Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52. RESULTS: A total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P = 0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; NOTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04456673.).

Dupilumab for COPD with Type 2 Inflammation Indicated by Eosinophil Counts.

BACKGROUND: In some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 2 inflammation may increase exacerbation risk and may be indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 per microliter and an elevated exacerbation risk despite the use of standard triple therapy to receive dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD. Key secondary and other end points that were corrected for multiplicity were the change in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and in the scores on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; range, 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) and the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS-COPD; range, 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms). RESULTS: A total of 939 patients underwent randomization: 468 to the dupilumab group and 471 to the placebo group. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.93) with dupilumab and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.30) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 by a least-squares (LS) mean of 160 ml (95% CI, 126 to 195) with dupilumab and 77 ml (95% CI, 42 to 112) with placebo (LS mean difference, 83 ml; 95% CI, 42 to 125; P<0.001), a difference that was sustained through week 52. At week 52, the SGRQ score had improved by an LS mean of -9.7 (95% CI, -11.3 to -8.1) with dupilumab and -6.4 (95% CI, -8.0 to -4.8) with placebo (LS mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.5 to -1.3; P = 0.002). The E-RS-COPD score at week 52 had improved by an LS mean of -2.7 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.2) with dupilumab and -1.6 (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.1) with placebo (LS mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.4; P = 0.001). The numbers of patients with adverse events that led to discontinuation of dupilumab or placebo, serious adverse events, and adverse events that led to death were balanced in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COPD who had type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, those who received dupilumab had fewer exacerbations, better lung function and quality of life, and less severe respiratory symptoms than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; BOREAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03930732.).

Phenotypes, Etiotypes, and Endotypes of Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major health problem with a high prevalence, a rising incidence, and substantial morbidity and mortality. Its course is punctuated by acute episodes of increased respiratory symptoms, termed exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD). ECOPD are important events in the natural history of the disease, as they are associated with lung function decline and prolonged negative effects on quality of life. The present-day therapy for ECOPD with short courses of antibiotics and steroids and escalation of bronchodilators has resulted in only modest improvements in outcomes. Recent data indicate that ECOPD are heterogeneous, raising the need to identify distinct etioendophenotypes, incorporating traits of the acute event and of patients who experience recurrent events, to develop novel and targeted therapies. These characterizations can provide a complete clinical picture, the severity of which will dictate acute pharmacological treatment, and may also indicate whether a change in maintenance therapy is needed to reduce the risk of future exacerbations. In this review we discuss the latest knowledge of ECOPD types on the basis of clinical presentation, etiology, natural history, frequency, severity, and biomarkers in an attempt to characterize these events.

Targeting Type 2 Inflammation and Epithelial Alarmins in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Biologics Outlook.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex, heterogeneous, progressive inflammatory airway disease associated with a significant impact on patients' lives, including morbidity and mortality, and significant healthcare costs. Current pharmacologic strategies, including first- and second-line therapies such as long-acting ß2-agonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, inhaled corticosteroids, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, and macrolides, provide relief to patients with COPD. However, many patients remain symptomatic, with persistent symptoms and/or acute exacerbations and progressive lung function loss. Although neutrophilic inflammation is the most common type of inflammation in COPD, 20-40% of patients with COPD exhibit type 2 inflammation, with roles for CD4+ (cluster of differentiation 4) T-helper cell type 1 cells, type 2 innate lymphoid cells, eosinophils, and alternatively activated macrophages. On the basis of the current limitations of available therapies, a significant unmet need exists in COPD management, including the need for targeted therapies to address the underlying pathophysiology leading to disease progression, such as type 2 inflammation, as well as biomarkers to help select the patients who would most benefit from the new therapies. Significant progress is being made, with evolving understanding of the pathobiology of COPD leading to novel therapeutic targets including epithelial alarmins. In this review, we describe the current therapeutic landscape in COPD, discuss unmet treatment needs, review the current knowledge of type 2 inflammation and epithelial alarmins in COPD, explore potential biomarkers of type 2 inflammation in COPD, and finally provide a rationale for incorporating therapies targeting type 2 inflammation and epithelial alarmins in COPD. Video Abstract available online at www.atsjournals.org.

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and health-care use worldwide. COPD is caused by exposure to inhaled noxious particles, notably tobacco smoke and pollutants. However, the broad range of factors that increase the risk of development and progression of COPD throughout the life course are increasingly being recognised. Innovations in omics and imaging techniques have provided greater insight into disease pathobiology, which might result in advances in COPD prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Although few novel treatments have been approved for COPD in the past 5 years, advances have been made in targeting existing therapies to specific subpopulations using new biomarker-based strategies. Additionally, COVID-19 has undeniably affected individuals with COPD, who are not only at higher risk for severe disease manifestations than healthy individuals but also negatively affected by interruptions in health-care delivery and social isolation. This Seminar reviews COPD with an emphasis on recent advances in epidemiology, pathophysiology, imaging, diagnosis, and treatment.

QRISK3 underestimates the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The extent to which the excess CVD risk is captured by risk factors in QRISK, a widely used CVD risk scoring tool, is not well studied. METHODS: We created an incidence cohort of diagnosed COPD patients from the United Kingdom (UK) Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database (January 1998-July 2018). The outcome was a composite of fatal or non-fatal CVD events. Sex-specific age-standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were compared with values for the UK primary-care population. The observed 10-year CVD risk was derived using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and was compared with predicted 10-year risk from the QRISK3 tool. RESULTS: 13 208 patients (mean age 64.9 years, 45% women) were included. CVD incidence was 3.53 events per 100 person-years. The SIR of CVD was 1.71 (95% CI 1.61 to 1.75) in women and 1.62 (95%CI 1.54-1.64) in men. SIR was particularly high among patients younger than 65 years (women=2.13 (95% CI 1.94 to 2.19); men=1.86 (95% CI 1.74 to 1.90)). On average, the observed 10-year risk was 52% higher than QRISK predicted score (33.5% vs 22.1%). The difference was higher in patients younger than 65 years (observed risk 82% higher than predicted). CONCLUSION: People living with COPD are at a significantly heightened risk of CVD over and beyond their predicted risk. This is particularly the case for younger people whose 10-year CVD risk can be >80% higher than predicted. Risk scoring tools must be validated and revised to provide accurate CVD predictions in patients with COPD.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Benralizumab for the Prevention of COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of benralizumab, an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody, for the prevention of exacerbations in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not known. METHODS: In the GALATHEA and TERRANOVA trials, we enrolled patients with COPD (at a ratio of approximately 2:1 on the basis of eosinophil count [≥220 per cubic millimeter vs. <220 per cubic millimeter]) who had frequent exacerbations despite receiving guideline-based inhaled treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive benralizumab (30 or 100 mg in GALATHEA; 10, 30, or 100 mg in TERRANOVA) every 8 weeks (every 4 weeks for the first three doses) or placebo. The primary end point was the treatment effect of benralizumab, measured as the annualized COPD exacerbation rate ratio (benralizumab vs. placebo) at week 56 in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of 220 per cubic millimeter or greater. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In GALATHEA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate were 1.19 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.36) in the 30-mg benralizumab group, 1.03 per year (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19) in the 100-mg benralizumab group, and 1.24 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.42) in the placebo group; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.96 for 30 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.65) and 0.83 for 100 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.05). In TERRANOVA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate for 10 mg, 30 mg, and 100 mg of benralizumab and for placebo were 0.99 per year (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13), 1.21 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.37), 1.09 per year (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23), and 1.17 per year (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32), respectively; the corresponding rate ratios were 0.85 (P = 0.06), 1.04 (P = 0.66), and 0.93 (P = 0.40). At 56 weeks, none of the annualized COPD exacerbation rate ratios for any dose of benralizumab as compared with placebo reached significance in either trial. Types and frequencies of adverse events were similar with benralizumab and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on benralizumab was not associated with a lower annualized rate of COPD exacerbations than placebo among patients with moderate to very severe COPD, a history of frequent moderate or severe exacerbations, and blood eosinophil counts of 220 per cubic millimeter or greater (Funded by AstraZeneca [GALATHEA and TERRANOVA] and Kyowa Hakko Kirin [GALATHEA]; GALATHEA and TERRANOVA ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02138916 and NCT02155660.).

Inflammatory Endotype-associated Airway Microbiome in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Clinical Stability and Exacerbations: A Multicohort Longitudinal Analysis.

Rationale: Understanding the role of the airway microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) inflammatory endotypes may help to develop microbiome-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Objectives: To understand the association of the airway microbiome with neutrophilic and eosinophilic COPD at stability and during exacerbations. Methods: An integrative analysis was performed on 1,706 sputum samples collected longitudinally from 510 patients with COPD recruited at four UK sites of the BEAT-COPD (Biomarkers to Target Antibiotic and Systemic COPD), COPDMAP (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Medical Research Council/Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry), and AERIS (Acute Exacerbation and Respiratory Infections in COPD) cohorts. The microbiome was analyzed using COPDMAP and AERIS as a discovery data set and BEAT-COPD as a validation data set. Measurements and Main Results: The airway microbiome in neutrophilic COPD was heterogeneous, with two primary community types differentiated by the predominance of Haemophilus. The Haemophilus-predominant subgroup had elevated sputum IL-1ß and TNFα (tumor necrosis factor α) and was relatively stable over time. The other neutrophilic subgroup with a balanced microbiome profile had elevated sputum and serum IL-17A and was temporally dynamic. Patients in this state at stability were susceptible to the greatest microbiome shifts during exacerbations. This subgroup can temporally switch to both neutrophilic Haemophilus-predominant and eosinophilic states that were otherwise mutually exclusive. Time-series analysis on the microbiome showed that the temporal trajectories of Campylobacter and Granulicatella were indicative of intrapatient switches from neutrophilic to eosinophilic inflammation, in track with patient sputum eosinophilia over time. Network analysis revealed distinct host-microbiome interaction patterns among neutrophilic Haemophilus-predominant, neutrophilic balanced microbiome, and eosinophilic subgroups. Conclusions: The airway microbiome can stratify neutrophilic COPD into subgroups that justify different therapies. Neutrophilic and eosinophilic COPD are interchangeable in some patients. Monitoring temporal variability of the airway microbiome may track patient inflammatory status over time.

Performance of Contactless Respiratory Rate Monitoring by Albus HomeTM, an Automated System for Nocturnal Monitoring at Home: A Validation Study.

Respiratory rate (RR) is a clinically important predictor of cardio-respiratory deteriorations. The mainstay of clinical measurement comprises the manual counting of chest movements, which is variable between clinicians and limited to sporadic readings. Emerging solutions are limited by poor adherence and acceptability or are not clinically validated. Albus HomeTM is a contactless and automated bedside system for nocturnal respiratory monitoring that overcomes these limitations. This study aimed to validate the accuracy of Albus Home compared to gold standards in real-world sleeping environments. Participants undertook overnight monitoring simultaneously using Albus Home and gold-standard polygraphy with thoraco-abdominal respiratory effort belts (SomnomedicsEU). Reference RR readings were obtained by clinician-count of polygraphy data. For both the Albus system and reference, RRs were measured in 30-s segments, reported as breaths/minute, and compared. Accuracy was defined as the percentage of RRs from the Albus system within ±2 breaths/minute of reference counts. Across a diverse validation set of 32 participants, the mean accuracy exceeded 98% and was maintained across different participant characteristics. In a Bland-Altman analysis, Albus RRs had strong agreement with reference mean differences and the limits of agreement of -0.4 and ±1.2 breaths/minute, respectively. Albus Home is a contactless yet accurate system for automated respiratory monitoring. Validated against gold -standard methods, it enables long-term, reliable nocturnal monitoring without patient burden.

Eosinophilic inflammation in COPD: from an inflammatory marker to a treatable trait.

The heterogeneity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) creates many diagnostic, prognostic, treatment and management challenges, as the pathogenesis of COPD is highly complex and the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. A reliable, easy-to-measure, clinically relevant biomarker would be invaluable for improving outcomes for patients. International and national guidance for COPD suggests using blood eosinophil counts as a biomarker to help estimate likely responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and, potentially, to aid effective management strategies. However, with the mechanism underlying the association between higher eosinophil levels and ICS effect unknown, use of the blood eosinophil count in COPD continues to be widely debated by the respiratory community.Two international meetings involving respiratory medicine specialists, immunologists and primary and secondary care clinicians were held in November 2018 and March 2019, facilitated and funded by GlaxoSmithKline plc. The aims of these meetings were to explore the role of eosinophils in the disease processes of COPD and as prognostic and diagnostic markers, and to identify areas of deficient knowledge that warrant further research. The consensus views of the attendees on key topics, contextualised with current literature, are summarised in this review article, with the aim of aiding ongoing research into the disease processes of COPD and the development of biomarkers to aid clinical management.Under certain conditions, eosinophils can be recruited to the lung, and increasing evidence supports a role for eosinophilic inflammation in some patients with COPD. Infiltration of eosinophils across the bronchial vascular epithelium into the airways is promoted by the actions of immunoregulatory cells, cytokines and chemokines, where eosinophil-mediated inflammation is driven by the release of proinflammatory mediators.Multiple studies and two meta-analyses suggest peripheral blood eosinophils may correlate positively with an increased likelihood of exacerbation reduction benefits of ICS in COPD. The studies, however, vary in design and duration and by which eosinophil levels are viewed as predictive of an ICS response. Generally, the response was seen when eosinophil levels were 100-300 cells/µL (or higher), levels which are traditionally viewed within the normal range. Some success with interleukin-5-targeted therapy suggests that the eosinophilic phenotype may be a treatable trait.The use of biomarkers could help to stratify treatment for COPD-the goal of which is to improve patient outcomes. Some evidence supports eosinophils as a potential biomarker of a treatable trait in COPD, though it is still lacking and research is ongoing. A unified consensus and a practical, accessible and affordable method of utilising any biomarker for COPD was thought to be of most importance. Challenges around its utilisation may include presenting a clear and pragmatic rationale for biomarker-driven therapy, guidance on ICS withdrawal between primary and secondary care and a lack of financial incentives supporting broad application in clinical practice. Future treatments should, perhaps, be more targeted rather than assuming the primary disease label (COPD or asthma) will define treatment response.

Renaming COPD exacerbations: the UK respiratory nursing perspective.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD experience acute worsenings, termed 'exacerbations'. While other terms to describe these events have been proposed there is no consensus on terminology which has led to multiple terms being used across the UK. Respiratory nurses are part of a multi-disciplinary team managing COPD patients, however, the nursing perspective on the term 'exacerbation' is unknown. METHODS: An anonymised survey of 17 questions was sent to respiratory nurses through an email invitation link. The survey link was open for one month. The aim was to understand the nurse perspective on 'exacerbation'. Alternative terms used in the UK were compared versus the term 'exacerbation'. RESULTS: Responses were received from 113 nurses. The majority (88%) were female. There was no consensus on preference or meaning for the term 'exacerbation' between nurses. Less than 5% of nurses thought that patients with COPD would understand the term 'exacerbation'. In ranked order, the nurses preferred the following terms: 'flare-up', 'lung attack', 'crisis', 'exacerbation' and 'chest infection'. The term 'crisis', although new, was considered to be the term that most resonated with clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Respiratory nurses in the UK report that the term 'exacerbation' is not fit for purpose for patients, and alternatives should be sought.

An expert consensus framework for asthma remission as a treatment goal.

With novel therapies in development, there is an opportunity to consider asthma remission as a treatment goal. In this Rostrum, we present a generalized framework for clinical and complete remission in asthma, on and off treatment, developed on the basis of medical literature and expert consensus. A modified Delphi survey approach was used to ascertain expert consensus on core components of asthma remission as a treatment target. Phase 1 identified other chronic inflammatory diseases with remission definitions. Phase 2 evaluated components of those definitions as well as published definitions of spontaneous asthma remission. Phase 3 evaluated a remission framework created using consensus findings. Clinical remission comprised 12 or more months with (1) absence of significant symptoms by validated instrument, (2) lung function optimization/stabilization, (3) patient/provider agreement regarding remission, and (4) no use of systemic corticosteroids. Complete remission was defined as clinical remission plus objective resolution of asthma-related inflammation and, if appropriate, negative bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Remission off treatment required no asthma treatment for 12 or more months. The proposed framework is a first step toward developing asthma remission as a treatment target and should be refined through future research, patient input, and clinical study.

Resistome analyses of sputum from COPD and healthy subjects reveals bacterial load-related prevalence of target genes.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a major global threat. We hypothesised that the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) airway is a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) that associate with microbiome-specific COPD subgroups. OBJECTIVE: To determine the resistance gene profiles in respiratory samples from COPD patients and healthy volunteers. METHODS: Quantitative PCR targeting 279 specific ARGs was used to profile the resistomes in sputum from subjects with COPD at stable, exacerbation and recovery visits (n=55; COPD-BEAT study), healthy controls with (n=7) or without (n=22) exposure to antibiotics in the preceding 12 months (EXCEED study) and in bronchial brush samples from COPD (n=8) and healthy controls (n=7) (EvA study). RESULTS: ARG mean (SEM) prevalence was greater in stable COPD samples (35.2 (1.6)) than in healthy controls (27.6 (1.7); p=0.004) and correlated with total bacterial abundance (r2=0.23; p<0.001). Prevalence of ARG positive signals in individuals was not related to COPD symptoms, lung function or their changes at exacerbation. In the COPD subgroups designated High γProteobacteria and High Firmicutes, ARG prevalence was not different at stable state but significantly declined from stable through exacerbation to recovery in the former (p=0.011) without changes in total bacterial abundance. The ARG patterns were similar in COPD versus health, COPD microbiome-subgroups and between sputum and bronchoscopic samples independent of antibiotic exposure in the last 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: ARGs are highly prevalent in sputum, broadly in proportion to bacterial abundance in both healthy and COPD subjects. Thus, COPD appears to be an ARG reservoir due to high levels of bacterial colonisation.

Reduced risk of clinically important deteriorations by ICS in COPD is eosinophil dependent: a pooled post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinically Important Deterioration (CID) is a novel composite measure to assess treatment effect in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We examined the performance and utility of CID in assessing the effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of four budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) studies comprised 3576 symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients with a history of exacerbation. Analysis of time to first CID event (exacerbation, deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] or worsening St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] score) was completed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with ≥1 CID in the four studies ranged between 63 and 77% and 69-84% with BUD/FORM and FORM, respectively, with an average 25% reduced risk of CID with BUD/FORM. All components contributed to the CID event rate. Experiencing a CID during the first 3 months was associated with poorer outcomes (lung function, quality of life, symptoms and reliever use) and increased risk of later CID events. The effect of BUD/FORM versus FORM in reducing CID risk was positively associated with the blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that BUD/FORM offers protective effects for CID events compared with FORM alone, with the magnitude of the effect dependent on patients' eosinophil levels. CID may be an important tool for evaluation of treatment effect in a complex, multifaceted, and progressive disease like COPD, and a valuable tool to allow for shorter and smaller future outcome predictive trials in early drug development.

Sputum microbiomic clustering in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reveals a Haemophilus-predominant subgroup.

BACKGROUND: Airway ecology is altered in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Anti-microbial interventions might have benefit in subgroups of airway disease. Differences in sputum microbial profiles at acute exacerbation of airways disease are reflected by the γProteobacteria:Firmicutes (γP:F) ratio. We hypothesized that sputum microbiomic clusters exist in stable airways disease, which can be differentiated by the sputum γP:F ratio. METHODS: Sputum samples were collected from 63 subjects with severe asthma and 78 subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD in a prospective single centre trial. Microbial profiles were obtained through 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Topological data analysis was used to visualize the data set and cluster analysis performed at genus level. Clinical characteristics and sputum inflammatory mediators were compared across the clusters. RESULTS: Two ecological clusters were identified across the combined airways disease population. The smaller cluster was predominantly COPD and was characterized by dominance of Haemophilus at genus level (n = 20), high γP:F ratio, increased H influenzae, low diversity measures and increased pro-inflammatory mediators when compared to the larger Haemophilus-low cluster (n = 121), in which Streptococcus demonstrated the highest relative abundance at the genus level. Similar clusters were identified within disease groups individually and the γP:F ratio consistently differentiated between clusters. CONCLUSION: Cluster analysis by airway ecology of asthma and COPD in stable state identified two subgroups differentiated according to dominance of Haemophilus. The γP:F ratio was able to distinguish the Haemophilus-high versus Haemophilus-low subgroups, whether the Haemophilus-high group might benefit from treatment strategies to modulate the airway ecology warrants further investigation.

Building toolkits for COPD exacerbations: lessons from the past and present.

In the nineteenth century, it was recognised that acute attacks of chronic bronchitis were harmful. 140 years later, it is clearer than ever that exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD) are important events. They are associated with significant mortality, morbidity, a reduced quality of life and an increasing reliance on social care. ECOPD are common and are increasing in prevalence. Exacerbations beget exacerbations, with up to a quarter of in-patient episodes ending with readmission to hospital within 30 days. The healthcare costs are immense. Yet despite this, the tools available to diagnose and treat ECOPD are essentially unchanged, with the last new intervention (non-invasive ventilation) introduced over 25 years ago.An ECOPD is 'an acute worsening of respiratory symptoms that results in additional therapy'. This symptom and healthcare utility-based definition does not describe pathology and is unable to differentiate from other causes of an acute deterioration in breathlessness with or without a cough and sputum. There is limited understanding of the host immune response during an acute event and no reliable and readily available means to identify aetiology or direct treatment at the point of care (POC). Corticosteroids, short acting bronchodilators with or without antibiotics have been the mainstay of treatment for over 30 years. This is in stark contrast to many other acute presentations of chronic illness, where specific biomarkers and mechanistic understanding has revolutionised care pathways. So why has progress been so slow in ECOPD? This review examines the history of diagnosing and treating ECOPD. It suggests that to move forward, there needs to be an acceptance that not all exacerbations are alike (just as not all COPD is alike) and that clinical presentation alone cannot identify aetiology or stratify treatment.