Difference in survival between COPD patients with an impaired immune reaction versus an adequate immune reaction to seasonal influenza vaccination: The COMIC study.

AIM: To study the hypothesis that COPD patients who do not achieve seroprotective levels after influenza vaccination, are a less immune-competent group with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality. METHODS: 578 patients included in the COMIC cohort had pre- and post-vaccination stable state blood samples in which influenza-vaccine specific antibodies were measured. Post-vaccination titers of ≥40 were considered protective and indicative of being immuno-competent. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Morbidity was defined as time till first severe acute exacerbation in COPD (severe AECOPD) and time till first community acquired pneumonia (CAP). RESULTS: 42% of the patients achieved seroprotective levels to both H1N1 and H3N2 after vaccination. Seroprotective levels to H3N2 were markedly higher (96%) than to H1N1(43%). Having seroprotective levels to both H1N1 and H3N2 was not associated with less morbidity (severe AECOPD HR 0.91 (95% 0.66-1.25; p = 0.564) (CAP HR 1.23 (95% 0.75-2.00; p = 0.412)) or lower mortality (HR 1.10(95% 0.87-1.38; p = 0.433)). CONCLUSION: In a large well-characterized COPD cohort only the minority of patients achieved seroprotective titers to H1N1 and H3N1 after the yearly influenza vaccination. While achieving seroprotection after vaccination can be considered a surrogate marker of being immunocompetent, this was not associated with lower morbidity and mortality. Whether this means that the immune status is not a relevant pheno/endotype in COPD patients for the course of their disease or that seroprotection is not an adequate (surrogate) marker to define the immune status in COPD needs to be further studied.

Multi-centre prospective study on diagnosing subtypes of lung cancer by exhaled-breath analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer is a leading cause of mortality. Exhaled-breath analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) might detect lung cancer early in the course of the disease, which may improve outcomes. Subtyping lung cancers could be helpful in further clinical decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective, multi-centre study, using 10 electronic nose devices, 144 subjects diagnosed with NSCLC and 146 healthy subjects, including subjects considered negative for NSCLC after investigation, breathed into the Aeonose™ (The eNose Company, Zutphen, Netherlands). Also, analyses into subtypes of NSCLC, such as adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and analyses of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) were performed. RESULTS: Choosing a cut-off point to predominantly rule out cancer resulted for NSCLC in a sensitivity of 94.4%, a specificity of 32.9%, a positive predictive value of 58.1%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 85.7%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.76. For AC sensitivity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were 81.5%, 56.4%, 79.5%, and 0.74, respectively, while for SCC these numbers were 80.8%, 45.7%, 93.0%, and 0.77, respectively. SCLC could be ruled out with a sensitivity of 88.9% and an NPV of 96.8% with an AUC of 0.86. CONCLUSION: Electronic nose technology with the Aeonose™ can play an important role in rapidly excluding lung cancer due to the high negative predictive value for various, but not all types of lung cancer. Patients showing positive breath tests should still be subjected to further diagnostic testing.