Five-Year Outcomes among U.S. Bronchiectasis and NTM Research 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. Objectives: To assess the impact of NTM on 5-year clinical outcomes and mortality in patients with bronchiectasis. Methods: Patients in the Bronchiectasis and NTM 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 FEV1 percent predicted, age, hospitalization within 2 years before baseline, body mass index, and sex (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, regardless 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.

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.

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.

A New Approach for Identifying Patients with Undiagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

RATIONALE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often unrecognized and untreated. OBJECTIVES: To develop a method for identifying undiagnosed COPD requiring treatment with currently available therapies (FEV1 <60% predicted and/or exacerbation risk). METHODS: We conducted a multisite, cross-sectional, case-control study in U.S. pulmonary and primary care clinics that recruited subjects from primary care settings. Cases were patients with COPD and at least one exacerbation in the past year or FEV1 less than 60% of predicted without exacerbation in the past year. Control subjects were persons with no COPD or with mild COPD (FEV1 ≥60% predicted, no exacerbation in the past year). In random forests analyses, we identified the smallest set of questions plus peak expiratory flow (PEF) with optimal sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PEF and spirometry were recorded in 186 cases and 160 control subjects. The mean (SD) age of the sample population was 62.7 (10.1) years; 55% were female; 86% were white; and 16% had never smoked. The mean FEV1 percent predicted for cases was 42.5% (14.2%); for control subjects, it was 82.5% (15.7%). A five-item questionnaire, CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk), was used to assess exposure, breathing problems, tiring easily, and acute respiratory illnesses. CAPTURE exhibited an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 44.4% for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 67.8% for differentiating cases from no-COPD control subjects. The PEF (males, <350 L/min; females, <250 L/min) SN and SP were 88.0% and 77.5%, respectively, for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and they were 88.0% and 90.8%, respectively, for distinguishing cases from no-COPD control subjects. The CAPTURE plus PEF exhibited improved SN and SP for all cases versus all control subjects (89.7% and 78.1%, respectively) and for all cases versus no-COPD control subjects (89.7% and 93.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CAPTURE with PEF can identify patients with COPD who would benefit from currently available therapy and require further diagnostic evaluation. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01880177).

Non-invasive measurement of abnormal ventilatory mechanics in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: In this study we investigated non-invasive, effort-independent measurement of ventilatory mechanics in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: Ventilatory mechanics were measured by optoelectronic plethysmography (OEP) in ALS patients and matched controls. Analysis determined whether OEP measurements correlated with standard clinical measures. RESULTS: ALS patients (N = 18) had lower forced vital capacity percent predicted (55.2 ± 22.0 L) compared with controls (N = 15; 104.7 ± 16.2 L) and higher ventilatory inefficiency (49.2 ± 9.0 vs. 40.0 ± 3.5, respectively; P < 0.001 for both measures). Lower tidal volumes within the diaphragm area correlated with the dyspnea subscore calculated from the ALS Functional Rating Scale-revised (P = 0.031), and paradoxical movement of the ribcage compared with the abdominal compartment was seen in the most severe cases. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of ventilatory mechanics in mild to severe ALS reveals dysfunction that is not readily detected by standard testing and ALS functional severity assessment measures. Muscle Nerve 54: 270-276, 2016.

Exacerbation-like events in the 12 months prior to identification of chronic respiratory conditions in a primary care population.

Initial chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) pharmacotherapy is based on symptom burden and exacerbation history. Inclusion of inhaled cortico-steroids (ICS) is recommended only for those with a history of exacerbations. This brief report highlights that among individuals with previously unrecognized COPD about 1 in 5 have one or more exacerbation-like events and about 1 in 10 have two or more events in the prior 12 months whether or not they self-report concomitant asthma. Closer attention to prior exacerbation-like event history might lead to more guideline concordant care. In addition, there are two other groups that have impaired but non-obstructive spirometry, some with significant respiratory symptom burden who have frequencies of exacerbation-like events similar to those meeting COPD spirometry criteria. To date we have little guidance for treatment of these individuals.

Introducing the COPD Foundation Guide for Diagnosis and Management of COPD, recommendations of the COPD Foundation.

The increasing number of treatment options for managing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) promises to improve the outcomes for COPD patients. However, determining which treatments are appropriate for individual patients has become increasingly complex. The COPD Foundation Guide for Diagnosis and Management of COPD was developed to be a practical, easy to use tool for clinicians. The Guide includes specific recommendations for diagnostic studies and treatments based on specific diagnostic criteria. This manuscript describes the rationale for the development of the Guide, the process used, the rationale for the specific recommendations and the plans for further development. The current recommendations of the COPD Foundation have been summarized in the form of Pocket Cards, which may be obtained from the Foundation at no charge (1-866-316-COPD (2673), www.copdfoundation.org).

Sildenafil for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized crossover trial.

RATIONALE: Pulmonary hypertension with exercise is common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may contribute to exercise limitation in this disease. We aimed to determine the effects of treatment with sildenafil on exercise capacity in patients with COPD and emphysema. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-period crossover trial of sildenafil thrice daily in ten adults with COPD and emphysema on CT scan without pulmonary hypertension. We randomized study participants to 4 weeks of sildenafil (or placebo) followed by a 1-week washout and then 4 weeks of placebo (or sildenafil). The 2 primary outcomes were the 6-minute walk distance and oxygen consumption at peak exercise. RESULTS: Sildenafil had no effect on 6-minute walk distance (placebo-corrected difference = -7.8 m, 95% confidence interval, -23.2 to 7.5 m, p = 0.35) or oxygen consumption at peak exercise (placebo-corrected difference = -0.1 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval -2.1 to 1.8 ml/kg/min, p = 0.89). Sildenafil increased the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (p = 0.02), worsened symptoms (p = 0.04), and decreased quality-of-life (p = 0.03). Adverse events were more frequent while receiving sildenafil (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Routine sildenafil administration did not have a beneficial effect on exercise capacity in patients with COPD and emphysema without pulmonary hypertension. Sildenafil significantly worsened gas exchange at rest and quality of life. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00104637).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sarcoidosis-associated fibrosing mediastinitis with resultant pulmonary hypertension: a case report and review of the literature.

Pulmonary hypertension, a common manifestation of advanced sarcoidosis, is thought to result from fibrosis with chronic hypoxia and destruction of small vessels, extrinsic compression of pulmonary arteries, or granulomatous vasculitis. We report a case of sarcoidosis-associated pulmonary hypertension due to fibrosing mediastinitis. Our patient presented with cough and dyspnea on exertion and was found to have pulmonary artery enlargement, pulmonary venous compression, and mediastinal soft tissue enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging. Pulmonary hypertension was confirmed by right heart catheterization and sarcoidosis was diagnosed by histologic examination of tissue obtained at mediastinoscopy. Treatment with steroids resulted in decreased pulmonary artery pressures as well as symptomatic improvement. While pulmonary hypertension is a common complication of sarcoidosis, fibrosing mediastinitis is an unusual etiology that should be considered by clinicians.