Importance of distinguishing between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To facilitate distinction between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in day-to-day primary care practice, and provide practical treatment strategies using spirometric cases to outline how to recognize the clinical and spirometric overlap between asthma and COPD. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The approaches described here were developed using evidence-based guidelines and the expertise of the authors, including research findings by the authors in the areas of asthma, COPD management, and spirometric testing in primary care. MAIN MESSAGE: There are patients with clinical or spirometric features of both asthma and COPD. Both asthma and COPD are associated with some degree of inflammation of the respiratory tract, mediated by the increased expression of inflammatory proteins. However, there are clear differences between asthma and COPD in the pattern of inflammation that occurs in the lungs. Diagnostic confusion between COPD and asthma is most likely to arise in older patients with respiratory complaints, particularly against a background that includes cigarette smoke or workplace exposure. Both asthma and COPD are clinical diagnoses based on patient history, symptoms, physical examination findings, and objective measures of lung function. Postbronchodilator spirometry is always needed to confirm a new diagnosis of COPD and should also be performed prebronchodilator for the diagnosis of asthma. However, in many cases, the interpretation of spirometry results is not straightforward. CONCLUSION: Understanding the nature and extent of the spirometric overlap between asthma and COPD is critical for tailoring a therapeutic strategy that is based on factors that include medical and family history, signs and symptoms, and a clear interpretation of spirometry data. This information will be leveraged differently for individual patients to arrive at the correct clinical diagnosis and to select the most appropriate therapy.

Airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with normal spirometry results and symptoms compatible with asthma: Primary care retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of patients with symptoms suggestive of asthma and normal lung function who exhibit airway hyperreactivity with methacholine challenge testing (MCT) in primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Primary care lung clinic in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 69 patients presenting to the lung clinic who had symptoms compatible with asthma, normal spirometry test results, and were referred for MCT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics, frequency counts, independent t tests, and 2 tests were used to examine differences in the proportion of clinical and demographic variables identified in patients with or without a positive MCT result. Effect size was determined between MCT-positive and MCT-negative patients for both categorical ( coefficient) and continuous (Hedges g) data. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (30.4%) had positive MCT results, and 48 patients (69.6%) had negative MCT results. Family history of asthma and reduced baseline and postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second were associated with a positive MCT result. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide insight into the utility of simple spirometry for asthma diagnosis and the need to further clarify the role of MCT in the primary care setting.

Weighing the evidence for pharmacological treatment interventions in mild COPD; a narrative perspective.

There is increasing focus on understanding the nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the earlier stages. Mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 1 or the now-withdrawn GOLD stage 0) represents an early stage of COPD that may progress to more severe disease. This review summarises the disease burden of patients with mild COPD and discusses the evidence for treatment intervention in this subgroup.Overall, patients with mild COPD suffer a substantial disease burden that includes persistent or potentially debilitating symptoms, increased risk of exacerbations, increased healthcare utilisation, reduced exercise tolerance and physical activity, and a higher rate of lung function decline versus controls. However, the evidence for treatment efficacy in these patients is limited due to their frequent exclusion from clinical trials. Careful assessment of disease burden and the rate of disease progression in individual patients, rather than a reliance on spirometry data, may identify patients who could benefit from earlier treatment intervention.

Reduction in clinically important deterioration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with aclidinium/formoterol.

BACKGROUND: 'Clinically important deterioration' (CID) is a composite endpoint measuring worsening of the key clinical features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), namely lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and exacerbations. ACLIFORM and AUGMENT were two 24-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies assessing twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide (AB) 400 µg/formoterol fumarate (FF) 12 µg. This pooled post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of AB/FF 400/12 µg on both first and sustained CID events versus placebo and monotherapies in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: A first CID event was defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or the worsening from baseline in ≥1 of the following: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (≥1 unit), or St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥4 units). A 'sustained' CID was defined as a worsening maintained at all subsequent visits from appearance to week 24 or a moderate/severe exacerbation at any time. CID events were assessed at three visits (weeks 4, 12, and 24); trough FEV1 was also measured at weeks 1 and 18. RESULTS: AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first CID event by 45% versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001), 18% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.82, p < 0.01), and 15% versus AB 400 µg (HR 0.85, p < 0.05). Similarly, AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a sustained CID event by 48% versus placebo (HR 0.52, p < 0.001) and 22% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.78, p < 0.01). AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first or sustained CID event for all four components versus placebo (trough FEV1 and TDI, first and sustained CID, all p < 0.001; SGRQ first CID p < 0.001; SGRQ sustained CID, p < 0.01; exacerbations first and sustained CID, both p < 0.05) and TDI and SGRQ versus FF 12 µg (TDI, first and sustained CID both p < 0.05; SGRQ first CID p < 0.01), and SGRQ versus AB 400 µg (first CID, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AB/FF 400/12 µg BID may provide greater airway stability and fewer exacerbations or deteriorations in lung function, health status, or dyspnea compared with placebo or monotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462942 (ACLIFORM); registered 26 October 2011. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397 (AUGMENT); registered 19 September 2011.

Importance de distinguer l'asthme de la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique en première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Faciliter la distinction entre l'asthme et la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (MPOC) en pratique de première ligne de tous les jours, et fournir des stratégies thérapeutiques pratiques à l'aide de cas de spirométrie pour illustrer comment reconnaître le chevauchement clinique et spirométrique entre l'asthme et la MPOC. SOURCES D'INFORMATION: Les approches décrites ici s'appuient sur les lignes directrices factuelles et sur l'expertise des auteurs, y compris des observations de recherches menées par les auteurs dans les domaines de l'asthme, de la prise en charge de la MPOC et des examens de spirométrie en première ligne. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: Certains patients présentent des caractéristiques cliniques communes à l'asthme et à la MPOC. Ces deux maladies sont associées à un certain degré d'inflammation des voies respiratoires, médiée par l'expression accrue de protéines inflammatoires. Il existe toutefois des différences évidentes entre l'asthme et la MPOC pour ce qui est de l'inflammation présente dans les poumons. La confusion diagnostique entre la MPOC et l'asthme survient le plus souvent chez les patients âgés qui se plaignent de symptômes respiratoires, surtout en contexte de tabagisme ou d'exposition professionnelle. Les diagnostics cliniques d'asthme et de MPOC sont fondés sur les antécédents du patient, les symptômes, l'examen physique et les mesures objectives de la fonction respiratoire. La spirométrie après bronchodilatation est toujours nécessaire pour confirmer un nouveau diagnostic de MPOC et elle doit également être réalisée avant la bronchodilatation pour poser un diagnostic d'asthme. Dans de nombreux cas, toutefois, il n'est pas évident d'interpréter les résultats de la spirométrie. CONCLUSION: Il est essentiel de bien comprendre la nature et la portée du chevauchement spirométrique entre l'asthme et la MPOC afin de concevoir une stratégie thérapeutique qui s'appuie sur des facteurs qui incluent les antécédents médicaux et familiaux, les signes et les symptômes, et l'interprétation claire des données de spirométrie. Cette information sera utilisée différemment auprès de chaque patient pour arriver au bon diagnostic clinique et sélectionner le traitement le plus approprié.

Aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate as a fixed-dose combination in COPD: pooled analysis of symptoms and exacerbations from two six-month, multicentre, randomised studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT).

BACKGROUND: The combination of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting anticholinergic, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting beta2-agonist (400/12 µg twice daily) achieves improvements in lung function greater than either monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is approved in the European Union as a maintenance treatment. The effect of this combination on symptoms of COPD and exacerbations is less well established. We examined these outcomes in a pre-specified analysis of pooled data from two 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre, randomised Phase III studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). METHODS: Patients ≥40 years with moderate to severe COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <70 % and FEV1 ≥30 % but <80 % predicted normal) were randomised (ACLIFORM: 2:2:2:2:1; AUGMENT: 1:1:1:1:1) to twice-daily aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg or 400/6 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg or placebo via Genuair™/Pressair®. Dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index; TDI), daily symptoms (EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT]-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] questionnaire), night-time and early-morning symptoms, exacerbations (Healthcare Resource Utilisation [HCRU] and EXACT definitions) and relief-medication use were assessed. RESULTS: The pooled intent-to-treat population included 3394 patients. Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg significantly improved TDI focal score versus placebo and both monotherapies at Week 24 (all p < 0.05). Over 24 weeks, significant improvements in E-RS total score, overall night-time and early-morning symptom severity and limitation of early-morning activities were observed with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg versus placebo and both monotherapies (all p < 0.05). The rate of moderate or severe HCRU exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg compared with placebo (p < 0.05) but not monotherapies; the rate of EXACT-defined exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg versus placebo (p < 0.01) and aclidinium (p < 0.05). Time to first HCRU or EXACT exacerbation was longer with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg compared with placebo (all p < 0.05) but not the monotherapies. Relief-medication use was reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg versus placebo and aclidinium (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg significantly improves 24-hour symptom control compared with placebo, aclidinium and formoterol in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Furthermore, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg reduces the frequency of exacerbations compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01462942 and NCT01437397 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Combining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting ß2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented. METHODS: In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 6 µg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair®/Pressair®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV1 (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV1 (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: At study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV1 over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.

Efficacy and safety of a 12-week treatment with twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I).

BACKGROUND: This Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg versus placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 at Week 12, respectively. Health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), COPD symptoms (Transitional Dyspnea Index [TDI], night and early morning symptoms), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline FEV1 of 1.36 ± 0.54 L (47.2% of predicted value) were randomized. At Week 12, aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg showed significant improvements from baseline in mean (95% CI) trough FEV1 compared with placebo by 86 (45, 127) mL and 124 (83,164) mL, respectively, and in peak FEV1 by 146 (101, 190) mL and 192 (148, 236) mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). Both aclidinium doses also provided significant improvements in SGRQ, TDI and almost all COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs was low and similar across groups (dry mouth: 0.5%-1.6%; constipation: 0%-1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients with twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg was associated with significant improvements in bronchodilation, health status, and COPD symptoms. Both doses were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This ACCORD I study (AClidinium in Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease I) was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00891462) as "Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium Bromide for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)".

Primary Care Severe Asthma Registry and Education Project (PCSAR-EDU): Phase 1 - an e-Delphi for registry definitions and indices of clinician behaviour.

INTRODUCTION: Although most asthma is mild to moderate, severe asthma accounts for disproportionate personal and societal costs. Poor co-ordination of care between primary care and specialist settings is recognised as a barrier to achieving optimal outcomes. The Primary Care Severe Asthma Registry and Education (PCSAR-EDU) project aims to address these gaps through the interdisciplinary development and evaluation of both a 'real-world' severe asthma registry and an educational programme for primary care providers. This manuscript describes phase 1 of PCSAR-EDU which involves establishing interdisciplinary consensus on criteria for the: (1) definition of severe asthma; (2) generation of a severe asthma registry and (3) definition of an electronic-medical record data-based Clinician Behaviour Index (CBI). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In phase 1, a modified e-Delphi activity will be conducted. Delphi panellists (n≥13) will be invited to complete a 30 min online survey on three separate occasions (i.e., three separate e-Delphi 'rounds') over a 3-month period. Expert opinion will be collected via an open-ended survey ('Open' round 1) and 5-point Likert scale and ranking surveys ('Closed' round 2 and 3). A fourth and final Delphi round will occur via synchronous meeting, whereby panellists approve a finalised ideal 'core criteria list', CBI and corresponding item weighting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for the activities involved in phase 1 from the University of Toronto's Human Research Ethics Programme (approval number 39695). Future ethics approvals will depend on information gathered in the proceeding phase; thus, ethical approval for phase 2 and 3 of this study will be sought sequentially. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and knowledge translation tools.

Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate as a treatment for COPD: an update.

Introduction: Aclidinium/formoterol is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) dual bronchodilator used as a maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol has been demonstrated consistently in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD versus placebo and monocomponents, with a comparable safety profile.Areas covered: This review examines recent research findings that expand our understanding of the impact of aclidinium/formoterol on the burden of COPD. Reviewed outcomes include improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, health-related quality of life, exercise tolerance, exacerbation rates, and clinically important deteriorations. In addition, the reported cardiovascular safety of aclidinium and current LAMA/LABA treatment recommendations are discussed.Expert opinion: Aclidinium/formoterol reduces disease burden in patients with COPD, including those that are treatment-naïve, without a significant increase in safety risk compared with monotherapies. Furthermore, evidence supports an improvement in lung function over a 24-hour period with aclidinium/formoterol treatment versus monotherapy and placebo, which may offer an advantage over some once-daily LAMA/LABA combinations. In summary, the recent evidence discussed in this review adds weight to the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial therapy for certain patients newly diagnosed with COPD.

Variation Among Spirometry Interpretation Algorithms.

Several algorithms exist to facilitate spirometric interpretation in clinical practice, yet there is a lack of consensus on how spirometric criteria for asthma, COPD, and restrictive disorders should be incorporated into spirometry interpretation algorithms suitable for use in day-to-day primary care management. The purpose of this review was to identify and describe the variability that exists among spirometry interpretation algorithms and how this might be relevant to the interpretation of spirometric data of common conditions encountered in primary care. MEDLINE, Embase, and mainstream search engines were used to identify all English-language spirometry interpretation algorithm-related material between January 1990 and December 2018. Eight variations in spirometry interpretation algorithms were identified via specific a priori assumptions that each spirometry interpretation algorithm should contain content consistent with national and international guidelines related to spirometry interpretation. Of the 26 spirometry interpretation algorithms identified, 5 were deemed impractical for day-to-day use in primary care (19%), 23 lacked a logic string leading to the postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC (88%), 4 relied on postbronchodilator change in FEV1 to distinguish between asthma and COPD (15%), 24 lacked a prompt for bronchodilator challenge when FEV1/FVC was considered to be at a normal level (92%), 12 did not indicate whether the data represented a prebronchodilator or postbronchodilator scenario (46%), 7 did not include a logic string that considers mixed obstructive/restrictive defect (27%), 23 did not contain a prompt to refer for methacholine challenge testing when spirometry appeared normal (88%), and 2 spirometry interpretation algorithms did not include a logic string leading to restrictive disorder (8%). Our review suggests that there is considerable variability among spirometry interpretation algorithms available as diagnostic aids and that there is a need for standardization of spirometry interpretation algorithms in primary care.

Aclidinium bromide in fixed-dose combination with formoterol fumarate in the management of COPD: an update on the evidence base.

Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) 400/12 µg is a twice-daily long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and long-acting ß2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual-bronchodilator maintenance therapy used to relieve symptoms and reduce future risk of exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To date, there have been several clinical studies and post hoc analyses of AB/FF, assessing treatment outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. These studies have looked at a range of outcomes, including lung function parameters, patient-reported symptom scores, quality-of-life measures assessing impaired health and perceived well-being, and the frequency, duration, and severity of exacerbations. In light of the major 2017 revision to the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations, and the subsequent updates, we present an update on the latest evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of AB/FF. This review discusses the clinical relevance of the improvements in lung function, symptoms, quality of life, and exacerbations in patients with COPD reported in the phase III and IV trials of AB/FF. Given the current concerns over unnecessary inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use in COPD, we also touch briefly on the use of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for identifying those patients with COPD already using LAMA/LABA therapy for whom the addition of ICS might be of benefit.