Patterns of care in the management of high-risk COPD in the US (2011-2019): an observational study for the CONQUEST quality improvement program.

Background: In this study, we compare management of patients with high-risk chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States to national and international guidelines and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). Methods: Patients were identified from the DARTNet Practice Performance Registry and categorized into three high-risk cohorts in each year from 2011 to 2019: newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and patients with potential undiagnosed COPD. Patients were considered high-risk if they had a history of exacerbations or likely exacerbations (respiratory consult with prescribed medication). Descriptive statistics for 2019 are reported, along with annual trends. Findings: In 2019, 10% (n = 16,610/167,197) of patients met high-risk criteria. Evidence of spirometry for diagnosis was low; in 2019, 81% (n = 1228/1523) of patients newly diagnosed at high-risk had no record of spirometry/peak expiratory flow in the 12 months pre- or post-diagnosis and 43% (n = 651/1523) had no record of COPD symptom review. Among those newly and already diagnosed at high-risk, 52% (n = 4830/9350) had no evidence of COPD medication. Interpretation: Findings suggest inconsistent adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and opportunities to improve identification, documentation of services, assessment, therapeutic intervention, and follow-up of patients with COPD. Funding: This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

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.

Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL) and Pathologic Assessment of Electronic Cigarette or Vaping Product Use-associated Lung Injury (EVALI): The EVALI-BAL Study, A Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: E-cigarette or vaping-use related acute lung injury (EVALI) is a spectrum of radiographic and histologic patterns consistent with acute to subacute lung injury. However, limited data exist characterizing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) findings. The goal of this study is to further define the pathologic findings from BAL and biopsy samples of subjects with EVALI across 7 institutions. METHODS: A multicentered registry of patients admitted with EVALI who underwent flexible bronchoscopy with BAL+/-transbronchial biopsy from July 2019 to April 2021 was compiled for retrospective evaluation from 7 academic institutions throughout the United States. Radiographic and cytopathologic findings and frequencies were correlated with the substance vaped. RESULTS: Data from 21 subjects (42.9% women) who were predominantly White (76.2%) with a median age of 25 years (range, 16 to 68) with EVALI were included in this study. Sixteen patients (76.2%) reported use of tetrahydrocannabinol; the remainder used nicotine. BAL was performed in 19 of the 21 subjects, and transbronchial lung biopsy was performed in 7 subjects. BAL findings revealed neutrophilic predominance (median, 59.5%, range, 3.1 to 98) in most cases. Ten BAL samples demonstrated pulmonary eosinophilia ranging from 0.2% to 49.1% with one subject suggesting a diagnosis of acute eosinophilic pneumonia associated with the use of e-cigarettes. Lipid-laden macrophages were noted in 10 of 15 reports (66.7%). Transbronchial biopsy most frequently demonstrated patterns of organizing pneumonia (57.1%). CONCLUSION: EVALI-associated BAL findings typically demonstrate a spectrum of nonspecific inflammatory changes, including neutrophilia, lipid-laden macrophages, and in some cases eosinophilia.

Bronchodilators in Tobacco-Exposed Persons with Symptoms and Preserved Lung Function.

BACKGROUND: Many persons with a history of smoking tobacco have clinically significant respiratory symptoms despite an absence of airflow obstruction as assessed by spirometry. They are often treated with medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but supporting evidence for this treatment is lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned persons who had a tobacco-smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, respiratory symptoms as defined by a COPD Assessment Test score of at least 10 (scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), and preserved lung function on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ≥0.70 and FVC ≥70% of the predicted value after bronchodilator use) to receive either indacaterol (27.5 µg) plus glycopyrrolate (15.6 µg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was at least a 4-point decrease (i.e., improvement) in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health status) after 12 weeks without treatment failure (defined as an increase in lower respiratory symptoms treated with a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, glucocorticoid, or antibiotic agent). RESULTS: A total of 535 participants underwent randomization. In the modified intention-to-treat population (471 participants), 128 of 227 participants (56.4%) in the treatment group and 144 of 244 (59.0%) in the placebo group had at least a 4-point decrease in the SGRQ score (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.6 to 6.3; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.37; P = 0.65). The mean change in the percent of predicted FEV1 was 2.48 percentage points (95% CI, 1.49 to 3.47) in the treatment group and -0.09 percentage points (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.89) in the placebo group, and the mean change in the inspiratory capacity was 0.12 liters (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) in the treatment group and 0.02 liters (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events occurred in the treatment group, and 11 occurred in the placebo group; none were deemed potentially related to the treatment or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled dual bronchodilator therapy did not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with preserved lung function as assessed by spirometry. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; RETHINC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867761.).

Quantitative Emphysema on Low-Dose CT Imaging of the Chest and Risk of Lung Cancer and Airflow Obstruction: An Analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer risk prediction models do not routinely incorporate imaging metrics available on low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging of the chest ordered for lung cancer screening. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between quantitative emphysema measured on LDCT imaging and lung cancer incidence and mortality, all-cause mortality, and airflow obstruction in individuals who currently or formerly smoked and are undergoing lung cancer screening? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In 7,262 participants in the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, percent low attenuation area (%LAA) was defined as the percentage of lung volume with voxels less than -950 Hounsfield units on the baseline examination. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for competing risks where appropriate, were built to test for association between %LAA and lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality with censoring at 6 years. In addition, multivariable logistic regression models were built to test the cross-sectional association between %LAA and airflow obstruction on spirometry, which was available in 2,700 participants. RESULTS: The median %LAA was 0.8% (interquartile range, 0.2%-2.7%). Every 1% increase in %LAA was independently associated with higher hazards of lung cancer incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .004), lung cancer mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = .045), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .042). Among participants with spirometry, 892 had airflow obstruction. The likelihood of airflow obstruction increased with every 1% increase in %LAA (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09; P < .001). A %LAA cutoff of 1% had the best discriminative accuracy for airflow obstruction in participants aged > 65 years. INTERPRETATION: Quantitative emphysema measured on LDCT imaging of the chest can be leveraged to improve lung cancer risk prediction and help diagnose COPD in individuals who currently or formerly smoked and are undergoing lung cancer screening.

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.

Novel Respiratory Disability Score Predicts COPD Exacerbations and Mortality in the SPIROMICS Cohort.

Rationale: Some COPD patients develop extreme breathlessness, decreased exercise capacity and poor health status yet respiratory disability is poorly characterized as a distinct phenotype. Objective: To define respiratory disability in COPD based on available functional measures and to determine associations with risk for exacerbations and death. Methods: We analyzed baseline data from a multi-center observational study (SPIROMICS). This analysis includes 2332 participants (472 with severe COPD, 991 with mild/moderate COPD, 726 smokers without airflow obstruction and 143 non-smoking controls). Measurements: We defined respiratory disability by ≥4 of 7 criteria: mMRC dyspnea scale ≥3; Veterans Specific Activity Questionnaire <5; 6-minute walking distance <250 m; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire activity domain >60; COPD Assessment Test >20; fatigue (FACIT-F Trial Outcome Index) <50; SF-12 <20. Results: Using these criteria, respiratory disability was identified in 315 (13.5%) participants (52.1% female). Frequencies were severe COPD 34.5%; mild-moderate COPD 11.2%; smokers without obstruction 5.2% and never-smokers 2.1%. Compared with others, participants with disability had more emphysema (13.2 vs. 6.6%) and air-trapping (37.0 vs. 21.6%) on HRCT (P<0.0001). Using principal components analysis to derive a disability score, two factors explained 71% of variance, and a cut point -1.0 reliably identified disability. This disability score independently predicted future exacerbations (ß=0.34; CI 0.12, 0.64; P=0.003) and death (HR 2.97; CI 1.54, 5.75; P=0.001). Thus, participants with disability by this criterion had almost three times greater mortality compared to those without disability. Conclusion: Our novel SPIROMICS respiratory disability score in COPD was associated with worse airflow obstruction as well as airway wall thickening, lung parenchymal destruction and certain inflammatory biomarkers. The disability score also proved to be an independent predictor of future exacerbations and death. These findings validate disability as an important phenotype in the spectrum of COPD.

Frailty and geriatric conditions in older patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Functional status, an important predictor of health outcomes in older patients, has not been studied in an IPF population. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of frailty and geriatric conditions in older patients with IPF. METHODS: IPF patients age ≥65 years were identified prospectively at the University of Michigan. Frailty was assessed using the Fried frailty phenotype. Questionnaires addressing functional status, geriatric conditions and symptoms were administered. Quantitative measurement of pectoralis muscle area was performed. Patient variables were compared among different frailty groups. RESULTS: Of the 50 participants, 48% were found to be frail and 40% had ≥2 geriatric conditions. Frailty was associated with increased age, lower lung function, shorter 6-min walk distance, higher symptom scores and a greater number of comorbidities, geriatric conditions and functional limitations (p < 0.05). Pectoralis muscle area was nearly significant (p = 0.08). Self-reported fatigue score (odds ratio [OR] = 2.13, confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.23-3.70, p = 0.0068) and diffusion capacity (OR = 0.54 CI 95% 0.35-0.85, p = 0.0071) were independent predictors of frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty and geriatric conditions are common in older patients with IPF. The presence of frailty was associated with objective (diffusion capacity) and subjective (self-reported fatigue score) data. Longitudinal evaluation is necessary to determine impact of frailty on disease-related outcomes in IPF.

Noninvasive Imaging Biomarker Identifies Small Airway Damage in Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Evidence suggests damage to small airways is a key pathologic lesion in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Computed tomography densitometry has been demonstrated to identify emphysema, but no such studies have been performed linking an imaging metric to small airway abnormality.Objectives: To correlate ex vivo parametric response mapping (PRM) analysis to in vivo lung tissue measurements of patients with severe COPD treated by lung transplantation and control subjects.Methods: Resected lungs were inflated, frozen, and systematically sampled, generating 33 COPD (n = 11 subjects) and 22 control tissue samples (n = 3 subjects) for micro-computed tomography analysis of terminal bronchioles (TBs; last generation of conducting airways) and emphysema.Measurements and Main Results: PRM analysis was conducted to differentiate functional small airways disease (PRMfSAD) from emphysema (PRMEmph). In COPD lungs, TB numbers were reduced (P = 0.01); surviving TBs had increased wall area percentage (P < 0.001), decreased circularity (P < 0.001), reduced cross-sectional luminal area (P < 0.001), and greater airway obstruction (P = 0.008). COPD lungs had increased airspace size (P < 0.001) and decreased alveolar surface area (P < 0.001). Regression analyses demonstrated unique correlations between PRMfSAD and TBs, with decreased circularity (P < 0.001), decreased luminal area (P < 0.001), and complete obstruction (P = 0.008). PRMEmph correlated with increased airspace size (P < 0.001), decreased alveolar surface area (P = 0.003), and fewer alveolar attachments per TB (P = 0.01).Conclusions: PRMfSAD identifies areas of lung tissue with TB loss, luminal narrowing, and obstruction. This is the first confirmation that an imaging biomarker can identify terminal bronchial pathology in established COPD and provides a noninvasive imaging methodology to identify small airway damage in COPD.

Can CAPTURE be used to identify undiagnosed patients with mild-to-moderate COPD likely to benefit from treatment?

Background: COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE™) uses five questions and peak expiratory flow (PEF) thresholds (males ≤350 L/min; females ≤250 L/min) to identify patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.70 and FEV1 <60% predicted or exacerbation risk requiring further evaluation for COPD. This study tested CAPTURE's ability to identify symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate COPD (FEV1 60%-80% predicted) who may also benefit from diagnosis and treatment. Methods: Data from the CAPTURE development study were used to test its sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) differentiating mild-to-moderate COPD (n=73) from no COPD (n=87). SN and SP for differentiating all COPD cases (mild to severe; n=259) from those without COPD (n=87) were also estimated. The modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale and COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) were used to evaluate symptoms and health status. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01880177, https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01880177?term=NCT01880177&rank=1. Results: Mean age (+SD): 61 (+10.5) years; 41% male. COPD: FEV1/FVC=0.60 (+0.1), FEV1% predicted=74% (+12.4). SN and SP for differentiating mild-to-moderate and non-COPD patients (n=160): Questionnaire: 83.6%, 67.8%; PEF (≤450 L/min; ≤350 L/min): 83.6%, 66.7%; CAPTURE (Questionnaire+PEF): 71.2%, 83.9%. COPD patients whose CAPTURE results suggested that diagnostic evaluation was warranted (n=52) were more likely to be symptomatic than patients whose results did not (n=21) (mMRC >2: 37% vs 5%, p<0.01; CAT>10: 86% vs 57%, p<0.01). CAPTURE differentiated COPD from no COPD (n=346): SN: 88.0%, SP: 83.9%. Conclusion: CAPTURE (450/350) may be useful for identifying symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate airflow obstruction in need of diagnostic evaluation for COPD.

Handgrip Strength in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Associations with Acute Exacerbations and Body Composition.

RATIONALE: Handgrip strength (HGS) predicts mortality in the elderly, but its determinants and clinical significance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been defined. OBJECTIVES: We tested associations of HGS with pectoralis muscle area (PMA), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), imaging characteristics, and lung function in smokers with COPD, and evaluated the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of HGS with acute respiratory events. METHODS: We analyzed demographic, clinical, spirometry, HGS, and imaging data of 272 subjects with COPD, obtaining measures of airway thickness, emphysema, PMA, and SAT from chest computed tomography scans. We tested associations of lung function and imaging characteristics with HGS, using linear models. HGS association to acute respiratory events at enrollment and during follow-up (mean, 2.6 years) was analyzed using adjusted logistic models. RESULTS: HGS correlated with PMA, SAT, forced expiratory volume, and airway thickness, but not with body mass index or emphysema severity. In adjusted regression models, HGS was directly (ß, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-3.0) and inversely (ß, -3.3; 95% CI, -5.1 to -0.9) associated with one standard deviation of PMA and SAT, respectively, independent of body mass index and emphysema. In regression models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, race, pack-years smoked, current smoking, chronic bronchitis, FEV1% predicted, emphysema, and airway metrics, HGS was associated with exacerbation risk; in cross-sectional analyses, there was an increment of 5% in the risk of exacerbations for each 1-kg decrement in HGS (risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08), and there was a similar risk during follow-up (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1,07). CONCLUSIONS: In ever-smokers with COPD, HGS is associated with computed tomography markers of body composition and airway thickness, independent of body mass index and emphysema. Higher HGS is associated with lower exacerbation frequency.

How Well Does CAPTURE Translate?: An Exploratory Analysis of a COPD Case-Finding Method for Spanish-Speaking Patients.

BACKGROUND: This study tested the properties of a Spanish translation of CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk) with selective use of peak expiratory flow (PEF). METHODS: This study comprised analyses of data from the Spanish-speaking cohort of the cross-sectional, case-control study used to develop CAPTURE. Translation procedures included forward and backward translation, reconciliation, and cognitive interviewing to assure linguistic and cultural equivalence, yielding CAPTURE-S. Spanish-speaking participants were recruited through one center and designated as case subjects (clinically significant COPD: FEV1 ≤ 60% predicted and/or at risk of COPD exacerbation) or control subjects (no or mild COPD). Subjects completed a questionnaire booklet that included 44 candidate items, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea question. PEF and spirometry were also performed. RESULTS: The study included 30 participants (17 case subjects and 13 control subjects). Their mean (± SD) age was 62.6 (11.49) years, and 33% were male. CAPTURE-S scores were significantly correlated with PEF (r = -0.78), the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = -0.74), FEV1 (r = -0.69), FEV1 % predicted (r = -0.69), the CAT score (r = 0.70), and the mMRC dyspnea question (r = 0.59) (P < .0001), with significantly higher scores in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 6.16; P < .0001). PEF significantly correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.89), FEV1 % predicted (r = 0.79), and the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = 0.75) (P < .0001), with significantly lower PEF in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 5.08; P < .0001). CAPTURE-S score + PEF differentiated case subjects and control subjects with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 92.3%. CONCLUSIONS: CAPTURE-S with selective use of PEF seems to be useful for identifying Spanish-speaking patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD who may benefit from initiation of COPD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01880177; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Age and Small Airway Imaging Abnormalities in Subjects with and without Airflow Obstruction in SPIROMICS.

RATIONALE: Aging is associated with reduced FEV1 to FVC ratio (FEV1/FVC), hyperinflation, and alveolar enlargement, but little is known about how age affects small airways. OBJECTIVES: To determine if chest computed tomography (CT)-assessed functional small airway would increase with age, even among asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: We used parametric response mapping analysis of paired inspiratory/expiratory CTs to identify functional small airway abnormality (PRMFSA) and emphysema (PRMEMPH) in the SPIROMICS (Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study) cohort. Using adjusted linear regression models, we analyzed associations between PRMFSA and age in subjects with or without airflow obstruction. We subdivided participants with normal spirometry based on respiratory-related impairment (6-minute-walk distance <350 m, modified Medical Research Council ≥2, chronic bronchitis, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire >25, respiratory events requiring treatment [antibiotics and/or steroids or hospitalization] in the year before enrollment). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 580 never- and ever-smokers without obstruction or respiratory impairment, PRMFSA increased 2.7% per decade, ranging from 3.6% (ages 40-50 yr) to 12.7% (ages 70-80 yr). PRMEMPH increased nonsignificantly (0.1% [ages 40-50 yr] to 0.4% [ages 70-80 yr]; P = 0.34). Associations were similar among nonobstructed individuals with respiratory-related impairment. Increasing PRMFSA in subjects without airflow obstruction was associated with increased FVC (P = 0.004) but unchanged FEV1 (P = 0.94), yielding lower FEV1/FVC ratios (P < 0.001). Although emphysema was also significantly associated with lower FEV1/FVC (P = 0.04), its contribution relative to PRMFSA in those without airflow obstruction was limited by its low burden. CONCLUSIONS: In never- and ever-smokers without airflow obstruction, aging is associated with increased FVC and CT-defined functional small airway abnormality regardless of respiratory symptoms.

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).

Predictors of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in absence of radiologic honeycombing: A cross sectional analysis in ILD patients undergoing lung tissue sampling.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) can be diagnosed confidently and non-invasively when clinical and computed tomography (CT) criteria are met. Many do not meet these criteria due to absence of CT honeycombing. We investigated predictors of IPF and combinations allowing accurate diagnosis in individuals without honeycombing. METHODS: We utilized prospectively collected clinical and CT data from patients enrolled in the Lung Tissue Research Consortium. Included patients had no honeycombing, no connective tissue disease, underwent diagnostic lung biopsy, and had CT pattern consistent with fibrosing ILD (n = 200). Logistic regression identified clinical and CT variables predictive of IPF. The probability of IPF was assessed at various cut-points of important clinical and CT variables. RESULTS: A multivariable model adjusted for age and gender found increasingly extensive reticular densities (OR 2.93, CI 95% 1.55-5.56, p = 0.001) predicted IPF, while increasing ground glass densities predicted a diagnosis other than IPF (OR 0.55, CI 95% 0.34-0.89, p = 0.02). The model-based probability of IPF was 80% or greater in patients with age at least 60 years and extent of reticular density one-third or more of total lung volume; for patients meeting or exceeding these clinical thresholds the specificity for IPF is 96% (CI 95% 91-100%) with 21 of 134 (16%) biopsies avoided. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected fibrotic ILD and absence of CT honeycombing, extent of reticular and ground glass densities predict a diagnosis of IPF. The probability of IPF exceeds 80% in subjects over age 60 years with one-third of total lung having reticular densities.

Meeting the challenge of COPD care delivery in the USA: a multiprovider perspective.

The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA continues to grow. Although progress has been made in the the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and care guidelines, whether patients' quality of life is improved will ultimately depend on the actual implementation of care and an individual patient's access to that care. In this Commission, we summarise expert opinion from key stakeholders-patients, caregivers, and medical professionals, as well as representatives from health systems, insurance companies, and industry-to understand barriers to care delivery and propose potential solutions. Health care in the USA is delivered through a patchwork of provider networks, with a wide variation in access to care depending on a patient's insurance, geographical location, and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, Medicare's complicated coverage and reimbursement structure pose unique challenges for patients with chronic respiratory disease who might need access to several types of services. Throughout this Commission, recurring themes include poor guideline implementation among health-care providers and poor patient access to key treatments such as affordable maintenance drugs and pulmonary rehabilitation. Although much attention has recently been focused on the reduction of hospital readmissions for COPD exacerbations, health systems in the USA struggle to meet these goals, and methods to reduce readmissions have not been proven. There are no easy solutions, but engaging patients and innovative thinkers in the development of solutions is crucial. Financial incentives might be important in raising engagement of providers and health systems. Lowering co-pays for maintenance drugs could result in improved adherence and, ultimately, decreased overall health-care spending. Given the substantial geographical diversity, health systems will need to find their own solutions to improve care coordination and integration, until better data for interventions that are universally effective become available.

Insight into Best Variables for COPD Case Identification: A Random Forests Analysis.

RATIONALE: This study is part of a larger, multi-method project to develop a questionnaire for identifying undiagnosed cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care settings, with specific interest in the detection of patients with moderate to severe airway obstruction or risk of exacerbation. OBJECTIVES: To examine 3 existing datasets for insight into key features of COPD that could be useful in the identification of undiagnosed COPD. METHODS: Random forests analyses were applied to the following databases: COPD Foundation Peak Flow Study Cohort (N=5761), Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) Kentucky site (N=508), and COPDGene® (N=10,214). Four scenarios were examined to find the best, smallest sets of variables that distinguished cases and controls:(1) moderate to severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] <50% predicted) versus no COPD; (2) undiagnosed versus diagnosed COPD; (3) COPD with and without exacerbation history; and (4) clinically significant COPD (FEV1<60% predicted or history of acute exacerbation) versus all others. RESULTS: From 4 to 8 variables were able to differentiate cases from controls, with sensitivity ≥73 (range: 73-90) and specificity >68 (range: 68-93). Across scenarios, the best models included age, smoking status or history, symptoms (cough, wheeze, phlegm), general or breathing-related activity limitation, episodes of acute bronchitis, and/or missed work days and non-work activities due to breathing or health. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide insight into variables that should be considered during the development of candidate items for a new questionnaire to identify undiagnosed cases of clinically significant COPD.

Identifying Patients with Undiagnosed COPD in Primary Care Settings: Insight from Screening Tools and Epidemiologic Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet research suggests this disease is greatly underdiagnosed. This literature review sought to summarize the most common and significant variables associated with case-finding or missed cases of COPD to inform more effective and efficient detection of high-risk COPD patients in primary care. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles describing case-finding and epidemiologic research to detect or characterize new cases of COPD. International studies in primary and non-primary care settings, published in English from 2002-2014, were eligible for inclusion. Studies related to risk factors for development of COPD were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 33 studies identified and reviewed, 21 were case-finding or screening and 12 were epidemiological, including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective designs. A range of variables were identified within and across studies. Variables common to both screening and epidemiological studies included age, smoking status, and respiratory symptoms. Seven significant predictors from epidemiologic studies did not appear in screening tools. No studies targeted discovery of higher risk patients such as those with reduced lung function or risks for exacerbations. CONCLUSION: Variables used to identify new cases of COPD or differentiate COPD cases and non-cases are wide- ranging, (from sociodemographic to self-reported health or health history variables), providing insight into important factors for case identification. Further research is underway to develop and test the best, smallest variable set that can be used as a screening tool to identify people with undiagnosed, high-risk COPD in primary care.

Identifying cases of undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care: qualitative insight from patients in the target population.

BACKGROUND: Many cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are diagnosed only after significant loss of lung function or during exacerbations. AIMS: This study is part of a multi-method approach to develop a new screening instrument for identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care. METHODS: Subjects with varied histories of COPD diagnosis, risk factors and history of exacerbations were recruited through five US clinics (four pulmonary, one primary care). Phase I: Eight focus groups and six telephone interviews were conducted to elicit descriptions of risk factors for COPD, recent or historical acute respiratory events, and symptoms to inform the development of candidate items for the new questionnaire. Phase II: A new cohort of subjects participated in cognitive interviews to assess and modify candidate items. Two peak expiratory flow (PEF) devices (electronic, manual) were assessed for use in screening. RESULTS: Of 77 subjects, 50 participated in Phase I and 27 in Phase II. Six themes informed item development: exposure (smoking, second-hand smoke); health history (family history of lung problems, recurrent chest infections); recent history of respiratory events (clinic visits, hospitalisations); symptoms (respiratory, non-respiratory); impact (activity limitations); and attribution (age, obesity). PEF devices were rated easy to use; electronic values were significantly higher than manual (P<0.0001). Revisions were made to the draft items on the basis of cognitive interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-eight candidate items are ready for quantitative testing to select the best, smallest set of questions that, together with PEF, can efficiently identify patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD.