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.).

Early Evidence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Obscured by Race-Specific Prediction Equations.

Rationale: The identification of early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is essential to appropriately counsel patients regarding smoking cessation, provide symptomatic treatment, and eventually develop disease-modifying treatments. Disease severity in COPD is defined using race-specific spirometry equations. These may disadvantage non-White individuals in diagnosis and care. Objectives: Determine the impact of race-specific equations on African American (AA) versus non-Hispanic White individuals. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses of the COPDGene (Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) cohort were conducted, comparing non-Hispanic White (n = 6,766) and AA (n = 3,366) participants for COPD manifestations. Measurements and Main Results: Spirometric classifications using race-specific, multiethnic, and "race-reversed" prediction equations (NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] and Global Lung Function Initiative "Other" and "Global") were compared, as were respiratory symptoms, 6-minute-walk distance, computed tomography imaging, respiratory exacerbations, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Application of different prediction equations to the cohort resulted in different classifications by stage, with NHANES and Global Lung Function Initiative race-specific equations being minimally different, but race-reversed equations moving AA participants to more severe stages and especially between the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 0 and preserved ratio impaired spirometry groups. Classification using the established NHANES race-specific equations demonstrated that for each of GOLD stages 1-4, AA participants were younger, had fewer pack-years and more current smoking, but had more exacerbations, shorter 6-minute-walk distance, greater dyspnea, and worse BODE (body mass index, airway obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) scores and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores. Differences were greatest in GOLD stages 1 and 2. Race-reversed equations reclassified 774 AA participants (43%) from GOLD stage 0 to preserved ratio impaired spirometry. Conclusions: Race-specific equations underestimated disease severity among AA participants. These effects were particularly evident in early disease and may result in late detection of COPD.

Exebacase in Addition to Standard-of-Care Antibiotics for Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections and Right-Sided Infective Endocarditis: A Phase 3, Superiority-Design, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial (DISRUPT).

BACKGROUND: Novel treatments are needed for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, particularly for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). Exebacase is a first-in-class antistaphylococcal lysin that is rapidly bactericidal and synergizes with antibiotics. METHODS: In Direct Lysis of Staph Aureus Resistant Pathogen Trial of Exebacase (DISRUPT), a superiority-design phase 3 study, patients with S. aureus bacteremia/endocarditis were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of intravenous exebacase or placebo in addition to standard-of-care antibiotics. The primary efficacy outcome was clinical response at day 14 in the MRSA population. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients were randomized before the study was stopped for futility based on the recommendation of the unblinded Data Safety Monitoring Board. Clinical response rates at day 14 in the MRSA population (n = 97) were 50.0% (exebacase + antibiotics; 32/64) versus 60.6% (antibiotics alone; 20/33) (P = .392). Overall, rates of adverse events were similar across groups. No adverse events of hypersensitivity related to exebacase were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Exebacase + antibiotics failed to improve clinical response at day 14 in patients with MRSA bacteremia/endocarditis. This result was unexpected based on phase 2 data that established proof-of-concept for exebacase + antibiotics in patients with MRSA bacteremia/endocarditis. In the antibiotics-alone group, the clinical response rate was higher than that seen in phase 2. Heterogeneity within the study population and a relatively small sample size in either the phase 2 or phase 3 studies may have increased the probability of imbalances in the multiple components of day 14 clinical outcome. This study provides lessons for future superiority studies in S. aureus bacteremia/endocarditis. Clinical Trials Registration.NCT04160468.

Pulmonary sarcoidosis: differences in lung function change over time.

INTRODUCTION: Given the heterogeneity of sarcoidosis, predicting disease course of patients remains a challenge. Our aim was to determine whether the 3-year change in pulmonary function differed between pulmonary function phenotypes and whether there were differential longitudinal changes by race and sex. METHODS: We identified individuals seen between 2005 and 2015 with a confirmed diagnosis of sarcoidosis who had at least two pulmonary function test measurements within 3 years of entry into the cohort. For each individual, spirometry, diffusion capacity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, sarcoidosis organ involvement, diagnosis duration, tobacco use, race, sex, age and medications were recorded. We compared changes in pulmonary function by type of pulmonary function phenotype and for demographic groups. RESULTS: Of 291 individuals, 59% (173) were female and 54% (156) were black. Individuals with restrictive pulmonary function phenotype had significantly greater 3-year rate of decline of FVC% (forced vital capacity) predicted and FEV1% (forced expiratory volume in 1 s) predicted course when compared with normal phenotype. We identified a subset of individuals in the cohort, highest decliners, who had a median 3-year FVC decline of 156 mL. Black individuals had worse pulmonary function at entry into the cohort measured by FVC% predicted, FEV1% predicted and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide % predicted compared with white individuals. Black individuals' pulmonary function remained stable or declined over time, whereas white individuals' pulmonary function improved over time. There were no sex differences in rate of change in any pulmonary function parameters. SUMMARY: We found significant differences in 3-year change in pulmonary function among pulmonary function phenotypes and races, but no difference between sexes.

FEV1Q: a race-neutral approach to assessing lung function.

BACKGROUND: Forced expiratory volume in 1 s quotient (FEV1Q) is a simple approach to spirometry interpretation that compares measured lung function to a lower boundary. This study evaluated how well FEV1Q predicts survival compared with current interpretation methods and whether race impacts FEV1Q. METHODS: White and Black adults with complete spirometry and mortality data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III and the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database for lung transplant referrals were included. FEV1Q was calculated as FEV1 divided by 0.4 L for females or 0.5 L for males. Cumulative distributions of FEV1 were compared across races. Cox proportional hazards models tested mortality risk from FEV1Q adjusting for age, sex, height, smoking, income and among UNOS individuals, referral diagnosis. Harrell's C-statistics were compared between absolute FEV1, FEV1Q, FEV1/height2, FEV1 z-scores and FEV1 % predicted. Analyses were stratified by race. RESULTS: Among 7182 individuals from NHANES III and 7149 from UNOS, 1907 (27%) and 991 (14%), respectively, were Black. The lower boundary FEV1 values did not differ between Black and White individuals in either population (FEV1 first percentile difference ≤0.01 L; p>0.05). Decreasing FEV1Q was associated with increasing hazard ratio (HR) for mortality (NHANES III HR 1.33 (95% CI 1.28-1.39) and UNOS HR 1.18 (95% CI 1.12-1.23)). The associations were not confounded nor modified by race. Discriminative power was highest for FEV1Q compared with alternative FEV1 approaches in both Black and White individuals. CONCLUSIONS: FEV1Q is an intuitive and simple race-neutral approach to interpreting FEV1 that predicts survival better than current alternative methods.

Advancing assessment of asthma control with a composite tool: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: National and international asthma guidelines and reports do not include control tools that combine impairment assessment with exacerbation history in one instrument. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the performance of the composite Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) in assessing both domains of control and predicting exacerbation risk compared with the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 4-question symptom control tool (GINA SCT), Asthma Control Test (ACT), and physician expert opinion (EO) informed by GINA SCT responses and appraisal of GINA-identified risk factors for poor asthma outcomes. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated AIRQ and GINA SCT as predictors of ACT. McNemar's test compared the proportion of patients categorized at baseline as completely or well-controlled by each assessment but with current impairment or previous-year and subsequent-year exacerbations. RESULTS: The analysis included 1064 patients aged 12 years or older; mean (SD) age 43.8 years (19.3); 70% female; 79% White; and 6% Hispanic or Latino. AIRQ and GINA SCT were highly predictive of ACT well-controlled vs not well-controlled and very poorly controlled (receiver operator characteristic area under curve AIRQ = 0.90, GINA SCT = 0.86, P = .03 AIRQ vs GINA SCT) and ACT very poorly controlled vs well-controlled and not well-controlled asthma (receiver operator characteristic area under curve AIRQ = 0.91, GINA SCT = 0.87, P = .01 AIRQ vs GINA SCT). AIRQ rated fewer patients as having completely or well-controlled asthma who had current impairment (P < .01) or with previous-year and subsequent-year exacerbations (P < .001) than did GINA SCT, ACT, and EO. CONCLUSION: AIRQ performs better in assessing both domains of current control and predicting exacerbation risk than do control tools and EO informed by GINA SCT and risk factors for poor asthma outcomes.

Assessing meaningful change in the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a 10-item, yes/no, equally weighted control tool. Lower scores indicate better control. Moreover, 7 impairment items reflect previous 2-week symptoms, and 3 risk items assess previous 12-month exacerbations. The Follow-up AIRQ for use between annual assessments has a 3-month recall period for exacerbation items. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the AIRQ over time and identify a minimal important difference (MID). METHODS: The AIRQ longitudinal study data were analyzed from patients with asthma aged 12 years and older. Anchor-based methods assessed differences in AIRQ scores relative to Patient Global Impression of Change, the accepted MIDs for St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test, and exacerbation occurrence over 12 months. Baseline and 12-month data reflected 12-month recall AIRQ scores; Follow-up AIRQ scores were used for 3-, 6-, and 9-month analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1070 patients were included. The Patient Global Impression of Change rating of "much improved" was associated with AIRQ mean score changes from baseline to months 3, 6, 9, and 12 of -2.0, -1.9, -1.9, and -1.8, respectively. The mean AIRQ score change among patients who met the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire MID (≥4-point decrease) was -1.8 at 6 and 12 months. The AIRQ mean scores decreased from baseline by -2.2 to -2.5 points at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 for patients who met the Asthma Control Test MID (≥ 3-point increase). A 2-point higher baseline AIRQ score was associated with a 1.7 odds ratio of 12-month exacerbation occurrence (95% CI, 1.53-1.89). CONCLUSION: A change score of 2 is recommended as the AIRQ MID.

Race and Ethnicity in Pulmonary Function Test Interpretation: An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Current American Thoracic Society (ATS) standards promote the use of race and ethnicity-specific reference equations for pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation. There is rising concern that the use of race and ethnicity in PFT interpretation contributes to a false view of fixed differences between races and may mask the effects of differential exposures. This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation. The ATS convened a diverse group of clinicians and investigators for a workshop in 2021 to evaluate the use of race and ethnicity in PFT interpretation. Review of evidence published since then that challenges current practice and continued discussion concluded with a recommendation to replace race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations, which must be accompanied with a broader re-evaluation of how PFTs are used to make clinical, employment, and insurance decisions. There was also a call to engage key stakeholders not represented in this workshop and a statement of caution regarding the uncertain effects and potential harms of this change. Other recommendations include continued research and education to understand the impact of the change, to improve the evidence for the use of PFTs in general, and to identify modifiable risk factors for reduced pulmonary function.

The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire enhances the assessment of asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control is often overestimated in routine practice, and despite advances in the understanding of immunopathology and the availability of new precision therapies, the burden of disease remains unacceptably high. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) with patient and physician assessments and the Asthma Control Test (ACT) in identifying asthma control. METHODS: Baseline data from a longitudinal study of the AIRQ were analyzed. Patients with asthma in the United States aged 12 years and older followed in 24 specialty practices and 1 specialty-affiliated primary care clinic were enrolled between May and November 2019. At entry, participants completed AIRQ and ACT, and participants and physicians completed 5-point Likert scale assessments of control. RESULTS: A total of 1112 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age = 43.9 [19.3] years, 70% of the female sex, 78% White). Overall, 62% of participants rated themselves as well- or completely controlled, and 54% were rated comparably by physicians. The ACT classified 49% of participants as well-controlled, with 35% similarly categorized by AIRQ. Previous-year exacerbations were experienced by 32% of participants who self-rated as well- or completely controlled, 30% who were rated as well- or completely controlled by physicians, and 29% assessed as well-controlled by ACT, but only 15% of those classified as well-controlled by AIRQ. CONCLUSION: The burden of asthma is substantial in patients cared for by asthma specialists, and asthma control is overestimated by patients, physicians, and the symptom-based ACT. The AIRQ assesses risk in addition to symptom control and may serve to improve asthma control determination by assessing previous exacerbations.

Home Dust Allergen Exposure Is Associated with Outcomes among Sensitized Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Environmental exposures have been associated with adverse outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Approximately one-third of individuals with COPD have allergic sensitization, but it is unknown whether exposure to allergens in the home is associated with outcomes. Objectives: To determine the prevalence and associations of allergen sensitization with exposure to common indoor allergens with symptoms and exacerbation risk in COPD. Methods: Allergen sensitization to five common indoor allergens was assessed in former smokers with COPD. Home settled dust was assessed for presence of corresponding allergens. Sensitization and exposure status was determined and associations evaluated in adjusted models with longitudinal outcomes including symptoms, lung function, and exacerbations. Interactions were assessed between sensitization/exposure status and lung function. Measurements and Main Results: One hundred eighty-three individuals studied were on average 67.3 years of age (SD, 8.22) with average FEV1 of 53.2% (SD, 17.6%). Seventy-seven percent of participants were exposed to at least one tested allergen, and 17% had sensitization with corresponding allergen exposure. After adjustment, sensitization with exposure was associated with lower lung function (ß, -8.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -14.80 to -1.77), higher St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total Score (ß, 6.71; 95% CI, 0.17 to 13.25), and higher exacerbation risk (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.79). Associations appeared to be more pronounced among individuals with lower lung function. Conclusions: Allergen exposures are common in COPD and associated with adverse outcomes among those with concomitant allergen sensitization. This study establishes allergens as an important home exposure that potentially could be addressed with comprehensive home environmental modification strategies to improve COPD outcomes.

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).

Randomized Clinical Trial of Air Cleaners to Improve Indoor Air Quality and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Health: Results of the CLEAN AIR Study.

Rationale: Indoor particulate matter is associated with worse chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outcomes. It remains unknown whether reductions of indoor pollutants improve respiratory morbidity. Objectives: To determine whether placement of active portable high-efficiency particulate air cleaners can improve respiratory morbidity in former smokers. Methods: Eligible former smokers with moderate-to-severe COPD received active or sham portable high-efficiency particulate absolute air cleaners and were followed for 6 months in this blinded randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was 6-month change in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Secondary outcomes were exacerbation risk, respiratory symptoms, rescue medication use, and 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD). Intention-to-treat analysis included all subjects, and per-protocol analysis included adherent participants (greater than 80% use of air cleaner). Measurements and Main Results: A total of 116 participants were randomized, of which 84.5% completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in total SGRQ score, but the active filter group had greater reduction in SGRQ symptom subscale (ß, -7.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), -15.0 to -0.37]) and respiratory symptoms (Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale, ß, -0.8 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.1]); and lower rate of moderate exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.12-0.91]) and rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.86]) compared with sham group (all P < 0.05). In per-protocol analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in primary outcome between the active filter versus sham group (SGRQ, ß -4.76 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.34]) and in moderate exacerbation risk, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale, and 6MWD. Participants spending more time indoors were more likely to have treatment benefit. Conclusions: This is the first environmental intervention study conducted among former smokers with COPD showing potential health benefits of portable high-efficiency particulate absolute air cleaners, particularly among those with greater adherence and spending a greater time indoors.

Treatment Trials in Young Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Pre-Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Time to Move Forward.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the end result of a series of dynamic and cumulative gene-environment interactions over a lifetime. The evolving understanding of COPD biology provides novel opportunities for prevention, early diagnosis, and intervention. To advance these concepts, we propose therapeutic trials in two major groups of subjects: "young" individuals with COPD and those with pre-COPD. Given that lungs grow to about 20 years of age and begin to age at approximately 50 years, we consider "young" patients with COPD those patients in the age range of 20-50 years. Pre-COPD relates to individuals of any age who have respiratory symptoms with or without structural and/or functional abnormalities, in the absence of airflow limitation, and who may develop persistent airflow limitation over time. We exclude from the current discussion infants and adolescents because of their unique physiological context and COPD in older adults given their representation in prior randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We highlight the need of RCTs focused on COPD in young patients or pre-COPD to reduce disease progression, providing innovative approaches to identifying and engaging potential study subjects. We detail approaches to RCT design, including potential outcomes such as lung function, patient-reported outcomes, exacerbations, lung imaging, mortality, and composite endpoints. We critically review study design components such as statistical powering and analysis, duration of study treatment, and formats to trial structure, including platform, basket, and umbrella trials. We provide a call to action for treatment RCTs in 1) young adults with COPD and 2) those with pre-COPD at any age.

"It's a cause I believe in": factors motivating participation and engagement in longitudinal, respiratory-focused research studies.

BACKGROUND: Key to the success of any prospective cohort study is the effective recruitment and retention of participants, but the specific factors that influence younger adults of the Millennial generation to participate in research are not well-understood. The objective of this qualitative study was to identify factors that motivated participation and engagement in longitudinal research studies focused on respiratory health among a diverse group of young adults. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 50 younger adult participants (aged 25-35 years) regarding factors influencing their participation in longitudinal research studies. Thematic analysis was used to develop, organize, and tabulate the frequency of key themes. In exploratory analyses, we examined for patterns in the distribution of key themes across racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups. RESULTS: Participants identified several key themes that affected their willingness to participate in longitudinal studies. These included the health-related benefits generated by research (both to the individual and to society at-large), factors related to the institution and study team conducting the research, concerns regarding unethical and/or unrepresentative study design, and barriers to participation in research. Certain factors may be more impactful to underrepresented groups, including concerns regarding data privacy and confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse group of younger adults, we identified specific factors that motivated participation and predicted high engagement in longitudinal research studies focused on respiratory health. Implementing and integrating these factors into study protocols may improve recruitment and retention, including among participants who are historically underrepresented in research.

Previous tuberculosis disease as a risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional analysis of multicountry, population-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for COPD in high-income settings are well understood; however, less attention has been paid to contributors of COPD in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as pulmonary tuberculosis. We sought to study the association between previous tuberculosis disease and COPD by using pooled population-based cross-sectional data in 13 geographically diverse, low-resource settings. METHODS: We pooled six cohorts in 13 different LMIC settings, 6 countries and 3 continents to study the relationship between self-reported previous tuberculosis disease and lung function outcomes including COPD (defined as a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) below the lower limit of normal). Multivariable regressions with random effects were used to examine the association between previous tuberculosis disease and lung function outcomes. RESULTS: We analysed data for 12 396 participants (median age 54.0 years, 51.5% male); 332 (2.7%) of the participants had previous tuberculosis disease. Overall prevalence of COPD was 8.8% (range 1.7%-15.5% across sites). COPD was four times more common among those with previous tuberculosis disease (25.7% vs 8.3% without previous tuberculosis disease, p<0.001). The adjusted odds of having COPD was 3.78 times higher (95% CI 2.87 to 4.98) for participants with previous tuberculosis disease than those without a history of tuberculosis disease. The attributable fraction of COPD due to previous tuberculosis disease in the study sample was 6.9% (95% CI 4.8% to 9.6%). Participants with previous tuberculosis disease also had lower prebronchodilator Z-scores for FEV1 (-0.70, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.55), FVC (-0.44, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.29) and the FEV1:FVC ratio (-0.63, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.51) when compared with those without previous tuberculosis disease. CONCLUSIONS: Previous tuberculosis disease is a significant and under-recognised risk factor for COPD and poor lung function in LMICs. Better tuberculosis control will also likely reduce the global burden of COPD.

Evaluating construct validity of the Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire using a 3-month exacerbation recall.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent assessment of asthma control is essential to evaluating disease stability and intervention impacts. An assessment that can be administered between annual clinic visits is needed. The Asthma Impairment and Risk Questionnaire (AIRQ) is a cross-sectionally validated, 10-item, yes or no, composite control tool evaluating previous 2-week symptoms and previous 12-month exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the construct validity of the AIRQ using a 3-month recall period for exacerbation-based risk questions and retaining the 2-week recall for symptom-based impairment items. METHODS: At baseline, patients completed the AIRQ with 12-month recall exacerbation items, Asthma Control Test (ACT), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and global self-assessments of asthma risk, control, and symptom severity. Patient-reported exacerbations were captured monthly. The AIRQ with 3-month recall exacerbation items, ACT, and global self-assessments was administered at months 3, 6, and 9, and SGRQ at month 6. RESULTS: A total of 1112 patients aged 12 years or older were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 43.9 [19.5] years). The AIRQ and each administration of the AIRQ with 3-month recall exacerbation items classified asthma control similarly to an ACT plus exacerbation validation standard. For both AIRQ versions, SGRQ scores were higher with worsening asthma control (P < .001). At months 3, 6, and 9, worse AIRQ control levels were associated with higher proportions of patients with 1 or more and 2 or more exacerbations in the previous 3 months and patient global self-assessments indicating greater asthma morbidity (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: The AIRQ using exacerbation risk items with a 3-month recall period exhibits construct validity for classifying current asthma control and can be administered between annual AIRQ assessments.

Effect of chronic mucus hypersecretion on treatment responses to inhaled therapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Post hoc analysis of the IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) is a clinical phenotype of COPD. This exploratory post hoc analysis assessed relationship between CMH status and treatment response in IMPACT. METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg and designated CMH+ if they scored 1/2 in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) questions 1 and 2. Endpoints assessed by baseline CMH status included on-treatment exacerbation rates, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second, SGRQ total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, proportion of SGRQ and CAT responders at Week 52 and safety. RESULTS: Of 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 10,250 reported baseline SGRQ data (CMH+: 62% [n = 6383]). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in CMH+ (rate ratio: 0.87 and 0.72) and CMH- patients (0.82 and 0.80). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.05) reduced on-treatment severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI in CMH+ (0.62) and CMH- (0.74) subgroups. Similar improvements in health status and lung function with FF/UMEC/VI were observed, regardless of CMH status. In CMH+ patients, FF/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (0.83 and 0.70). CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC/VI had a favourable benefit: risk profile versus dual therapies irrespective of CMH status. The presence of CMH did not influence treatment response or exacerbations, lung function and/or health status. However, CMH did generate differences when dual therapies were compared and the impact of CMH should be considered in future trial design.

Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 µg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 µg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 µg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (at doses of 100 µg and 25 µg, respectively) and umeclidinium-vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 µg and 25 µg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment. RESULTS: The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple-therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple-therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled-glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician-diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium-vilanterol, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium-vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513 .).

A randomised controlled trial of the effect of a connected inhaler system on medication adherence in uncontrolled asthmatic patients.

Suboptimal adherence to maintenance therapy contributes to poor asthma control and exacerbations. This study evaluated the effect of different elements of a connected inhaler system (CIS), comprising clip-on inhaler sensors, a patient-facing app and a healthcare professional (HCP) dashboard, on adherence to asthma maintenance therapy.This was an open-label, parallel-group, 6-month, randomised controlled trial in adults with uncontrolled asthma (asthma control test (ACT) score less than 20) on fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß-agonist maintenance therapy (n=437). All subjects received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol ELLIPTA dry-powder inhalers for maintenance and salbutamol/albuterol metered-dose inhalers for rescue, with a sensor attached to each inhaler. Participants were randomised to one of five CIS study arms (allocation ratio 1:1:1:1:1) reflecting the recipient of the data feedback from the sensors, as follows: 1) maintenance use to participants and HCPs (n=87); 2) maintenance use to participants (n=88); 3) maintenance and rescue use to participants and HCPs (n=88); 4) maintenance and rescue use to participants (n=88); and 5) no feedback (control) (n=86).For the primary endpoint, observed mean±sd adherence to maintenance therapy over months 4-6 was 82.2±16.58% (n=83) in the "maintenance to participants and HCPs" arm and 70.8±27.30% (n=85) in the control arm. The adjusted least squares mean±se was 80.9±3.19% and 69.0±3.19%, respectively (study arm difference: 12.0%, 95% CI 5.2-18.8%; p<0.001). Adherence was also significantly greater in the other CIS arms versus the control arm. The mean percentage of rescue medication free days (months 4-6) was significantly greater in participants receiving data on their rescue use compared with controls. ACT scores improved in all study arms with no significant differences between groups.A CIS can improve adherence to maintenance medication and reduce rescue medication use in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Long-acting antimuscarinic therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving beta-blockers.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocker therapies for cardiovascular comorbidities are often withheld in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to potential adverse effects on airway obstruction. We carried out a post hoc analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of aclidinium in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk receiving beta-blockers at baseline versus non-users. METHODS: ASCENT-COPD was a Phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to aclidinium or placebo twice-daily for up to 3 years. Outcomes included risk of (time to first) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and lung function over 3 years, and exacerbations over 1 year. RESULTS: Of 3589 patients, 1269 (35.4%) used beta-blockers and 2320 (64.6%) were non-users at baseline. Aclidinium did not statistically increase the risk of MACE (beta-blocker user: hazard ratio 1.01 [95% CI 0.62-1.64]; non-user: 0.80 [0.51-1.24]; interaction P = 0.48) or all-cause mortality (beta-blocker user: 1.13 [0.78-1.64]; non-user: 0.89 [0.62-1.26]; interaction P = 0.35), in patients using beta-blockers. Aclidinium reduced annualized rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation (beta-blocker user: rate ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.94, P = 0.013]; non-user: 0.79 [0.67-0.93, P = 0.005]), delayed time to first exacerbation, and improved lung function versus placebo. There was greater trough FEV1 benefit in beta-blocker users versus non-users (least squares mean difference at 52 weeks: 111 mL [95% CI 74 mL-147 mL] versus 69 mL [42 mL-97 mL]; interaction P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis supports long-acting anti-muscarinic use with concomitant beta-blockers in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and cardiovascular comorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01966107, Registered 16 October 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966107 .