Blood eosinophil-guided oral prednisolone for COPD exacerbations in primary care in the UK (STARR2): a non-inferiority, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic glucocorticoids are recommended for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations; however, there is increased harm associated with their use. We hypothesised that the use of eosinophil biomarker-directed oral prednisolone therapy at the time of an exacerbation of COPD was effective at reducing prednisolone use without affecting adverse outcomes. METHODS: The studying acute exacerbations and response (STARR2) study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 14 primary care practices in the UK. We included adults (aged ≥40 years), who were current or former smokers (with at least a 10 pack year smoking history) with a diagnosis of COPD, defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than 0·7 previously recorded by the primary care physician, and a history of at least one exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring systemic corticosteroids with or without antibiotics. All study staff and participants were masked to study group allocation and to treatment allocation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to blood eosinophil-directed treatment (BET; to receive oral prednisolone 30 mg once daily if eosinophil count was high [≥2%] or placebo if eosinophil count was low [<2%]) or to standard care treatment (ST; to receive prednisolone 30 mg once daily irrespective of the point-of-care eosinophil result). Treatment was prescribed for 14 days and all patients also received antibiotics. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure, defined as any need for re-treatment with antibiotics or steroids, hospitalisation for any cause, or death, assessed at 30 days after exacerbation in the modified intention-to-treat population. Participants were eligible for re-randomisation at further exacerbations (with a maximum of four exacerbations per participant). A safety analysis was conducted on all randomly assigned participants. Although designed as a superiority trial, after identification of an error in the randomisation code before data lock the study converted to show non-inferiority. An upper margin of 1·105 for the 95% CI was defined as the non-inferiority margin. This study was registered with EudraCT, 2017-001586-24, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2017, and April 30, 2020, 308 participants were recruited from 14 general practices. 144 exacerbations (73 in the BET group and 71 in the ST group) from 93 participants (mean age 70 years [range 46-84] and mean percent predicted FEV1 60·9% [SD 19·4]; 52 [56%] male and 41 [44%] female; ethnicity data was not collected]) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. There were 14 (19%) treatment failures at 30 days post-exacerbation in the BET group and 23 (32%) in the ST group; we found a large non-significant estimated effect between BET and ST (RR 0·60 [95% CI 0·33-1·04]; p=0·070) in reducing treatment failures after a COPD exacerbation. The non-inferiority analysis supported that BET was non-inferior to ST. Frequency of adverse events were similar between the study groups; glycosuria (2/102 [2%] in BET group and 1/101 [1%] in the ST group) and hospital admission for COPD exacerbation (2/102 [2%] in BET group and 1/101 [1%] in the ST group) were the two most common adverse events in both groups. No deaths occurred in the study. INTERPRETATION: Blood eosinophil-directed prednisolone therapy at the time of an acute exacerbation of COPD is non-inferior to standard care and can be used to safely reduce systemic glucocorticoid use in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19. METHODS: We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (Steroids in COVID-19; STOIC) of inhaled budesonide, compared with usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The trial was done in the community in Oxfordshire, UK. Participants were randomly assigned to inhaled budsonide or usual care stratified for age (≤40 years or >40 years), sex (male or female), and number of comorbidities (≤1 and ≥2). Randomisation was done using random sequence generation in block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio. Budesonide dry powder was delivered using a turbohaler at a dose of 400 µg per actuation. Participants were asked to take two inhalations twice a day until symptom resolution. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, including emergency department assessment or hospitalisation, analysed for both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The secondary outcomes were self-reported clinical recovery (symptom resolution), viral symptoms measured using the Common Cold Questionnare (CCQ) and the InFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome Questionnaire (FLUPro), body temperature, blood oxygen saturations, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399. FINDINGS: From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned-73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0-50] vs 50% [15-71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference -0·12, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference -0·10, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

Comparison of the peripheral blood eosinophil count using near-patient testing and standard automated laboratory measurement in healthy, asthmatic and COPD subjects.

Near-patient testing (NPT) allows clinical decisions to be made in a rapid and convenient manner and is often cost effective. In COPD the peripheral blood eosinophil count has been demonstrated to have utility in providing prognostic information and predicting response to treatment during an acute exacerbation. For this potential to be achieved having a reliable NPT of blood eosinophil count would be extremely useful. Therefore, we investigated the use of the HemoCue® WBC Diff System and evaluated its sensitivity and specificity in healthy, asthmatic and COPD subjects. This method requires a simple skin prick of blood and was compared to standard venepuncture laboratory analysis. The HemoCue® WBC Diff System measured the peripheral blood eosinophil count in healthy, asthma and COPD subjects with very close correlation to the eosinophil count as measured by standard venepuncture. The correlations were unaffected by disease status. This method for the measurement of the peripheral blood eosinophil count has the potential to provide rapid near-patient results and thus influence the speed of management decisions in the treatment of airway diseases.