TBD Meeting (5125-22)

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Add unprovoked venous thromboembolic events to the list of potential consequences of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

That conclusion comes from a study showing that patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who had the longest nocturnal hypoxemia episodes had a twofold risk for venous thromboembolic events.

The association between nocturnal hypoxemia and VTE was strongest among patients who did not use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) systems, reported Wojciech Trzepizur, MD, of Angers University Hospital, France.

Previous studies have suggested links between OSA and both cancer and cognitive decline, but this is the first study to investigate the association between OSA and the incidence of unprovoked VTE, he reported in an oral abstract session at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

“We found that those who spent more than 6% of their nighttime with levels of oxygen in their blood below 90% of normal had an almost twofold risk of developing VTEs compared to patients without oxygen deprivation,” he said.

Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues conducted a retrospective study linking cohort data to an administrative health database. They identified unprovoked VTE in patients with a suspicion for OSA and no previous VTE.

They created Cox proportional hazard models to assess the association of unprovoked VTE with apnea hypopnea index (AHI) measures and nocturnal hypoxemia markers, including the time patients spent below 90% oxygen saturation (T90), oxygen desaturation index (ODI), and hypoxic burden, defined as the total area under the respiratory event-related desaturation curve.

They found that after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, 104 out of 7,355 patients had an unprovoked VTE. In an unadjusted hazard model, there were significant associations between VTE and T90, as well as with hypoxic burden, but not with either AHI or ODI.

However, in an analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, alcohol intake, hypertension, depression, history of cardiovascular disease, statin use, type of sleep study, study site, and CPAP adherence, the investigators found that only T90 remained a significant independent predictor of VTE, with a hazard ratio of 1.06, P = .02.

The association between T90 and VTE strengthened as the time spent below 90% saturation increased. Patients in the highest tercile, who spent more than 6% of the time undersaturated, had an HR for VTE of 1.95 (P = .02), compared with patients with a T90 less than 1%.

There were no significant differences in VTE risk between patients who used CPAP for more than 4 hours per night and those who either used the devices for less than 4 hours or refused CPAP.

“We see that T90 seems to be a strong parameter,” said session comoderator Raphael Heinzer, MD, MPH, of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland.

Dr. Heinzer’s comoderator, Silke Ryan, MD, of University College Dublin, pointed out that although T90 was the main predictor of responses, Dr. Trzepizur and colleagues did not control for other pulmonary diseases.

“Obviously, there could be an influence of other hypoxic-related diseases,” she said, and recommended controlling for this in future studies.

Winfried Randerath, MD, of the Bethanien Hospital at the University of Cologne, Germany, head of the ERS specialist group on sleep disordered breathing, said that this study and others presented at the meeting “show worrying associations between obstructive sleep apnea and important diseases that affect survival and quality of life.

“While they cannot prove that OSA causes any of these health problems, people should be made aware of these links and should try to make lifestyle changes in order to reduce their risk of OSA, for instance, by maintaining a healthy weight. However, if OSA is suspected, definite diagnosis and treatment should be initiated. We look forward to further research that may help to clarify whether OSA may be causing some of the health problems seen in these studies,” said Dr. Randerath, who was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé Respiratoire des Pays de la Loire (IRSR), Beaucouzé, France. Dr. Trzepizur, Dr. Heinzer, Dr. Ryan and Dr. Randerath reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA – For patients with emphysema who are suitable candidates for lung volume reduction surgery, there were no differences at 1 year in either lung function, dyspnea, or exercise capacity between patients who were assigned to undergo standard lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobrachial valves (BLVR-EBV) in a randomized trial.

Among patients with emphysema amenable to surgery, there were similar improvements between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up as assessed by the iBODE score, a composite disease severity measure incorporating body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test), reported Sara Buttery, BSc, a research physiotherapist and PhD candidate at the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London.

“Until now there had been no direct comparison of the two to inform decision-making when a person seems to be suitable for either. Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction is a less invasive option and is thought to be ‘less risky’ but, until now, there has not been substantial research to support this,” she said at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ms. Buttery and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blinded superiority trial to see whether LVRS could be superior to BLVR with valves. They enrolled 88 patients (52% male) with a mean age of 64, and randomly assigned them to receive either LVRS (41 patients) or the less-invasive BLVR (47 patients).

As noted before, there were no significant differences in outcomes at 1 year, with similar degrees of improvement between the surgical techniques for both the composite iBODE score (–1.10 for LVRS vs. –0.82 for BLVR, nonsignificant), and for the individual components of the score.

In addition, the treatments were associated with similar reductions in gas trapping, with residual volume percentage predicted –36.1 with LVRS versus –30.5 with BLVR (nonsignificant).

One patient in each group died during the 12 months of follow-up. The death of the patient in the BLVR group was deemed to be treatment related; the death of the patient in the LVRS group was related to a noninfective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Invited discussant Isabelle Opitz, MD, from University Hospital Zürich told Ms. Buttery: “I have to congratulate you for this very first randomized controlled trial comparing both procedures in a superiority design.”

She pointed out, however, that the number of patients lost to follow-up and crossover of some patients randomized to bronchoscopy raised questions about the powering of the study.

“We did a sensitivity analysis to have a look to see if there was any difference between the patients who did return and the ones who didn’t, and there was no difference at baseline between those patients.” Ms. Buttery said.

She noted that follow-up visits were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the inability of many patients to come into the clinic.

Dr. Opitz also asked about COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores that were included in the trial design but not reported in the presentation. Ms. Buttery said that the CAT results favored the LVRS group, and that the results would be included in a future economic analysis.

“The results from this first randomized controlled trial suggest that BLVR may be a good therapeutic option for those patients for whom either procedure is suitable,” said Alexander Mathioudakis, MD, PhD, from the University of Manchester (England), who was not involved with this study but commented on it in a press statement. “Lung volume reduction surgery is an invasive operation as it requires a small incision to be made in the chest, which is stitched up after the procedure. As such, it has risks associated with surgery and it takes longer to recover from than bronchoscopic lung volume reduction. On the other hand, endobronchial valves placement is also associated with side effects, such as pneumonia, or valve displacement. Therefore, both the safety and effectiveness of the two procedures need to be investigated further, in larger groups of patients, but the results from this trial are very encouraging.”

The study is supported by the U.K. National Institute of Health Research. Ms. Buttery, Dr. Opitz, and Dr. Mathioudakis reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA – For patients with emphysema who are suitable candidates for lung volume reduction surgery, there were no differences at 1 year in either lung function, dyspnea, or exercise capacity between patients who were assigned to undergo standard lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobrachial valves (BLVR-EBV) in a randomized trial.

Among patients with emphysema amenable to surgery, there were similar improvements between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up as assessed by the iBODE score, a composite disease severity measure incorporating body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test), reported Sara Buttery, BSc, a research physiotherapist and PhD candidate at the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London.

“Until now there had been no direct comparison of the two to inform decision-making when a person seems to be suitable for either. Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction is a less invasive option and is thought to be ‘less risky’ but, until now, there has not been substantial research to support this,” she said at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ms. Buttery and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blinded superiority trial to see whether LVRS could be superior to BLVR with valves. They enrolled 88 patients (52% male) with a mean age of 64, and randomly assigned them to receive either LVRS (41 patients) or the less-invasive BLVR (47 patients).

As noted before, there were no significant differences in outcomes at 1 year, with similar degrees of improvement between the surgical techniques for both the composite iBODE score (–1.10 for LVRS vs. –0.82 for BLVR, nonsignificant), and for the individual components of the score.

In addition, the treatments were associated with similar reductions in gas trapping, with residual volume percentage predicted –36.1 with LVRS versus –30.5 with BLVR (nonsignificant).

One patient in each group died during the 12 months of follow-up. The death of the patient in the BLVR group was deemed to be treatment related; the death of the patient in the LVRS group was related to a noninfective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Invited discussant Isabelle Opitz, MD, from University Hospital Zürich told Ms. Buttery: “I have to congratulate you for this very first randomized controlled trial comparing both procedures in a superiority design.”

She pointed out, however, that the number of patients lost to follow-up and crossover of some patients randomized to bronchoscopy raised questions about the powering of the study.

“We did a sensitivity analysis to have a look to see if there was any difference between the patients who did return and the ones who didn’t, and there was no difference at baseline between those patients.” Ms. Buttery said.

She noted that follow-up visits were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the inability of many patients to come into the clinic.

Dr. Opitz also asked about COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores that were included in the trial design but not reported in the presentation. Ms. Buttery said that the CAT results favored the LVRS group, and that the results would be included in a future economic analysis.

“The results from this first randomized controlled trial suggest that BLVR may be a good therapeutic option for those patients for whom either procedure is suitable,” said Alexander Mathioudakis, MD, PhD, from the University of Manchester (England), who was not involved with this study but commented on it in a press statement. “Lung volume reduction surgery is an invasive operation as it requires a small incision to be made in the chest, which is stitched up after the procedure. As such, it has risks associated with surgery and it takes longer to recover from than bronchoscopic lung volume reduction. On the other hand, endobronchial valves placement is also associated with side effects, such as pneumonia, or valve displacement. Therefore, both the safety and effectiveness of the two procedures need to be investigated further, in larger groups of patients, but the results from this trial are very encouraging.”

The study is supported by the U.K. National Institute of Health Research. Ms. Buttery, Dr. Opitz, and Dr. Mathioudakis reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BARCELONA – For patients with emphysema who are suitable candidates for lung volume reduction surgery, there were no differences at 1 year in either lung function, dyspnea, or exercise capacity between patients who were assigned to undergo standard lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) or bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobrachial valves (BLVR-EBV) in a randomized trial.

Among patients with emphysema amenable to surgery, there were similar improvements between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up as assessed by the iBODE score, a composite disease severity measure incorporating body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test), reported Sara Buttery, BSc, a research physiotherapist and PhD candidate at the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London.

“Until now there had been no direct comparison of the two to inform decision-making when a person seems to be suitable for either. Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction is a less invasive option and is thought to be ‘less risky’ but, until now, there has not been substantial research to support this,” she said at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ms. Buttery and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blinded superiority trial to see whether LVRS could be superior to BLVR with valves. They enrolled 88 patients (52% male) with a mean age of 64, and randomly assigned them to receive either LVRS (41 patients) or the less-invasive BLVR (47 patients).

As noted before, there were no significant differences in outcomes at 1 year, with similar degrees of improvement between the surgical techniques for both the composite iBODE score (–1.10 for LVRS vs. –0.82 for BLVR, nonsignificant), and for the individual components of the score.

In addition, the treatments were associated with similar reductions in gas trapping, with residual volume percentage predicted –36.1 with LVRS versus –30.5 with BLVR (nonsignificant).

One patient in each group died during the 12 months of follow-up. The death of the patient in the BLVR group was deemed to be treatment related; the death of the patient in the LVRS group was related to a noninfective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Invited discussant Isabelle Opitz, MD, from University Hospital Zürich told Ms. Buttery: “I have to congratulate you for this very first randomized controlled trial comparing both procedures in a superiority design.”

She pointed out, however, that the number of patients lost to follow-up and crossover of some patients randomized to bronchoscopy raised questions about the powering of the study.

“We did a sensitivity analysis to have a look to see if there was any difference between the patients who did return and the ones who didn’t, and there was no difference at baseline between those patients.” Ms. Buttery said.

She noted that follow-up visits were hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the inability of many patients to come into the clinic.

Dr. Opitz also asked about COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores that were included in the trial design but not reported in the presentation. Ms. Buttery said that the CAT results favored the LVRS group, and that the results would be included in a future economic analysis.

“The results from this first randomized controlled trial suggest that BLVR may be a good therapeutic option for those patients for whom either procedure is suitable,” said Alexander Mathioudakis, MD, PhD, from the University of Manchester (England), who was not involved with this study but commented on it in a press statement. “Lung volume reduction surgery is an invasive operation as it requires a small incision to be made in the chest, which is stitched up after the procedure. As such, it has risks associated with surgery and it takes longer to recover from than bronchoscopic lung volume reduction. On the other hand, endobronchial valves placement is also associated with side effects, such as pneumonia, or valve displacement. Therefore, both the safety and effectiveness of the two procedures need to be investigated further, in larger groups of patients, but the results from this trial are very encouraging.”

The study is supported by the U.K. National Institute of Health Research. Ms. Buttery, Dr. Opitz, and Dr. Mathioudakis reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eosinophil-guided corticosteroid therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is equivalent in efficacy to standard of care therapy, but the eosinophil-guided therapy may help mitigate the harmful side effects associated with even short courses of corticosteroids, investigators said in a primary care–based randomized trial.

Among patients in 14 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who experienced COPD exacerbations, the proportion of patients who experienced treatment failure at day 28 was 27% for those who were randomized to receive prednisolone only when blood eosinophil counts on a point-of-care assay equaled or exceeded 2%, compared with 34% of all patients randomized to standard of care.

The relative risk for treatment failure using the eosinophil-guided approach was 0.82, which did not reach statistical significance, but indicated noninferiority for the biomarker-based dosing method, Mona Bafadhel, MD, of King’s College London, reported on behalf of colleagues in the Stratified Treatment to Reduce Risk in COPD (STARR2) trial.

“The STARR2 trial showed that eosinophil-guided prescription in primary care is safe and is not associated with worsening outcomes. This is the largest primary care multicenter trial, and probably adds another 20% to the literature base for exacerbations in COPD,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the European Respiratory Society 2022 Congress.

“A personalized endotype-based treatment with oral prednisolone is possible in patients with COPD and I think should be now part of clinical guidelines,” she added.
 

Too much of a good thing

Although systemic corticosteroids are the universal treatment for COPD exacerbations, the drugs are also known to increase harm, with studies showing that cumulative doses of oral corticosteroids in COPD patients is associated with an increased risk for death. In addition, systemic corticosteroids are the third most common cause of adverse events leading to hospitalization, behind only chemotherapy and antibiotic use leading to  Clostridioides difficile infections, Dr. Bafadhel said.

“And of course, corticosteroids are associated with significant harmful effects, including a five-times increased risk of sepsis, three-times increased risk of [venous thromboembolism], and a twice-increased risk of fracture,” she said.

Dr. Bafadhel and colleagues had previously shown in the single-center BEAT-COPD study that peripheral blood eosinophils at the time of a moderate COPD exacerbation could be used to safely direct oral corticosteroid therapy. She also pointed to a 2019 multicenter open-label study showing that eosinophil-guided care was noninferior to standard prescribing of oral corticosteroids for patients with severe exacerbations.
 

Primary care study

The investigators conducted the current study to test whether eosinophil-guided therapy at the point of care in a primary practice setting was efficacious, with the ultimate goal of encouraging changes in guidelines.

They recruited patients with COPD exacerbations from 14 general practices in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire in the Thames Valley.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard of care or the biomarker-guided intervention for 14 days. In this arm, patients with eosinophil counts of 2% or greater received matched prednisolone, while patients with counts below 2% received placebo. The patients were blinded to the assigned drug.

A total of 203 exacerbations among 152 patients were evenly allocated to treatment or control groups. The mean patient age was 71. Of the 102 exacerbations allocated to eosinophil-guided therapy, 34 were treated with placebo.

As noted before, in the intention-to-treat analysis the primary outcome of the treatment failure rate, defined as any need for antibiotics and/or steroids at one month, was 27% in the biomarker-guided arm and 34% in the standard care arm.

“In the per-protocol analysis we also demonstrated that there was a suggestion that there is possible superiority of using blood eosinophil-directed oral corticosteroid prescriptions at the time of acute exacerbation using the point-of-care eosinophil test,” Dr. Bafadhel said.

There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of mean change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), COPD Assessment Test scores from exacerbation to follow-up, and symptoms according to a visual analog scale. 

Invited discussant Dave Singh, MD, of the University of Manchester, England, asked Dr. Bafadhel how the data she presented supported her conclusions about the potential benefits of eosinophil-guided therapy, given that the P values were nonsignificant.

“The primary outcome was powered on noninferiority, and of course what we’ve shown is that it’s not any worse, it’s not any better, but of course it’s the effect of how many courses of steroids you can reduce in that population,” Dr. Bafadhel replied.

She noted that although the investigators have not performed an economic analysis to determine how many adverse events might be avoided using the biomarker-guided approach, “we do know that some of these patients who are given prednisolone, their comorbidities of diabetes worsened, for example.”

In the online Q&A for the presentation, Sohail Ansari, MD, from the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom, said that many patients in primary care practices receive “rescue packs” containing antibiotics and steroids, but may not be equipped to know when they should use the steroids and therefore may overuse them.

“Perhaps community-based, adequately resourced respiratory teams [may] be a way forward, but it will need adequate investment and commitment,” he wrote.

The trial was supported by the University of Oxford and National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK. Dr. Bafadhel reported grant and research support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Asthma & Lung UK, AstraZeneca, and Roche, and honoraria or fees from others. Dr. Singh reported speaking fees, honoraria, and research grants from multiple companies. Dr. Ansari reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eosinophil-guided corticosteroid therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is equivalent in efficacy to standard of care therapy, but the eosinophil-guided therapy may help mitigate the harmful side effects associated with even short courses of corticosteroids, investigators said in a primary care–based randomized trial.

Among patients in 14 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who experienced COPD exacerbations, the proportion of patients who experienced treatment failure at day 28 was 27% for those who were randomized to receive prednisolone only when blood eosinophil counts on a point-of-care assay equaled or exceeded 2%, compared with 34% of all patients randomized to standard of care.

The relative risk for treatment failure using the eosinophil-guided approach was 0.82, which did not reach statistical significance, but indicated noninferiority for the biomarker-based dosing method, Mona Bafadhel, MD, of King’s College London, reported on behalf of colleagues in the Stratified Treatment to Reduce Risk in COPD (STARR2) trial.

“The STARR2 trial showed that eosinophil-guided prescription in primary care is safe and is not associated with worsening outcomes. This is the largest primary care multicenter trial, and probably adds another 20% to the literature base for exacerbations in COPD,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the European Respiratory Society 2022 Congress.

“A personalized endotype-based treatment with oral prednisolone is possible in patients with COPD and I think should be now part of clinical guidelines,” she added.
 

Too much of a good thing

Although systemic corticosteroids are the universal treatment for COPD exacerbations, the drugs are also known to increase harm, with studies showing that cumulative doses of oral corticosteroids in COPD patients is associated with an increased risk for death. In addition, systemic corticosteroids are the third most common cause of adverse events leading to hospitalization, behind only chemotherapy and antibiotic use leading to  Clostridioides difficile infections, Dr. Bafadhel said.

“And of course, corticosteroids are associated with significant harmful effects, including a five-times increased risk of sepsis, three-times increased risk of [venous thromboembolism], and a twice-increased risk of fracture,” she said.

Dr. Bafadhel and colleagues had previously shown in the single-center BEAT-COPD study that peripheral blood eosinophils at the time of a moderate COPD exacerbation could be used to safely direct oral corticosteroid therapy. She also pointed to a 2019 multicenter open-label study showing that eosinophil-guided care was noninferior to standard prescribing of oral corticosteroids for patients with severe exacerbations.
 

Primary care study

The investigators conducted the current study to test whether eosinophil-guided therapy at the point of care in a primary practice setting was efficacious, with the ultimate goal of encouraging changes in guidelines.

They recruited patients with COPD exacerbations from 14 general practices in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire in the Thames Valley.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard of care or the biomarker-guided intervention for 14 days. In this arm, patients with eosinophil counts of 2% or greater received matched prednisolone, while patients with counts below 2% received placebo. The patients were blinded to the assigned drug.

A total of 203 exacerbations among 152 patients were evenly allocated to treatment or control groups. The mean patient age was 71. Of the 102 exacerbations allocated to eosinophil-guided therapy, 34 were treated with placebo.

As noted before, in the intention-to-treat analysis the primary outcome of the treatment failure rate, defined as any need for antibiotics and/or steroids at one month, was 27% in the biomarker-guided arm and 34% in the standard care arm.

“In the per-protocol analysis we also demonstrated that there was a suggestion that there is possible superiority of using blood eosinophil-directed oral corticosteroid prescriptions at the time of acute exacerbation using the point-of-care eosinophil test,” Dr. Bafadhel said.

There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of mean change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), COPD Assessment Test scores from exacerbation to follow-up, and symptoms according to a visual analog scale. 

Invited discussant Dave Singh, MD, of the University of Manchester, England, asked Dr. Bafadhel how the data she presented supported her conclusions about the potential benefits of eosinophil-guided therapy, given that the P values were nonsignificant.

“The primary outcome was powered on noninferiority, and of course what we’ve shown is that it’s not any worse, it’s not any better, but of course it’s the effect of how many courses of steroids you can reduce in that population,” Dr. Bafadhel replied.

She noted that although the investigators have not performed an economic analysis to determine how many adverse events might be avoided using the biomarker-guided approach, “we do know that some of these patients who are given prednisolone, their comorbidities of diabetes worsened, for example.”

In the online Q&A for the presentation, Sohail Ansari, MD, from the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom, said that many patients in primary care practices receive “rescue packs” containing antibiotics and steroids, but may not be equipped to know when they should use the steroids and therefore may overuse them.

“Perhaps community-based, adequately resourced respiratory teams [may] be a way forward, but it will need adequate investment and commitment,” he wrote.

The trial was supported by the University of Oxford and National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK. Dr. Bafadhel reported grant and research support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Asthma & Lung UK, AstraZeneca, and Roche, and honoraria or fees from others. Dr. Singh reported speaking fees, honoraria, and research grants from multiple companies. Dr. Ansari reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Eosinophil-guided corticosteroid therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is equivalent in efficacy to standard of care therapy, but the eosinophil-guided therapy may help mitigate the harmful side effects associated with even short courses of corticosteroids, investigators said in a primary care–based randomized trial.

Among patients in 14 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who experienced COPD exacerbations, the proportion of patients who experienced treatment failure at day 28 was 27% for those who were randomized to receive prednisolone only when blood eosinophil counts on a point-of-care assay equaled or exceeded 2%, compared with 34% of all patients randomized to standard of care.

The relative risk for treatment failure using the eosinophil-guided approach was 0.82, which did not reach statistical significance, but indicated noninferiority for the biomarker-based dosing method, Mona Bafadhel, MD, of King’s College London, reported on behalf of colleagues in the Stratified Treatment to Reduce Risk in COPD (STARR2) trial.

“The STARR2 trial showed that eosinophil-guided prescription in primary care is safe and is not associated with worsening outcomes. This is the largest primary care multicenter trial, and probably adds another 20% to the literature base for exacerbations in COPD,” she said in an oral abstract presentation at the European Respiratory Society 2022 Congress.

“A personalized endotype-based treatment with oral prednisolone is possible in patients with COPD and I think should be now part of clinical guidelines,” she added.
 

Too much of a good thing

Although systemic corticosteroids are the universal treatment for COPD exacerbations, the drugs are also known to increase harm, with studies showing that cumulative doses of oral corticosteroids in COPD patients is associated with an increased risk for death. In addition, systemic corticosteroids are the third most common cause of adverse events leading to hospitalization, behind only chemotherapy and antibiotic use leading to  Clostridioides difficile infections, Dr. Bafadhel said.

“And of course, corticosteroids are associated with significant harmful effects, including a five-times increased risk of sepsis, three-times increased risk of [venous thromboembolism], and a twice-increased risk of fracture,” she said.

Dr. Bafadhel and colleagues had previously shown in the single-center BEAT-COPD study that peripheral blood eosinophils at the time of a moderate COPD exacerbation could be used to safely direct oral corticosteroid therapy. She also pointed to a 2019 multicenter open-label study showing that eosinophil-guided care was noninferior to standard prescribing of oral corticosteroids for patients with severe exacerbations.
 

Primary care study

The investigators conducted the current study to test whether eosinophil-guided therapy at the point of care in a primary practice setting was efficacious, with the ultimate goal of encouraging changes in guidelines.

They recruited patients with COPD exacerbations from 14 general practices in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire in the Thames Valley.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard of care or the biomarker-guided intervention for 14 days. In this arm, patients with eosinophil counts of 2% or greater received matched prednisolone, while patients with counts below 2% received placebo. The patients were blinded to the assigned drug.

A total of 203 exacerbations among 152 patients were evenly allocated to treatment or control groups. The mean patient age was 71. Of the 102 exacerbations allocated to eosinophil-guided therapy, 34 were treated with placebo.

As noted before, in the intention-to-treat analysis the primary outcome of the treatment failure rate, defined as any need for antibiotics and/or steroids at one month, was 27% in the biomarker-guided arm and 34% in the standard care arm.

“In the per-protocol analysis we also demonstrated that there was a suggestion that there is possible superiority of using blood eosinophil-directed oral corticosteroid prescriptions at the time of acute exacerbation using the point-of-care eosinophil test,” Dr. Bafadhel said.

There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of mean change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), COPD Assessment Test scores from exacerbation to follow-up, and symptoms according to a visual analog scale. 

Invited discussant Dave Singh, MD, of the University of Manchester, England, asked Dr. Bafadhel how the data she presented supported her conclusions about the potential benefits of eosinophil-guided therapy, given that the P values were nonsignificant.

“The primary outcome was powered on noninferiority, and of course what we’ve shown is that it’s not any worse, it’s not any better, but of course it’s the effect of how many courses of steroids you can reduce in that population,” Dr. Bafadhel replied.

She noted that although the investigators have not performed an economic analysis to determine how many adverse events might be avoided using the biomarker-guided approach, “we do know that some of these patients who are given prednisolone, their comorbidities of diabetes worsened, for example.”

In the online Q&A for the presentation, Sohail Ansari, MD, from the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom, said that many patients in primary care practices receive “rescue packs” containing antibiotics and steroids, but may not be equipped to know when they should use the steroids and therefore may overuse them.

“Perhaps community-based, adequately resourced respiratory teams [may] be a way forward, but it will need adequate investment and commitment,” he wrote.

The trial was supported by the University of Oxford and National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK. Dr. Bafadhel reported grant and research support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Asthma & Lung UK, AstraZeneca, and Roche, and honoraria or fees from others. Dr. Singh reported speaking fees, honoraria, and research grants from multiple companies. Dr. Ansari reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Current or former smokers who have clinically significant respiratory symptoms but no spirometric evidence of airway obstruction are often treated with dual bronchodilators commonly prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

But as results of the randomized RETHINC (Redefining Therapy In Early COPD for the Pulmonary Trials Cooperative) trial showed, bronchodilator therapy was no better than placebo at reducing respiratory symptoms in smokers, reported MeiLan K. Han, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, on behalf of colleagues in the RETHINC study group.

“Many tobacco-exposed symptomatic individuals are currently being treated. We don’t know if this is because physicians just aren’t doing spirometry and assuming COPD or they strongly believe that there’s a benefit, but the bottom line is that we really need to do spirometry to understand who benefits from bronchodilators, and we need further research to understand how to treat this specific group of patients because there truly is pathogenesis and disease burden,” Dr. Han said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

The study results were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Don D. Sin, MD, MPH, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that the study shows that “long-acting bronchodilators do not appear to be effective for the treatment of symptomatic persons with a smoking history and preserved lung function on spirometry; these medications should most likely be reserved for patients with COPD who have clinically significant airflow limitation,” and that “respiratory symptoms in tobacco-exposed persons are common but are highly variable over time.”

Dave Singh, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant, called it “a very important negative study.”
 

Not up to GOLD standard

Current or former smokers who are symptomatic, with COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores of at least 10 despite having preserved function on spirometry, have been shown to have higher prospective rates of respiratory disease exacerbations and increased sputum total mucin concentrations. Approximately 43% of such patients are treated with bronchodilators, and 23% are treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), Dr. Han noted.

Her group hypothesized that ever-smokers with spirometric values that fall within the normal range – that is, a postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio of 70 or greater – would still derive benefit from long-acting bronchodilator therapy, even though these patients are currently excluded from Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations.

To test this, they conducted a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study in which patients were assigned to receive either indacaterol (27.5 mcg) and glycopyrrolate (15.6 mcg) inhaled twice daily or placebo.

They enrolled adults aged 40-80 years with a minimum of 10 pack-years of smoking history, postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC ratio of 70 or greater, and CAT scores of 10 or greater. Patients with known concomitant lung disease, a primary diagnosis of asthma, or body mass index lower than 15 or higher than 40 and those being concomitantly treated with long-acting beta₂-agonists or muscarinic antagonists or a short-acting combination were excluded, although patients were allowed to be on a short-acting beta-agonist.

A total of 535 participants were randomized, but COVID-19 pandemic–imposed obstacles resulted in a modified intention-to-treat population of 277 patients assigned to receive the active treatment and 244 assigned to receive placebo.

There was no difference between the groups for the primary outcome of an at least 4-point decrease in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores in patients who did not experience treatment failure, defined as an increase in respiratory symptoms requiring treatment with active long-acting bronchodilators or ICS.

The primary endpoint was seen in 56.4% of patients in the bronchodilator group, and 59% of controls.

Although there was greater improvement in pulmonary function from baseline in the treatment group, compared with the placebo group, the improvements did not correlate with similar improvements in symptoms, Dr. Han said.

There were 4 serious adverse events in the bronchodilator group and 11 in the placebo group, but none of the events were deemed to be related to the assigned treatments.

Dr. Han acknowledged limitations of the study, which may have included symptoms driven by other factors such as cardiac disease, suggesting that if such patients had been identified and excluded, a stronger effect might have been seen for the active treatment.

In addition, the study was underpowered to look at the subgroup of participants with chronic bronchitis, and the 12 weeks of the study may have been too short to see improvements in symptoms.

In his editorial, Dr. Sin noted that the study showed that cough and sputum production rather than exertion dyspnea are the primary symptoms among ever-smokers.

“Although bronchodilators are effective in ameliorating breathlessness and improving exercise tolerance, they are generally ineffective for cough,” he wrote. “Existing drugs for the treatment of COPD, such as inhaled glucocorticoids or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, or new therapeutics such as P2X3 receptor antagonists may be more effective for the treatment of cough and sputum production related to smoking and could be considered for future evaluations in this patient population.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Novartis Pharmaceuticals donated the trial medication and placebo. Dr. Han disclosed grant/research support and honoraria or consulting fees from various companies. Dr. Singh reported speaking fees, honoraria, and research grants from multiple companies. Dr. Sin reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Current or former smokers who have clinically significant respiratory symptoms but no spirometric evidence of airway obstruction are often treated with dual bronchodilators commonly prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

But as results of the randomized RETHINC (Redefining Therapy In Early COPD for the Pulmonary Trials Cooperative) trial showed, bronchodilator therapy was no better than placebo at reducing respiratory symptoms in smokers, reported MeiLan K. Han, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, on behalf of colleagues in the RETHINC study group.

“Many tobacco-exposed symptomatic individuals are currently being treated. We don’t know if this is because physicians just aren’t doing spirometry and assuming COPD or they strongly believe that there’s a benefit, but the bottom line is that we really need to do spirometry to understand who benefits from bronchodilators, and we need further research to understand how to treat this specific group of patients because there truly is pathogenesis and disease burden,” Dr. Han said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

The study results were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Don D. Sin, MD, MPH, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that the study shows that “long-acting bronchodilators do not appear to be effective for the treatment of symptomatic persons with a smoking history and preserved lung function on spirometry; these medications should most likely be reserved for patients with COPD who have clinically significant airflow limitation,” and that “respiratory symptoms in tobacco-exposed persons are common but are highly variable over time.”

Dave Singh, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant, called it “a very important negative study.”
 

Not up to GOLD standard

Current or former smokers who are symptomatic, with COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores of at least 10 despite having preserved function on spirometry, have been shown to have higher prospective rates of respiratory disease exacerbations and increased sputum total mucin concentrations. Approximately 43% of such patients are treated with bronchodilators, and 23% are treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), Dr. Han noted.

Her group hypothesized that ever-smokers with spirometric values that fall within the normal range – that is, a postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio of 70 or greater – would still derive benefit from long-acting bronchodilator therapy, even though these patients are currently excluded from Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations.

To test this, they conducted a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study in which patients were assigned to receive either indacaterol (27.5 mcg) and glycopyrrolate (15.6 mcg) inhaled twice daily or placebo.

They enrolled adults aged 40-80 years with a minimum of 10 pack-years of smoking history, postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC ratio of 70 or greater, and CAT scores of 10 or greater. Patients with known concomitant lung disease, a primary diagnosis of asthma, or body mass index lower than 15 or higher than 40 and those being concomitantly treated with long-acting beta₂-agonists or muscarinic antagonists or a short-acting combination were excluded, although patients were allowed to be on a short-acting beta-agonist.

A total of 535 participants were randomized, but COVID-19 pandemic–imposed obstacles resulted in a modified intention-to-treat population of 277 patients assigned to receive the active treatment and 244 assigned to receive placebo.

There was no difference between the groups for the primary outcome of an at least 4-point decrease in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores in patients who did not experience treatment failure, defined as an increase in respiratory symptoms requiring treatment with active long-acting bronchodilators or ICS.

The primary endpoint was seen in 56.4% of patients in the bronchodilator group, and 59% of controls.

Although there was greater improvement in pulmonary function from baseline in the treatment group, compared with the placebo group, the improvements did not correlate with similar improvements in symptoms, Dr. Han said.

There were 4 serious adverse events in the bronchodilator group and 11 in the placebo group, but none of the events were deemed to be related to the assigned treatments.

Dr. Han acknowledged limitations of the study, which may have included symptoms driven by other factors such as cardiac disease, suggesting that if such patients had been identified and excluded, a stronger effect might have been seen for the active treatment.

In addition, the study was underpowered to look at the subgroup of participants with chronic bronchitis, and the 12 weeks of the study may have been too short to see improvements in symptoms.

In his editorial, Dr. Sin noted that the study showed that cough and sputum production rather than exertion dyspnea are the primary symptoms among ever-smokers.

“Although bronchodilators are effective in ameliorating breathlessness and improving exercise tolerance, they are generally ineffective for cough,” he wrote. “Existing drugs for the treatment of COPD, such as inhaled glucocorticoids or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, or new therapeutics such as P2X3 receptor antagonists may be more effective for the treatment of cough and sputum production related to smoking and could be considered for future evaluations in this patient population.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Novartis Pharmaceuticals donated the trial medication and placebo. Dr. Han disclosed grant/research support and honoraria or consulting fees from various companies. Dr. Singh reported speaking fees, honoraria, and research grants from multiple companies. Dr. Sin reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Current or former smokers who have clinically significant respiratory symptoms but no spirometric evidence of airway obstruction are often treated with dual bronchodilators commonly prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

But as results of the randomized RETHINC (Redefining Therapy In Early COPD for the Pulmonary Trials Cooperative) trial showed, bronchodilator therapy was no better than placebo at reducing respiratory symptoms in smokers, reported MeiLan K. Han, MD, from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, on behalf of colleagues in the RETHINC study group.

“Many tobacco-exposed symptomatic individuals are currently being treated. We don’t know if this is because physicians just aren’t doing spirometry and assuming COPD or they strongly believe that there’s a benefit, but the bottom line is that we really need to do spirometry to understand who benefits from bronchodilators, and we need further research to understand how to treat this specific group of patients because there truly is pathogenesis and disease burden,” Dr. Han said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

The study results were also published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Don D. Sin, MD, MPH, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that the study shows that “long-acting bronchodilators do not appear to be effective for the treatment of symptomatic persons with a smoking history and preserved lung function on spirometry; these medications should most likely be reserved for patients with COPD who have clinically significant airflow limitation,” and that “respiratory symptoms in tobacco-exposed persons are common but are highly variable over time.”

Dave Singh, MD, from the University of Manchester (England), the invited discussant, called it “a very important negative study.”
 

Not up to GOLD standard

Current or former smokers who are symptomatic, with COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores of at least 10 despite having preserved function on spirometry, have been shown to have higher prospective rates of respiratory disease exacerbations and increased sputum total mucin concentrations. Approximately 43% of such patients are treated with bronchodilators, and 23% are treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), Dr. Han noted.

Her group hypothesized that ever-smokers with spirometric values that fall within the normal range – that is, a postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio of 70 or greater – would still derive benefit from long-acting bronchodilator therapy, even though these patients are currently excluded from Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations.

To test this, they conducted a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study in which patients were assigned to receive either indacaterol (27.5 mcg) and glycopyrrolate (15.6 mcg) inhaled twice daily or placebo.

They enrolled adults aged 40-80 years with a minimum of 10 pack-years of smoking history, postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC ratio of 70 or greater, and CAT scores of 10 or greater. Patients with known concomitant lung disease, a primary diagnosis of asthma, or body mass index lower than 15 or higher than 40 and those being concomitantly treated with long-acting beta₂-agonists or muscarinic antagonists or a short-acting combination were excluded, although patients were allowed to be on a short-acting beta-agonist.

A total of 535 participants were randomized, but COVID-19 pandemic–imposed obstacles resulted in a modified intention-to-treat population of 277 patients assigned to receive the active treatment and 244 assigned to receive placebo.

There was no difference between the groups for the primary outcome of an at least 4-point decrease in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores in patients who did not experience treatment failure, defined as an increase in respiratory symptoms requiring treatment with active long-acting bronchodilators or ICS.

The primary endpoint was seen in 56.4% of patients in the bronchodilator group, and 59% of controls.

Although there was greater improvement in pulmonary function from baseline in the treatment group, compared with the placebo group, the improvements did not correlate with similar improvements in symptoms, Dr. Han said.

There were 4 serious adverse events in the bronchodilator group and 11 in the placebo group, but none of the events were deemed to be related to the assigned treatments.

Dr. Han acknowledged limitations of the study, which may have included symptoms driven by other factors such as cardiac disease, suggesting that if such patients had been identified and excluded, a stronger effect might have been seen for the active treatment.

In addition, the study was underpowered to look at the subgroup of participants with chronic bronchitis, and the 12 weeks of the study may have been too short to see improvements in symptoms.

In his editorial, Dr. Sin noted that the study showed that cough and sputum production rather than exertion dyspnea are the primary symptoms among ever-smokers.

“Although bronchodilators are effective in ameliorating breathlessness and improving exercise tolerance, they are generally ineffective for cough,” he wrote. “Existing drugs for the treatment of COPD, such as inhaled glucocorticoids or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, or new therapeutics such as P2X3 receptor antagonists may be more effective for the treatment of cough and sputum production related to smoking and could be considered for future evaluations in this patient population.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Novartis Pharmaceuticals donated the trial medication and placebo. Dr. Han disclosed grant/research support and honoraria or consulting fees from various companies. Dr. Singh reported speaking fees, honoraria, and research grants from multiple companies. Dr. Sin reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.