and/or loss of lung function that occurs before meeting long established criteria for a population-based definition of obstruction. Optimization of current therapies improves lung function, exercise capacity, quality of life, and survival. New pathways of disease progression are being identified creating new opportunities for development of therapies that could stop or cure this disease.

Does Evaluation and Management of COPD Follow Therapeutic Strategy Recommendations?

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis and management requires symptom and exacerbation risk assessment. Adherence to these recommendations appears to be limited. We examined the impact of a COPD quality improvement (QI) program in the Southeastern United States. METHODS: From 2017 to 2018, nine pulmonary and 15 primary care physicians were included in our study and asked to identify 6 to 7 of their COPD patients using maintenance COPD medications with at least 2 office visits in the past year. A separate group of COPD patients (n=135 pulmonary and 165 primary care) from the same practices were evaluated. Physicians underwent focused, educational, peer-to-peer small group webinars. Data were collected from physicians and their patients using a systematic survey. Chart audits occurred at baseline and 6 months after the webinars. RESULTS: The majority of physicians (67%) saw ≥ 20 COPD patients/week. There were important discrepancies between the care clinicians thought they provided, and the care recalled by their patients. Clinicians felt that 33% of their patients experienced at least 2 exacerbations in the past year; 56% of their patients reported this frequency. There was discrepancy in the clinicians' interpretations and the patients' reasons for discontinuing their medications and in the use of referrals. Self-reported changes were noted by clinicians after educational webinars and improvements in patient care were noted in the year following intervention. CONCLUSION: We identified notable discrepancies between the clinicians' impression of care provided and the components actually recalled by their patients. We also identified improvements in processes of care and outcomes following an educational intervention based on the principles of audit and feedback.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa associated with severity of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis measured by the modified bronchiectasis severity score (BSI) and the FACED: The US bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry (BRR) study.

RATIONALE: Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) is characterized by dilated bronchi, poor mucus clearance and susceptibility to bacterial infection. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is one of the most frequently isolated pathogens in patients with NCFB. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between presence of PA and disease severity in patients within the US Bronchiectasis and Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) Research Registry (BRR). METHODS: Baseline US BRR data from adult patients with NCFB collected between 2008 and 2018 was used for this study. The presence of PA was defined as one or more positive PA cultures within two years prior to enrollment. Modified Bronchiectasis Severity Index (m-BSI) and modified FACED (m-FACED) were computed to evaluate severity of bronchiectasis. Unadjusted and multivariable multinomial regression models were used to assess the association between presence of PA and severity of bronchiectasis. RESULTS: Average age of the study participants (n = 1831) was 63.7 years (SD = 14.1), 91.5% white, and 78.8% female. Presence of PA was identified in 25.4% of the patients. Patients with presence of PA had significantly lower mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted compared to those without PA (62.8% vs. 73.7%, p < .0001). In multivariate analyses, patients with presence of PA had significantly greater odds for having high (ORadj = 6.15 (95%CI:3.98-9.50) and intermediate (ORadj = 2.06 (95%CI:1.37-3.09) severity vs. low severity on m-BSI. CONCLUSION: The presence of PA is common in patients with NCFB within the Bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry. Severity of bronchiectasis is significantly greater in patients with PA which emphasizes high burden of the disease.

New Adopters of Telemedicine During the Coronavirus-19 Pandemic in Respondents to an Online Community Survey: The Case for Access to Remote Management Tools for Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate telemedicine adoption, emergency department avoidance, and related characteristics of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with and without exacerbations since the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began. METHODS: We conducted the second of a series of online surveys via SurveyMonkey.com of people with COPD between May 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Frequency, percentage, and Fisher's exact test (2-sided) were calculated using SPSS version 26. RESULTS: More than half of respondents (157, 64%), indicated that they started using telemedicine in 2020. A total of 47% of respondents reported having had at least 1 exacerbation since January 1, 2020. Respondents who had at least 1 exacerbation in 2020 were more likely to start using telemedicine in 2020 than respondents who did not report any exacerbation in 2020 (75.7% versus 54.3%, p < 0.001). Respondents reporting a 2020 exacerbation indicated having a significantly higher avoidance of emergency health care since the pandemic began (27.8%) as compared to those who did not have an exacerbation in 2020 (10.1%), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: In response to social distancing and other COVID-19 precautions, people with COPD are avoiding traditional, in-person health care environments and turning to telemedicine to prevent and manage exacerbations. Further investigation is needed to identify best practices in and barriers to telemedicine in this population.

Protocol Summary of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) Validation in Primary Care Study.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often remains undiagnosed and untreated. To date, COPD screening/case finding has not been designed to identify clinically significant COPD, disease ready for therapies beyond smoking cessation. Herein, we describe the ongoing prospective, pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial to assess specificity and sensitivity of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) tool consisting of 5 questions and peak expiratory flow. The tool is designed to identify clinically significant COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <.70 plus FEV1% predicted <60% or increased risk for exacerbation) and the trial will explore the impact of CAPTURE-based screening on COPD diagnosis and treatment rates in primary care patients. Of a total planned enrollment of 5000 English- or Spanish-speaking patients 45 to 80 years of age without a prior COPD diagnosis from 100 primary care practices, a total of 68 practices and 3064 patients have been enrolled in the study. Practices are centrally randomized to either usual care or clinician receipt of patient-level CAPTURE results. All clinicians receive basic COPD education with those in intervention practices also receiving CAPTURE interpretation education. In a single visit, patient participants complete a CAPTURE screening, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and baseline demographic and health questionnaires to validate CAPTURE sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD. One-year follow-up chart reviews and participant surveys assess the impact of sharing versus not sharing CAPTURE results with clinicians on clinical outcomes including level of respiratory symptoms and events and clinicians' initiation of recommendation-concordant COPD care. This is one of the first U.S. studies to validate and assess impact of a simple COPD screening tool in primary care.

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT Trial) Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) Versus Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: Analysis of the Western Europe and North America Regions.

BACKGROUND: The InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial demonstrated lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Since IMPACT was a global study, post-hoc analyses were conducted by geographic region to investigate potential differences in overall findings. METHODS: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg. Endpoints assessed in the overall, Western Europe and North America populations included on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation (rates and time-to-first), trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,355 patients were enrolled, 3164 from Western Europe, 2639 from North America. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Western Europe (rate ratios 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.91], P<.001 and 0.76 [0.67-0.87], P<.001) and in North America (0.87 [0.77-0.97], P=.014 and 0.69 [0.60-0.80], P<.001). FF/UMEC/VI reduced time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation and improved lung function versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in both regions, and improved SGRQ total score in Western Europe, but not North America. Safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups/regions; the inhaled corticosteroid class effect of increased pneumonia incidence was seen in North America but not Western Europe. CONCLUSION: Consistent with intent-to-treat results, FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate and risk and improved lung function in Western Europe and North America; however, between-regions differences were seen for SGRQ total score and pneumonia incidence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02164513.

Nutrition and Markers of Disease Severity in Patients With Bronchiectasis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients are being diagnosed with bronchiectasis, yet much remains to be elucidated about this heterogeneous patient population. We sought to determine the relationship between nutrition and health outcomes in non-cystic fibrosis (non-CF) bronchiectasis, using data from the U.S. Bronchiectasis Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Research Registry (U.S. BRR). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, longitudinal study using 5-year follow-up data from the BRR. Bronchiectasis was confirmed on computed tomography (CT). We stratified patients into nutrition categories using body mass index (BMI), and correlated BMI to markers of disease severity. RESULTS: Overall, n = 496 patients (mean age 64.6- ± 13 years; 83.3% female) were included. At baseline 12.3% (n = 61) were underweight (BMI < 18.5kg/m2), 63.9% (n = 317) had normal weight (BMI ≥ 18.5kg/m2 and <25.0kg/m2), 17.3% (n = 86) were overweight (BMI ≥ 25.0kg/m2 and < 30.0kg/m2), and 6.5% (n= 32) were obese (BMI ≥ 30kg/m2). Men were overrepresented in the overweight and obese groups (25.6% and 43.8% respectively, p < 0.0001). Underweight patients had lower lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted) than the other weight groups (64.5 ± 22, versus 73.5 ± 21, 68.5 ± 20, and 76.5 ± 21 in normal, overweight, and obese groups respectively, p = 0.02). No significant differences were noted between BMI groups for other markers of disease severity at baseline, including exacerbation frequency or hospitalization rates. No significant differences were noted in BMI distribution between patients with and without Pseudomonas, non-tuberculous mycobacteria, or by cause of bronchiectasis. The majority of patients demonstrated stable BMI over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although underweight patients with bronchiectasis have lower lung function, lower BMI does not appear to relate to other markers of disease severity in this patient population.

Airway Clearance Techniques in Bronchiectasis: Analysis From the United States Bronchiectasis and Non-TB Mycobacteria Research Registry.

BACKGROUND: In patients with bronchiectasis, airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are important management strategies. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the differences in patients with bronchiectasis and a productive cough who used ACTs and those who did not? What was the assessment of bronchiectasis exacerbation frequency and change in pulmonary function at 1-year follow up? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adult patients with bronchiectasis and a productive cough in the United States Bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry were included in the analyses. ACTs included the use of instrumental devices and manual techniques. Stratified analyses of demographic and clinical characteristics were performed by use of ACTs at baseline and follow up. The association between ACT use and clinical outcomes was assessed with the use of unadjusted and adjusted multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the overall study population (n = 905), 59% used ACTs at baseline. A greater proportion of patients who used ACTs at baseline and follow up continuously had Pseudomonas aeruginosa (47% vs 36%; P = .021) and experienced an exacerbation (81% vs 59%; P < .0001) or hospitalization for pulmonary illness (32% vs 22%; P = .001) in the prior two years, compared with those patients who did not use ACTs. Fifty-eight percent of patients who used ACTs at baseline did not use ACTs at 1-year follow up. There was no significant change in pulmonary function for those who used ACTs at follow up, compared with baseline. Patients who used ACTs at baseline and follow up had greater odds for experiencing exacerbations at follow up compared with those patients who did not use ACTs. INTERPRETATION: In patients with bronchiectasis and a productive cough, ACTs are used more often if the patients have experienced a prior exacerbation, hospitalization for pulmonary illness, or had P aeruginosa. There is a significant reduction in the use of ACTs at 1-year follow up. The odds of the development of a bronchiectasis exacerbation are higher in those patients who use ACTs continuously, which suggests more frequent use in an ill bronchiectasis population.

Introducing the New COPD Pocket Consultant Guide App: Can A Digital Approach Improve Care? A Statement of the COPD Foundation.

The COPD Foundation has tried to address gaps in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care by providing COPD Pocket Consultant Guide cards to U.S. health care providers. Since launching the card in 2007, there have been numerous updates and more than 800,000 of these cards have been distributed at no charge to health care professionals. The most recent versions have concentrated on presenting an algorithm for COPD management based on 7 severity domains: spirometry, symptoms, exacerbations, oxygen requirements, the presence of chronic bronchitis or emphysema and comorbidities. To increase the usability and reach of this tool, the COPD Pocket Consultant Guide is now available as an app for iOS and Android. This updated version of the app includes new COPD and asthma/COPD overlap flow charts; an interactive therapy chart that takes into account modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and spirometry scores; anxiety and depression screeners; up-to-date medication charts in both brand and generic formats; a checklist to aid in determining when a patient should be referred to a pulmonologist and more. Potential use of the COPD Pocket Consultant Guide app in clinical care is discussed.