COPD

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.

Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.

Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.

This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.

The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.

That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers. I suppose I could consider stopping them in my patient with severe COPD, the one I can’t keep out of the hospital, but I’m not convinced that would make much difference.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease recommends long-term term pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies based on each patient’s symptoms and disease severity.

Yet even the most effective drugs work only when patients take them as directed, and according to the World Health Organization, fewer than half of all patients worldwide are fully compliant with long-term COPD drug regimens.

And as a recent cross-sectional study showed, nearly one in six patients in the United States reported missing a COPD drug dose, lowering the dose, or delaying filling a prescription for financial reasons.

“I care for patients with COPD as their pulmonologist, and this is a very common problem that we see in clinical practice,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and associate director of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Dr. McCormack, a national spokesperson for The American Lung Association, said that she shows new patients the photos of all available inhalers and asks which ones they have and how they take them.

“I would say that a majority of the time people are taking their medicines slightly differently than prescribed, and often, this is due to cost,” she said.
 

Serious Consequences

Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), as investigators term it, can have major health effects and can be significantly more costly in the long run due to increased hospitalization rates, higher morbidity, and greater risk for COPD-related death associated with suboptimal care.

“For some patients even a month or two of being off medications increases the risk of having exacerbations, having more symptoms, [and] having a decline in their lung function,” said Douglas M. Beach, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

In the aforementioned cross-sectional study, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, Xin Wen, MD, from the Jiamusi (China) University School of Public Health, and colleagues looked at data on a representative sample of US adults who participated in the US National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2020.

The sample included 15,928 persons aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of COPD who completed a CRN survey including the following questions: 

During the past 12 months, have you

• Skipped medication doses to save money?
• Taken less medicine than prescribed to save money?
• Delayed filling a prescription to save money?

The investigators found that a weighted 18.56% of participants representing 2.39 million persons with COPD answered “yes” to one of the questions.

Translated into representative population numbers, that works out to an estimated 1.61 million persons with COPD missing doses, 1.72 million taking lower doses than those prescribed, and 2.03 million delaying filling prescriptions to save money.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that those who were most likely to be nonadherent for financial reasons were patients younger than 65 years, women, persons with low family income, those who lacked health insurance, and patients with multiple comorbidities, the authors found.
 

Financial Barriers

One of the biggest barriers to COPD medication adherence is, somewhat paradoxically, insurance status, particularly Medicare, said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, from Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants.

“What’s so unfair about Medicare is that patients have to buy a drug plan, so they have to already pay for an extra plan to have access to drugs, and the plans vary because there are so many choices,” she said in an interview.

Elderly patients may be confused about the available options and may choose the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest monthly premiums, which have the highest annual deductibles, usually in the $5000-and-up range, she said.

In addition, the Medicare Part D prescription coverage gap, commonly known as the “donut hole,” requires patients to pay a percentage of drug costs above a certain limit ($5030 in 2024) until a yearly out-of-pocket limit (currently $8000) is reached, after which the plan will again pick up most of the costs.

Although makers of inhalers have voluntarily agreed to limit monthly co-pays to $35 for uninsured patients, Medicare plans require insured patients to shell out considerably more, with 30 days of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) setting patients back nearly $350 per month, according to a recent search of costs for a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan.
 

Chasing Lower-Cost Options

“I have a lot of patients who use Canadian pharmacies to try to get around it, and I have a lot of patients who make a trip to Mexico every year and load up. I have patients who don’t take their inhalers as they are supposed to in order to make them last longer, and I have patients who take the inhalers of other family members,” Ms. Young said.

Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, from Dallas Pulmonary and Critical Care in Dallas, Texas, said in an interview that when patients claim that a prescribed drug isn’t working as expected for them, financial pressures may be partly to blame.

“When you investigate a little bit more, that’s where things become a bit more clear, and the patient may say ‘yeah, I stopped using this inhaler because it was costing me 200 bucks a month and I’m already on other medications,’ ” he said.

He noted that, when possible, he will steer patients toward discount prescription services such as GoodRx, which offers discounts at local pharmacies, or Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, an online pharmacy that offers generic versions of Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol) at a 100-50 mcg dose for $94.70, a savings of $307.30 over retail pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Dr. Beach noted that Beth Israel Deaconess has a pharmacist embedded in the pulmonary clinic who can help eligible patients get financial assistance to pay for their medications.

“The influencing factors of CRN are multifaceted and necessitating more rigorous research. Health policy interventions focusing on reducing drug costs, delaying disease progression, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities may improve the economic burden of COPD and its outcomes,” Dr. Wen and colleagues wrote.

The study by Dr. Wen and colleagues was funded by grants from Chinese national and academic sources. Dr. McCormack has served as a consultant to Aridis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MCG Diagnostics, ndd Medical Technologies, and UpToDate. Ms. Young, Dr. Anjum, and Dr. Beach reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease recommends long-term term pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies based on each patient’s symptoms and disease severity.

Yet even the most effective drugs work only when patients take them as directed, and according to the World Health Organization, fewer than half of all patients worldwide are fully compliant with long-term COPD drug regimens.

And as a recent cross-sectional study showed, nearly one in six patients in the United States reported missing a COPD drug dose, lowering the dose, or delaying filling a prescription for financial reasons.

“I care for patients with COPD as their pulmonologist, and this is a very common problem that we see in clinical practice,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and associate director of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Dr. McCormack, a national spokesperson for The American Lung Association, said that she shows new patients the photos of all available inhalers and asks which ones they have and how they take them.

“I would say that a majority of the time people are taking their medicines slightly differently than prescribed, and often, this is due to cost,” she said.
 

Serious Consequences

Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), as investigators term it, can have major health effects and can be significantly more costly in the long run due to increased hospitalization rates, higher morbidity, and greater risk for COPD-related death associated with suboptimal care.

“For some patients even a month or two of being off medications increases the risk of having exacerbations, having more symptoms, [and] having a decline in their lung function,” said Douglas M. Beach, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

In the aforementioned cross-sectional study, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, Xin Wen, MD, from the Jiamusi (China) University School of Public Health, and colleagues looked at data on a representative sample of US adults who participated in the US National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2020.

The sample included 15,928 persons aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of COPD who completed a CRN survey including the following questions: 

During the past 12 months, have you

• Skipped medication doses to save money?
• Taken less medicine than prescribed to save money?
• Delayed filling a prescription to save money?

The investigators found that a weighted 18.56% of participants representing 2.39 million persons with COPD answered “yes” to one of the questions.

Translated into representative population numbers, that works out to an estimated 1.61 million persons with COPD missing doses, 1.72 million taking lower doses than those prescribed, and 2.03 million delaying filling prescriptions to save money.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that those who were most likely to be nonadherent for financial reasons were patients younger than 65 years, women, persons with low family income, those who lacked health insurance, and patients with multiple comorbidities, the authors found.
 

Financial Barriers

One of the biggest barriers to COPD medication adherence is, somewhat paradoxically, insurance status, particularly Medicare, said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, from Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants.

“What’s so unfair about Medicare is that patients have to buy a drug plan, so they have to already pay for an extra plan to have access to drugs, and the plans vary because there are so many choices,” she said in an interview.

Elderly patients may be confused about the available options and may choose the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest monthly premiums, which have the highest annual deductibles, usually in the $5000-and-up range, she said.

In addition, the Medicare Part D prescription coverage gap, commonly known as the “donut hole,” requires patients to pay a percentage of drug costs above a certain limit ($5030 in 2024) until a yearly out-of-pocket limit (currently $8000) is reached, after which the plan will again pick up most of the costs.

Although makers of inhalers have voluntarily agreed to limit monthly co-pays to $35 for uninsured patients, Medicare plans require insured patients to shell out considerably more, with 30 days of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) setting patients back nearly $350 per month, according to a recent search of costs for a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan.
 

Chasing Lower-Cost Options

“I have a lot of patients who use Canadian pharmacies to try to get around it, and I have a lot of patients who make a trip to Mexico every year and load up. I have patients who don’t take their inhalers as they are supposed to in order to make them last longer, and I have patients who take the inhalers of other family members,” Ms. Young said.

Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, from Dallas Pulmonary and Critical Care in Dallas, Texas, said in an interview that when patients claim that a prescribed drug isn’t working as expected for them, financial pressures may be partly to blame.

“When you investigate a little bit more, that’s where things become a bit more clear, and the patient may say ‘yeah, I stopped using this inhaler because it was costing me 200 bucks a month and I’m already on other medications,’ ” he said.

He noted that, when possible, he will steer patients toward discount prescription services such as GoodRx, which offers discounts at local pharmacies, or Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, an online pharmacy that offers generic versions of Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol) at a 100-50 mcg dose for $94.70, a savings of $307.30 over retail pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Dr. Beach noted that Beth Israel Deaconess has a pharmacist embedded in the pulmonary clinic who can help eligible patients get financial assistance to pay for their medications.

“The influencing factors of CRN are multifaceted and necessitating more rigorous research. Health policy interventions focusing on reducing drug costs, delaying disease progression, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities may improve the economic burden of COPD and its outcomes,” Dr. Wen and colleagues wrote.

The study by Dr. Wen and colleagues was funded by grants from Chinese national and academic sources. Dr. McCormack has served as a consultant to Aridis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MCG Diagnostics, ndd Medical Technologies, and UpToDate. Ms. Young, Dr. Anjum, and Dr. Beach reported no conflicts of interest.

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

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative on Obstructive Lung Disease recommends long-term term pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies based on each patient’s symptoms and disease severity.

Yet even the most effective drugs work only when patients take them as directed, and according to the World Health Organization, fewer than half of all patients worldwide are fully compliant with long-term COPD drug regimens.

And as a recent cross-sectional study showed, nearly one in six patients in the United States reported missing a COPD drug dose, lowering the dose, or delaying filling a prescription for financial reasons.

“I care for patients with COPD as their pulmonologist, and this is a very common problem that we see in clinical practice,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and associate director of the Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Dr. McCormack, a national spokesperson for The American Lung Association, said that she shows new patients the photos of all available inhalers and asks which ones they have and how they take them.

“I would say that a majority of the time people are taking their medicines slightly differently than prescribed, and often, this is due to cost,” she said.
 

Serious Consequences

Cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN), as investigators term it, can have major health effects and can be significantly more costly in the long run due to increased hospitalization rates, higher morbidity, and greater risk for COPD-related death associated with suboptimal care.

“For some patients even a month or two of being off medications increases the risk of having exacerbations, having more symptoms, [and] having a decline in their lung function,” said Douglas M. Beach, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

In the aforementioned cross-sectional study, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, Xin Wen, MD, from the Jiamusi (China) University School of Public Health, and colleagues looked at data on a representative sample of US adults who participated in the US National Health Interview Survey from 2013 through 2020.

The sample included 15,928 persons aged 18 years or older with a self-reported history of COPD who completed a CRN survey including the following questions: 

During the past 12 months, have you

• Skipped medication doses to save money?
• Taken less medicine than prescribed to save money?
• Delayed filling a prescription to save money?

The investigators found that a weighted 18.56% of participants representing 2.39 million persons with COPD answered “yes” to one of the questions.

Translated into representative population numbers, that works out to an estimated 1.61 million persons with COPD missing doses, 1.72 million taking lower doses than those prescribed, and 2.03 million delaying filling prescriptions to save money.

A multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that those who were most likely to be nonadherent for financial reasons were patients younger than 65 years, women, persons with low family income, those who lacked health insurance, and patients with multiple comorbidities, the authors found.
 

Financial Barriers

One of the biggest barriers to COPD medication adherence is, somewhat paradoxically, insurance status, particularly Medicare, said Corinne Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, from Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants.

“What’s so unfair about Medicare is that patients have to buy a drug plan, so they have to already pay for an extra plan to have access to drugs, and the plans vary because there are so many choices,” she said in an interview.

Elderly patients may be confused about the available options and may choose the Medicare Advantage plan with the lowest monthly premiums, which have the highest annual deductibles, usually in the $5000-and-up range, she said.

In addition, the Medicare Part D prescription coverage gap, commonly known as the “donut hole,” requires patients to pay a percentage of drug costs above a certain limit ($5030 in 2024) until a yearly out-of-pocket limit (currently $8000) is reached, after which the plan will again pick up most of the costs.

Although makers of inhalers have voluntarily agreed to limit monthly co-pays to $35 for uninsured patients, Medicare plans require insured patients to shell out considerably more, with 30 days of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) setting patients back nearly $350 per month, according to a recent search of costs for a United Healthcare Medicare Advantage plan.
 

Chasing Lower-Cost Options

“I have a lot of patients who use Canadian pharmacies to try to get around it, and I have a lot of patients who make a trip to Mexico every year and load up. I have patients who don’t take their inhalers as they are supposed to in order to make them last longer, and I have patients who take the inhalers of other family members,” Ms. Young said.

Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, from Dallas Pulmonary and Critical Care in Dallas, Texas, said in an interview that when patients claim that a prescribed drug isn’t working as expected for them, financial pressures may be partly to blame.

“When you investigate a little bit more, that’s where things become a bit more clear, and the patient may say ‘yeah, I stopped using this inhaler because it was costing me 200 bucks a month and I’m already on other medications,’ ” he said.

He noted that, when possible, he will steer patients toward discount prescription services such as GoodRx, which offers discounts at local pharmacies, or Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, an online pharmacy that offers generic versions of Advair Diskus (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol) at a 100-50 mcg dose for $94.70, a savings of $307.30 over retail pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Dr. Beach noted that Beth Israel Deaconess has a pharmacist embedded in the pulmonary clinic who can help eligible patients get financial assistance to pay for their medications.

“The influencing factors of CRN are multifaceted and necessitating more rigorous research. Health policy interventions focusing on reducing drug costs, delaying disease progression, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities may improve the economic burden of COPD and its outcomes,” Dr. Wen and colleagues wrote.

The study by Dr. Wen and colleagues was funded by grants from Chinese national and academic sources. Dr. McCormack has served as a consultant to Aridis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MCG Diagnostics, ndd Medical Technologies, and UpToDate. Ms. Young, Dr. Anjum, and Dr. Beach reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of ensifentrine marks the first new treatment for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in more than a decade, according to manufacturer Verona Pharma.

Ensifentrine offers a new medication and a new delivery method, according to a company press release. Ensifentrine is the first-in-class selective dual inhibitor of both phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE 3) and PDE 4, combining both bronchodilator and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory effects in a single molecule. The drug is delivered through a standard jet nebulizer.
 

Disease Management Made Easier

Although currently approved therapies for COPD, such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have benefited many patients, additional treatment options are still needed to help those who remain symptomatic and suffer from frequent exacerbations, said Diego J. Maselli, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

“Ensifentrine is a new class of medication that inhibits both PDE 3 and PDE 4; this results in both bronchodilation and suppression of the inflammatory response in COPD,” said Dr. Maselli, who was not involved in studies of ensifentrine.

“Large phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that ensifentrine improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD,” he said. The study participants were on no long-acting maintenance therapy, or they were receiving long-acting beta agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) with or without inhaled corticosteroids, he noted.

The FDA approval was supported by data from the phase 3 ENHANCE 1 and 2 trials, which included 760 and 789 adults aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD, respectively. Participants were randomized to 3 mg ensifentrine delivered via nebulizer or a placebo twice daily.

In the studies, ensifentrine significantly improved lung function based on the primary outcome of average forced expiratory volume per second within 0-12 hours of administration compared with placebo in both studies. In ENHANCE 1, ensifentrine significantly improved symptoms and quality of life compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The ENHANCE 2 results showed similar trends in favor of ensifentrine, although the differences were not significant at 24 weeks. However, the effects of ensifentrine vs placebo were consistent overall across all symptom and quality of life endpoints at all assessments during the study period, the researchers wrote.

In addition, the inhaled drug was well tolerated, with similar proportions of ensifentrine and placebo patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (38.4% and 36.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 1 and 35.3% and 35.4%, respectively, in ENHANCE 2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, and back pain, reported in < 3% of the ensifentrine group.

The safety profile of ensifentrine is a plus for patients, said Dr. Maselli. “Ensifentrine was well tolerated in these studies, and the side effect profile was similar to placebo,” he said. The “ensifentrine is delivered via nebulizer and dosed every 12 hours. Some patients may still prefer the use of inhalers, while others may feel more comfortable with this mode of delivery,” he said. 

In clinical practice, “ensifentrine is a welcome addition to the current armamentarium of therapies for COPD as an option for patients who are symptomatic or who have frequent exacerbations,” Dr. Maselli emphasized.

Looking ahead, more studies are needed to evaluate ensifentrine in broader populations of COPD patients, Dr. Maselli said. For example, ensifentrine could be used as an add-on therapy for patients receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) and for patients with other obstructive inflammatory diseases such as asthma, bronchiectasis, and cystic fibrosis, he noted.

Dr. Maselli disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and Sanofi/Regeneron; he also serves on the Editorial Board of CHEST Physician.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

CHEST

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

CHEST

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

CHEST

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

CHEST

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

AIRWAYS DISORDERS NETWORK

Asthma and COPD Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been increasingly recognized as a prevalent cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) among adults in the United States. The risk of hospitalization and mortality from RSV-associated respiratory failure is higher in those with chronic lung disease. In adults aged 65 years or older, RSV has shown to cause up to 160,000 hospitalizations and 10,000 deaths annually.

CHEST

In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccine (Arexvy, GSK) and the bivalent RSVPreF vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer). Both vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of developing RSV LRTI and are currently recommended for single-dose administration in adults 60 years or older—irrespective of comorbidities.

RSV has been well established as a major cause of LRTI and morbidity among infants. Maternal vaccination with RSVPreF in patients who are pregnant is suggested between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation if the date of delivery falls during RSV season to prevent severe illness in young infants in their first months of life. At present, there are no data supporting vaccine administration to patients who are pregnant delivering outside of the RSV season.

CHEST

Resources

1. Melgar M, Britton A, Roper LE, et al. Use of respiratory syncytial virus vaccines in older adults: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(29):793-801.

2. Healthcare Providers: RSV Vaccination for Adults 60 Years of Age and Over. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated March 1, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/rsv/hcp/older-adults.html

3. Ault KA, Hughes BL, Riley LE. Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Updated December 11, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2023/09/maternal-respiratory-syncytial-virus-vaccination

Journal CHEST^®

Does Rheumatoid Arthritis Increase the Risk of COPD? 

By: Chiwook Chung, MD, and colleagues

This study utilizing the Korean National Health Insurance Database suggests that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a significantly higher risk of developing COPD compared with the general population. Notably, individuals with seropositive RA exhibit a greater risk of COPD onset than those with seronegative RA. Although smoking history didn’t affect the relationship between RA and COPD, monitoring respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in patients with RA, especially patients who are seropositive, is crucial. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists to enhance early detection and management strategies for pulmonary complications in patients with RA.

CHEST

CHEST Pulmonary^®

The Lung Cancer Prediction Model “Stress Test” 

By: Brent E. Heideman, MD, and colleagues

Current lung cancer prediction models have limited utility in high-risk patients referred for diagnostic biopsy. In a study of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules, the Brock, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Veterans Affairs models showed modest discrimination between benign and malignant nodules (AUCs 0.67-0.77). The models performed poorly for low-risk patients (negative predictive values 63%-71%) and suboptimally for high-risk patients (positive predictive values 73%-87%), suggesting referring physicians use additional clinical information not captured in these models to identify high-risk patients needing biopsy. New prediction models and biomarkers specifically developed and calibrated for high-risk populations are needed to better inform clinical decision-making. Incorporating interval imaging to assess changes in nodule characteristics could potentially improve model performance. Tailored risk assessment tools are crucial for optimizing management and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in this challenging patient population.

CHEST

CHEST Critical Care ^®

Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis 

By: Kevin Garrity, MBChB, and colleagues

While chronic cardiac dysfunction is one of the proposed mechanisms of long-term impairment post critical illness, its prevalence, mechanisms, and associations with disability following admission for sepsis are not well understood. Garrity and colleagues describe the Characterization of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) protocol, a prospective study including two ICUs in Scotland aimed to better define cardiovascular dysfunction in survivors of sepsis. Designed to enroll 69 patients, demographics, cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and echocardiograms will be obtained on ICU discharge with additional laboratory data, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and patient-reported outcome measures to be obtained at 6 to 10 weeks. This novel multimodal approach will provide understanding into the role of cardiovascular dysfunction following critical illness as well as offer mechanistic insights. The investigators hope to obtain operational and pilot data for larger future studies.

CHEST

– Commentary by Eugene Yuriditsky, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board

Journal CHEST^®

Does Rheumatoid Arthritis Increase the Risk of COPD? 

By: Chiwook Chung, MD, and colleagues

This study utilizing the Korean National Health Insurance Database suggests that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a significantly higher risk of developing COPD compared with the general population. Notably, individuals with seropositive RA exhibit a greater risk of COPD onset than those with seronegative RA. Although smoking history didn’t affect the relationship between RA and COPD, monitoring respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in patients with RA, especially patients who are seropositive, is crucial. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists to enhance early detection and management strategies for pulmonary complications in patients with RA.

CHEST

CHEST Pulmonary^®

The Lung Cancer Prediction Model “Stress Test” 

By: Brent E. Heideman, MD, and colleagues

Current lung cancer prediction models have limited utility in high-risk patients referred for diagnostic biopsy. In a study of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules, the Brock, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Veterans Affairs models showed modest discrimination between benign and malignant nodules (AUCs 0.67-0.77). The models performed poorly for low-risk patients (negative predictive values 63%-71%) and suboptimally for high-risk patients (positive predictive values 73%-87%), suggesting referring physicians use additional clinical information not captured in these models to identify high-risk patients needing biopsy. New prediction models and biomarkers specifically developed and calibrated for high-risk populations are needed to better inform clinical decision-making. Incorporating interval imaging to assess changes in nodule characteristics could potentially improve model performance. Tailored risk assessment tools are crucial for optimizing management and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in this challenging patient population.

CHEST

CHEST Critical Care ^®

Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis 

By: Kevin Garrity, MBChB, and colleagues

While chronic cardiac dysfunction is one of the proposed mechanisms of long-term impairment post critical illness, its prevalence, mechanisms, and associations with disability following admission for sepsis are not well understood. Garrity and colleagues describe the Characterization of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) protocol, a prospective study including two ICUs in Scotland aimed to better define cardiovascular dysfunction in survivors of sepsis. Designed to enroll 69 patients, demographics, cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and echocardiograms will be obtained on ICU discharge with additional laboratory data, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and patient-reported outcome measures to be obtained at 6 to 10 weeks. This novel multimodal approach will provide understanding into the role of cardiovascular dysfunction following critical illness as well as offer mechanistic insights. The investigators hope to obtain operational and pilot data for larger future studies.

CHEST

– Commentary by Eugene Yuriditsky, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board

Journal CHEST^®

Does Rheumatoid Arthritis Increase the Risk of COPD? 

By: Chiwook Chung, MD, and colleagues

This study utilizing the Korean National Health Insurance Database suggests that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) face a significantly higher risk of developing COPD compared with the general population. Notably, individuals with seropositive RA exhibit a greater risk of COPD onset than those with seronegative RA. Although smoking history didn’t affect the relationship between RA and COPD, monitoring respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in patients with RA, especially patients who are seropositive, is crucial. These findings underscore the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists to enhance early detection and management strategies for pulmonary complications in patients with RA.

CHEST

CHEST Pulmonary^®

The Lung Cancer Prediction Model “Stress Test” 

By: Brent E. Heideman, MD, and colleagues

Current lung cancer prediction models have limited utility in high-risk patients referred for diagnostic biopsy. In a study of 322 indeterminate pulmonary nodules, the Brock, Mayo Clinic, Herder, and Veterans Affairs models showed modest discrimination between benign and malignant nodules (AUCs 0.67-0.77). The models performed poorly for low-risk patients (negative predictive values 63%-71%) and suboptimally for high-risk patients (positive predictive values 73%-87%), suggesting referring physicians use additional clinical information not captured in these models to identify high-risk patients needing biopsy. New prediction models and biomarkers specifically developed and calibrated for high-risk populations are needed to better inform clinical decision-making. Incorporating interval imaging to assess changes in nodule characteristics could potentially improve model performance. Tailored risk assessment tools are crucial for optimizing management and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures in this challenging patient population.

CHEST

CHEST Critical Care ^®

Characterizing Cardiac Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis 

By: Kevin Garrity, MBChB, and colleagues

While chronic cardiac dysfunction is one of the proposed mechanisms of long-term impairment post critical illness, its prevalence, mechanisms, and associations with disability following admission for sepsis are not well understood. Garrity and colleagues describe the Characterization of Cardiovascular Function in ICU Survivors of Sepsis (CONDUCT-ICU) protocol, a prospective study including two ICUs in Scotland aimed to better define cardiovascular dysfunction in survivors of sepsis. Designed to enroll 69 patients, demographics, cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers, and echocardiograms will be obtained on ICU discharge with additional laboratory data, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and patient-reported outcome measures to be obtained at 6 to 10 weeks. This novel multimodal approach will provide understanding into the role of cardiovascular dysfunction following critical illness as well as offer mechanistic insights. The investigators hope to obtain operational and pilot data for larger future studies.

CHEST

– Commentary by Eugene Yuriditsky, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board

The latest research on treatment of patients with COPD presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 annual meeting is reported on by Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, CHEST Physician Editorial Board Member, from UT Health San Antonio in Texas.

Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 2a COURSE study, which looked at patients with moderate to severe COPD to determine whether novel tezepelumab would help reduce exacerbations over 52 weeks. The study reached a nonsignificant numerical reduction in the annual rate vs placebo, but Dr. Maselli suggests that outcomes in patients. with high blood eosinophil counts merit further study.

Next, Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 3 NOTUS trial, looking at the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe COPD. The researchers found a 34% reduction in exacerbations in the dupilumab group vs placebo after 52 weeks.

He then details a 272-patient study looking at nebulized ensifentrine, a dual inhibitor of PDE3 and PDE4. The study demonstrated improved lung function as well as a reduction in exacerbation rate to patients with moderate to severe COPD treated with ensifentrined added to long-acting beta agonists-inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy.

Finally, Dr. Maselli highlights the MAZI study, a large retrospective analysis comparing the mortality rate in patients with COPD taking single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) vs multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). The researchers found that SITT was superior to MITT.

--

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor, Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health San Antonio, Texas

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: GSK; AstraZeneca; Sanofi/Regeneron; Amgen

Received research grant from: Gates Foundation; COPD Foundation; NIH

The latest research on treatment of patients with COPD presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 annual meeting is reported on by Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, CHEST Physician Editorial Board Member, from UT Health San Antonio in Texas.

Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 2a COURSE study, which looked at patients with moderate to severe COPD to determine whether novel tezepelumab would help reduce exacerbations over 52 weeks. The study reached a nonsignificant numerical reduction in the annual rate vs placebo, but Dr. Maselli suggests that outcomes in patients. with high blood eosinophil counts merit further study.

Next, Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 3 NOTUS trial, looking at the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe COPD. The researchers found a 34% reduction in exacerbations in the dupilumab group vs placebo after 52 weeks.

He then details a 272-patient study looking at nebulized ensifentrine, a dual inhibitor of PDE3 and PDE4. The study demonstrated improved lung function as well as a reduction in exacerbation rate to patients with moderate to severe COPD treated with ensifentrined added to long-acting beta agonists-inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy.

Finally, Dr. Maselli highlights the MAZI study, a large retrospective analysis comparing the mortality rate in patients with COPD taking single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) vs multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). The researchers found that SITT was superior to MITT.

--

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor, Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health San Antonio, Texas

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: GSK; AstraZeneca; Sanofi/Regeneron; Amgen

Received research grant from: Gates Foundation; COPD Foundation; NIH

The latest research on treatment of patients with COPD presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 annual meeting is reported on by Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, CHEST Physician Editorial Board Member, from UT Health San Antonio in Texas.

Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 2a COURSE study, which looked at patients with moderate to severe COPD to determine whether novel tezepelumab would help reduce exacerbations over 52 weeks. The study reached a nonsignificant numerical reduction in the annual rate vs placebo, but Dr. Maselli suggests that outcomes in patients. with high blood eosinophil counts merit further study.

Next, Dr. Maselli discusses the phase 3 NOTUS trial, looking at the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe COPD. The researchers found a 34% reduction in exacerbations in the dupilumab group vs placebo after 52 weeks.

He then details a 272-patient study looking at nebulized ensifentrine, a dual inhibitor of PDE3 and PDE4. The study demonstrated improved lung function as well as a reduction in exacerbation rate to patients with moderate to severe COPD treated with ensifentrined added to long-acting beta agonists-inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy.

Finally, Dr. Maselli highlights the MAZI study, a large retrospective analysis comparing the mortality rate in patients with COPD taking single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) vs multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). The researchers found that SITT was superior to MITT.

--

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor, Chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health San Antonio, Texas

Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: GSK; AstraZeneca; Sanofi/Regeneron; Amgen

Received research grant from: Gates Foundation; COPD Foundation; NIH

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of biologics significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and overlapping type 2 asthma inflammation, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Patients diagnosed with COPD on maximum medical therapy may continue to have disease exacerbations that are highly morbid and are associated with worsening lung function, increased hospitalizations, and worsened mortality, said lead author Stephen Dachert, MD, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“Biologic therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations in type 2 airway inflammation in patients with asthma and may be a potential target in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. In type 2 inflammation, a systematic allergic response activates immune cells, including eosinophils, mast cells, and T cells.

Previous research has examined the association between use of individual biologics and reduction in acute exacerbations of COPD, but real-world data on the use of biologics for COPD and asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) are lacking, Dr. Dachert and colleagues wrote in their abstract.

In the current study, the researchers reviewed data from 53 adults with COPD who were seen at a single center; 30 had ACOS, and 23 had COPD only. The mean age of the participants was 68.2 years, approximately half were White/Caucasian individuals, 26% were Black/African American individuals, 17% were Hispanic individuals, 4% were Asian individuals/Pacific Islanders, and 2% were from other races/ethnicities; 62% were women. The study population included patients with prior diagnosis codes for COPD and dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab; the mean eosinophil count before biologics initiation was 471.
 

Reduction in Exacerbations and Hospitalizations

The researchers assessed change in exacerbations, hospitalizations, and spirometry from 1 year before to 1 year after initiation of treatment with biologics. Overall, after the use of biologics, patients experienced a significant mean reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations of 1.780 and 0.944, respectively (both P < .001, using a paired T-test). 

In addition, the researchers found a mean reduction of forced expiratory volume per second percent predicted of 0.57% and a mean increase in forced vital capacity percent predicted of 1.3% after the initiation of biologics.

Increases also occurred in total lung capacity percent predicted, residual volume percent predicted, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (3.37%, 9.90%, and 4.58%, respectively). Of these, only DLCO percent predicted approached statistical significance, the researchers wrote.

The study findings make sense physiologically, Dr. Dachert said in an interview. “If large, randomized trials have shown a reduction in exacerbations in patients with type 2 inflammation asthma, it makes sense that we would see similar results in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation,” he said. However, as yet only one of several large randomized trials has shown reductions in exacerbations and COPD with type 2 inflammation, he added.

“In our real-world cohort, we saw both a reduction in exacerbations and hospitalizations in the year following initiation of biologic therapy,” Dr. Dachert said. A reduction in hospitalizations, in particular, had not previously been shown in this population, he noted.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center; moreover, larger real-world studies are needed to confirm the results, said Dr. Dachert. “As we add patients to our cohort, we may be able to identify which clinical characteristics/risk factors may be associated with an even more robust reduction in exacerbations or hospitalizations,” he said.

“Our cohort of patients was more diverse than those included in prior randomized clinical trials and also has high rates of emphysema and airflow obstruction, populations typically excluded in large randomized trials,” he said.
 

Data Support the Potential of Biologics for COPD

Biologic agents have been effective in reducing asthma exacerbations, and understanding their effectiveness in reducing COPD exacerbations in a real-world setting is important, said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, in an interview.

Dr, Baldomero said she was not surprised by the current study results “as clinical trials are showing similar findings among this group of patients with elevated eosinophil counts.”

The current study adds to the growing evidence supporting the use of biologics to reduce COPD exacerbations, Dr. Baldomero told this news organization. “I anticipate that we will soon begin using biologics to manage frequent exacerbations in patients with COPD,” she said.

“For both asthma and COPD, more research is needed to guide clinicians in tapering or weaning down biologic treatment and determining whether patients still need to use inhalers,” Dr. Baldomero added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation, based on data from more than 900 individuals.

Data from a phase 3 trial known as NOTUS were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, works by inhibiting the signaling of the interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 pathways and is approved for many conditions characterized by type 2 inflammation, wrote Surya P. Bhatt, MD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues in the NEJM study.

“Last year, we showed in the BOREAS trial that dupilumab was very effective in lowering exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD who continued to have frequent exacerbations despite being on maximal inhaled therapy,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

12 Months of COPD, Triple Inhaler Therapy

In the NOTUS study, the researchers randomized 470 adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation (defined as a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µL) to 300-mg subcutaneous dupilumab and 465 to a placebo every 2 weeks. Patients were enrolled between July 2020 and May 2023.

The study population included adults aged 40-85 years with physician-diagnosed COPD for at least 12 months who had received background triple inhaler therapy (an inhaled glucocorticoid agent plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]–long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] or LAMA-LABA alone) for at least 3 months and at a stable dose for at least 1 month. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

The primary endpoint was a reduction in the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations at 52 weeks.

At 52 weeks, the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower (34%) in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (0.86 vs 1.30, P < .001).

Patients in the dupilumab group also saw a significantly greater improvement in lung function compared with individuals in the placebo group based on prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 12 weeks (least squares mean change of 139 mL vs 57 mL). This improvement was sustained at 52 weeks (least squares mean change of 115 mL vs 54 mL).

Improvement in respiratory symptom severity based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was another secondary endpoint, and changes in total score were greater in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (least squares mean change of 9.8 vs 6.4).

Safety outcomes were similar between the dupilumab and placebo groups, with approximately 66% of patients in each group reporting adverse events during the 52-week study period. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% and 15.9% of dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, and adverse events resulting in death occurred in 2.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The most common adverse events were COVID-19, which occurred in 9.4% and 8.2% of the dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, followed by headache, COPD, and nasopharyngitis. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in three patients in the dupilumab group and seven patients in the placebo group.

The findings were limited by several factors including the reduced sample size for 52-week endpoints because of the earlier analysis and the primarily White study population, the researchers noted. The study was conducted in part during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which contributed to healthcare disruptions and behavior changes that decreased exposure to viral respiratory infections, they wrote in their discussion. However, the results were strengthened by the large numbers and international population without other major pulmonary diseases, such as asthma, and the 34% reduction in exacerbations with dupilumab vs placebo is clinically significant, they said.

Data May Drive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval

In the BOREAS trial, dupilumab also improved lung function and quality of life, with no notable safety concerns. “As with any trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a medication, it is important to confirm the findings in a replicative study,” said Dr. Bhatt. “With NOTUS, we confirmed the findings of BOREAS,” and the researchers were reassured by the substantial reduction in exacerbation frequency and the replication of key secondary outcomes, he said.

With the NOTUS study, “two randomized trials have now shown near identical reductions in exacerbation frequency in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with COPD with type 2 inflammation and frequent exacerbations,” as well as a significant and meaningful improvement in lung function, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “We hope these trials pave for the way for regulatory body approval of dupilumab for clinical use,” he said. Looking ahead, more studies are needed to test the potential disease modification effects of dupilumab in patients with COPD, he added.

Potential Change in Patient Management

Approximately 20%-40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation with elevated blood eosinophil count, and this subset of patients has an increased risk for exacerbations, with worsening lung function and quality of life, Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Prior phase 3 studies have shown that dupilumab, a blocker of IL-4 and IL-13 pathways, could effectively reduce exacerbations and improve lung function in these patients, and the NOTUS study aimed to confirm the findings in a larger, more diverse population, said Dr. Narendra, who was not involved in the study.

The NOTUS study represents a paradigm shift in the management of COPD patients with type 2 inflammation, said Narendra. “This study validates the previous BOREAS trial and has shown that dupilumab reduces exacerbations, improves lung function and quality of life, and potentially slows disease progression,” she said.

If approved, potential barriers to the use of dupilumab in practice include cost and insurance coverage, education and dissemination of study findings, and limited data on side effects, said Dr. Narendra.

“While the NOTUS study provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of dupilumab over 52 weeks, longer-term studies are needed to understand the sustained benefits and risks of continued treatment,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization. “Studies comparing dupilumab with other biological agents and newer COPD treatments could provide insights into its relative efficacy and position in treatment protocols,” she said.

In addition, further research into dupilumab’s underlying mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation in COPD and inform the development of new treatments, Dr. Narendra said. “These steps will help integrate dupilumab more effectively into clinical practice and optimize its use for COPD patients with type 2 inflammation,” she noted.

Dupilumab is undergoing Priority Review by the FDA as an add-on maintenance therapy for adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation, with a target action date of June 27, 2024, according to a company press release.

The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Narendra had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of CHEST Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation, based on data from more than 900 individuals.

Data from a phase 3 trial known as NOTUS were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, works by inhibiting the signaling of the interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 pathways and is approved for many conditions characterized by type 2 inflammation, wrote Surya P. Bhatt, MD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues in the NEJM study.

“Last year, we showed in the BOREAS trial that dupilumab was very effective in lowering exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD who continued to have frequent exacerbations despite being on maximal inhaled therapy,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

12 Months of COPD, Triple Inhaler Therapy

In the NOTUS study, the researchers randomized 470 adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation (defined as a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µL) to 300-mg subcutaneous dupilumab and 465 to a placebo every 2 weeks. Patients were enrolled between July 2020 and May 2023.

The study population included adults aged 40-85 years with physician-diagnosed COPD for at least 12 months who had received background triple inhaler therapy (an inhaled glucocorticoid agent plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]–long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] or LAMA-LABA alone) for at least 3 months and at a stable dose for at least 1 month. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

The primary endpoint was a reduction in the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations at 52 weeks.

At 52 weeks, the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower (34%) in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (0.86 vs 1.30, P < .001).

Patients in the dupilumab group also saw a significantly greater improvement in lung function compared with individuals in the placebo group based on prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 12 weeks (least squares mean change of 139 mL vs 57 mL). This improvement was sustained at 52 weeks (least squares mean change of 115 mL vs 54 mL).

Improvement in respiratory symptom severity based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was another secondary endpoint, and changes in total score were greater in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (least squares mean change of 9.8 vs 6.4).

Safety outcomes were similar between the dupilumab and placebo groups, with approximately 66% of patients in each group reporting adverse events during the 52-week study period. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% and 15.9% of dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, and adverse events resulting in death occurred in 2.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The most common adverse events were COVID-19, which occurred in 9.4% and 8.2% of the dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, followed by headache, COPD, and nasopharyngitis. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in three patients in the dupilumab group and seven patients in the placebo group.

The findings were limited by several factors including the reduced sample size for 52-week endpoints because of the earlier analysis and the primarily White study population, the researchers noted. The study was conducted in part during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which contributed to healthcare disruptions and behavior changes that decreased exposure to viral respiratory infections, they wrote in their discussion. However, the results were strengthened by the large numbers and international population without other major pulmonary diseases, such as asthma, and the 34% reduction in exacerbations with dupilumab vs placebo is clinically significant, they said.

Data May Drive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval

In the BOREAS trial, dupilumab also improved lung function and quality of life, with no notable safety concerns. “As with any trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a medication, it is important to confirm the findings in a replicative study,” said Dr. Bhatt. “With NOTUS, we confirmed the findings of BOREAS,” and the researchers were reassured by the substantial reduction in exacerbation frequency and the replication of key secondary outcomes, he said.

With the NOTUS study, “two randomized trials have now shown near identical reductions in exacerbation frequency in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with COPD with type 2 inflammation and frequent exacerbations,” as well as a significant and meaningful improvement in lung function, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “We hope these trials pave for the way for regulatory body approval of dupilumab for clinical use,” he said. Looking ahead, more studies are needed to test the potential disease modification effects of dupilumab in patients with COPD, he added.

Potential Change in Patient Management

Approximately 20%-40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation with elevated blood eosinophil count, and this subset of patients has an increased risk for exacerbations, with worsening lung function and quality of life, Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Prior phase 3 studies have shown that dupilumab, a blocker of IL-4 and IL-13 pathways, could effectively reduce exacerbations and improve lung function in these patients, and the NOTUS study aimed to confirm the findings in a larger, more diverse population, said Dr. Narendra, who was not involved in the study.

The NOTUS study represents a paradigm shift in the management of COPD patients with type 2 inflammation, said Narendra. “This study validates the previous BOREAS trial and has shown that dupilumab reduces exacerbations, improves lung function and quality of life, and potentially slows disease progression,” she said.

If approved, potential barriers to the use of dupilumab in practice include cost and insurance coverage, education and dissemination of study findings, and limited data on side effects, said Dr. Narendra.

“While the NOTUS study provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of dupilumab over 52 weeks, longer-term studies are needed to understand the sustained benefits and risks of continued treatment,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization. “Studies comparing dupilumab with other biological agents and newer COPD treatments could provide insights into its relative efficacy and position in treatment protocols,” she said.

In addition, further research into dupilumab’s underlying mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation in COPD and inform the development of new treatments, Dr. Narendra said. “These steps will help integrate dupilumab more effectively into clinical practice and optimize its use for COPD patients with type 2 inflammation,” she noted.

Dupilumab is undergoing Priority Review by the FDA as an add-on maintenance therapy for adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation, with a target action date of June 27, 2024, according to a company press release.

The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Narendra had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of CHEST Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation, based on data from more than 900 individuals.

Data from a phase 3 trial known as NOTUS were presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, works by inhibiting the signaling of the interleukin 4 (IL-4) and IL-13 pathways and is approved for many conditions characterized by type 2 inflammation, wrote Surya P. Bhatt, MD, of The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues in the NEJM study.

“Last year, we showed in the BOREAS trial that dupilumab was very effective in lowering exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD who continued to have frequent exacerbations despite being on maximal inhaled therapy,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

12 Months of COPD, Triple Inhaler Therapy

In the NOTUS study, the researchers randomized 470 adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation (defined as a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µL) to 300-mg subcutaneous dupilumab and 465 to a placebo every 2 weeks. Patients were enrolled between July 2020 and May 2023.

The study population included adults aged 40-85 years with physician-diagnosed COPD for at least 12 months who had received background triple inhaler therapy (an inhaled glucocorticoid agent plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]–long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] or LAMA-LABA alone) for at least 3 months and at a stable dose for at least 1 month. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

The primary endpoint was a reduction in the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations at 52 weeks.

At 52 weeks, the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower (34%) in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (0.86 vs 1.30, P < .001).

Patients in the dupilumab group also saw a significantly greater improvement in lung function compared with individuals in the placebo group based on prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 12 weeks (least squares mean change of 139 mL vs 57 mL). This improvement was sustained at 52 weeks (least squares mean change of 115 mL vs 54 mL).

Improvement in respiratory symptom severity based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was another secondary endpoint, and changes in total score were greater in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group (least squares mean change of 9.8 vs 6.4).

Safety outcomes were similar between the dupilumab and placebo groups, with approximately 66% of patients in each group reporting adverse events during the 52-week study period. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% and 15.9% of dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, and adverse events resulting in death occurred in 2.6% and 1.5%, respectively. The most common adverse events were COVID-19, which occurred in 9.4% and 8.2% of the dupilumab and placebo patients, respectively, followed by headache, COPD, and nasopharyngitis. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in three patients in the dupilumab group and seven patients in the placebo group.

The findings were limited by several factors including the reduced sample size for 52-week endpoints because of the earlier analysis and the primarily White study population, the researchers noted. The study was conducted in part during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which contributed to healthcare disruptions and behavior changes that decreased exposure to viral respiratory infections, they wrote in their discussion. However, the results were strengthened by the large numbers and international population without other major pulmonary diseases, such as asthma, and the 34% reduction in exacerbations with dupilumab vs placebo is clinically significant, they said.

Data May Drive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approval

In the BOREAS trial, dupilumab also improved lung function and quality of life, with no notable safety concerns. “As with any trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a medication, it is important to confirm the findings in a replicative study,” said Dr. Bhatt. “With NOTUS, we confirmed the findings of BOREAS,” and the researchers were reassured by the substantial reduction in exacerbation frequency and the replication of key secondary outcomes, he said.

With the NOTUS study, “two randomized trials have now shown near identical reductions in exacerbation frequency in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with COPD with type 2 inflammation and frequent exacerbations,” as well as a significant and meaningful improvement in lung function, Dr. Bhatt said in an interview. “We hope these trials pave for the way for regulatory body approval of dupilumab for clinical use,” he said. Looking ahead, more studies are needed to test the potential disease modification effects of dupilumab in patients with COPD, he added.

Potential Change in Patient Management

Approximately 20%-40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation with elevated blood eosinophil count, and this subset of patients has an increased risk for exacerbations, with worsening lung function and quality of life, Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Prior phase 3 studies have shown that dupilumab, a blocker of IL-4 and IL-13 pathways, could effectively reduce exacerbations and improve lung function in these patients, and the NOTUS study aimed to confirm the findings in a larger, more diverse population, said Dr. Narendra, who was not involved in the study.

The NOTUS study represents a paradigm shift in the management of COPD patients with type 2 inflammation, said Narendra. “This study validates the previous BOREAS trial and has shown that dupilumab reduces exacerbations, improves lung function and quality of life, and potentially slows disease progression,” she said.

If approved, potential barriers to the use of dupilumab in practice include cost and insurance coverage, education and dissemination of study findings, and limited data on side effects, said Dr. Narendra.

“While the NOTUS study provides valuable insights into the efficacy and safety of dupilumab over 52 weeks, longer-term studies are needed to understand the sustained benefits and risks of continued treatment,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization. “Studies comparing dupilumab with other biological agents and newer COPD treatments could provide insights into its relative efficacy and position in treatment protocols,” she said.

In addition, further research into dupilumab’s underlying mechanisms could provide deeper insights into the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation in COPD and inform the development of new treatments, Dr. Narendra said. “These steps will help integrate dupilumab more effectively into clinical practice and optimize its use for COPD patients with type 2 inflammation,” she noted.

Dupilumab is undergoing Priority Review by the FDA as an add-on maintenance therapy for adults with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation, with a target action date of June 27, 2024, according to a company press release.

The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Narendra had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of CHEST Physician.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) significantly improved lung function in a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), based on data from more than 200 individuals.

BLVR has shown promising results in previous studies for carefully selected patients with COPD, said Michael J. Nicholson, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. However, those with AATD have often been excluded from large BLVR trials, so data on its effectiveness in this population are limited, he said.

“The distinct pathophysiology of AATD poses challenges in extrapolating findings from trials involving COPD patients without AATD,” Dr. Nicholson noted. “Variations in affected lung lobes and disease progression are major differences between the AATD and non-AATD populations; we sought to examine if BLVR could provide significant, sustained benefit to AATD patients despite their differences from the typical COPD cohort,” he said.

Patients With COPD and AATD

In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference, Dr. Nicholson and colleagues reviewed data from 238 adults with COPD including 14 with AATD who underwent BLVR at a single center between August 2018 and December 2022. Pulmonary function test data were collected at baseline and at a median of 7 months post-BLVR. The mean age of patients with AATD was 61.5 years, and 79% were men.

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) improvement greater than 15%. Half of the patients with AATD achieved this outcome, with a median improvement in FEV1 of 110 mL and a significant difference in pre- and post-BLVR FEV1 volume based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W = 11.5; P < .05).

Patients with AATD also showed significant improvement in several secondary outcomes including BODE index, residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), RV/TLC ratio, and inspiratory capacity/RV ratio between pre- and post-BLVR.

“The sustained improvements seen at 7 months post-BLVR in patients with lower lobe disease were unexpected and promising,” Dr. Nicholson said in an interview. “In contrast to the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which found lung volume reduction surgery ineffective for lower lobe disease, our study revealed significant improvements in lower lobe disease following BLVR,” he said. The sustained improvements up to 7 months post-BLVR are encouraging, given clinical concerns that the ongoing destruction of lung tissue in AATD could cause initial BLVR improvements to regress, he added.

Overall, the results suggest that BLVR is an effective therapy for appropriately selected patients with AATD and COPD, and that significant improvement in lung function can be achieved regardless of the affected lobe, Dr. Nicholson said.

“The primary obstacles to widespread BLVR implementation include the scarcity of equipment, as well as insufficient education and training for pulmonologists outside of major academic institutions,” Dr. Nicholson told this news organization. “Successful outcomes in BLVR require clinicians to have a deep understanding of patient selection criteria, extensive training in BLVR techniques, and access to the necessary technology within their facilities,” he said. However, BLVR has been integrated into pulmonary and interventional pulmonary fellowships nationwide, which paves the way for a new generation of pulmonologists to expand the use of the procedure, he said.

Looking ahead, prospective examination of BLVR vs the current standard of care in patients with AATD would provide invaluable data, Dr. Nicholson said. Since the presentation of the study at the meeting, additional patient data have been added to the analysis and increased the power of the findings, he said. “We intend to extend our assessment of pulmonary function testing beyond 7 months post-BLVR to evaluate the persistence of improvements in the long term,” he added.

Study Confirms Benefits for Wider Patient Population

“Lung volume reduction is an important intervention in patients with severe emphysema,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, in an interview. Most emphysema is in the upper lobes, but it tends to occur more in the lower lobes in patients with AATD, said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were not especially surprising, but they were reassuring, Dr. Mannino told this news organization. “We know this intervention works in those with severe emphysema,” and it was helpful to confirm similar success in patients with AATD, he said.

The implications for practice are that BLVR is both a safe and an effective intervention for patients with lower or upper lobe emphysema, although longer-term follow-up studies are needed, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) significantly improved lung function in a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), based on data from more than 200 individuals.

BLVR has shown promising results in previous studies for carefully selected patients with COPD, said Michael J. Nicholson, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. However, those with AATD have often been excluded from large BLVR trials, so data on its effectiveness in this population are limited, he said.

“The distinct pathophysiology of AATD poses challenges in extrapolating findings from trials involving COPD patients without AATD,” Dr. Nicholson noted. “Variations in affected lung lobes and disease progression are major differences between the AATD and non-AATD populations; we sought to examine if BLVR could provide significant, sustained benefit to AATD patients despite their differences from the typical COPD cohort,” he said.

Patients With COPD and AATD

In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference, Dr. Nicholson and colleagues reviewed data from 238 adults with COPD including 14 with AATD who underwent BLVR at a single center between August 2018 and December 2022. Pulmonary function test data were collected at baseline and at a median of 7 months post-BLVR. The mean age of patients with AATD was 61.5 years, and 79% were men.

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) improvement greater than 15%. Half of the patients with AATD achieved this outcome, with a median improvement in FEV1 of 110 mL and a significant difference in pre- and post-BLVR FEV1 volume based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W = 11.5; P < .05).

Patients with AATD also showed significant improvement in several secondary outcomes including BODE index, residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), RV/TLC ratio, and inspiratory capacity/RV ratio between pre- and post-BLVR.

“The sustained improvements seen at 7 months post-BLVR in patients with lower lobe disease were unexpected and promising,” Dr. Nicholson said in an interview. “In contrast to the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which found lung volume reduction surgery ineffective for lower lobe disease, our study revealed significant improvements in lower lobe disease following BLVR,” he said. The sustained improvements up to 7 months post-BLVR are encouraging, given clinical concerns that the ongoing destruction of lung tissue in AATD could cause initial BLVR improvements to regress, he added.

Overall, the results suggest that BLVR is an effective therapy for appropriately selected patients with AATD and COPD, and that significant improvement in lung function can be achieved regardless of the affected lobe, Dr. Nicholson said.

“The primary obstacles to widespread BLVR implementation include the scarcity of equipment, as well as insufficient education and training for pulmonologists outside of major academic institutions,” Dr. Nicholson told this news organization. “Successful outcomes in BLVR require clinicians to have a deep understanding of patient selection criteria, extensive training in BLVR techniques, and access to the necessary technology within their facilities,” he said. However, BLVR has been integrated into pulmonary and interventional pulmonary fellowships nationwide, which paves the way for a new generation of pulmonologists to expand the use of the procedure, he said.

Looking ahead, prospective examination of BLVR vs the current standard of care in patients with AATD would provide invaluable data, Dr. Nicholson said. Since the presentation of the study at the meeting, additional patient data have been added to the analysis and increased the power of the findings, he said. “We intend to extend our assessment of pulmonary function testing beyond 7 months post-BLVR to evaluate the persistence of improvements in the long term,” he added.

Study Confirms Benefits for Wider Patient Population

“Lung volume reduction is an important intervention in patients with severe emphysema,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, in an interview. Most emphysema is in the upper lobes, but it tends to occur more in the lower lobes in patients with AATD, said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were not especially surprising, but they were reassuring, Dr. Mannino told this news organization. “We know this intervention works in those with severe emphysema,” and it was helpful to confirm similar success in patients with AATD, he said.

The implications for practice are that BLVR is both a safe and an effective intervention for patients with lower or upper lobe emphysema, although longer-term follow-up studies are needed, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) significantly improved lung function in a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD), based on data from more than 200 individuals.

BLVR has shown promising results in previous studies for carefully selected patients with COPD, said Michael J. Nicholson, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia. However, those with AATD have often been excluded from large BLVR trials, so data on its effectiveness in this population are limited, he said.

“The distinct pathophysiology of AATD poses challenges in extrapolating findings from trials involving COPD patients without AATD,” Dr. Nicholson noted. “Variations in affected lung lobes and disease progression are major differences between the AATD and non-AATD populations; we sought to examine if BLVR could provide significant, sustained benefit to AATD patients despite their differences from the typical COPD cohort,” he said.

Patients With COPD and AATD

In a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference, Dr. Nicholson and colleagues reviewed data from 238 adults with COPD including 14 with AATD who underwent BLVR at a single center between August 2018 and December 2022. Pulmonary function test data were collected at baseline and at a median of 7 months post-BLVR. The mean age of patients with AATD was 61.5 years, and 79% were men.

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) improvement greater than 15%. Half of the patients with AATD achieved this outcome, with a median improvement in FEV1 of 110 mL and a significant difference in pre- and post-BLVR FEV1 volume based on a Wilcoxon signed rank test (W = 11.5; P < .05).

Patients with AATD also showed significant improvement in several secondary outcomes including BODE index, residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), RV/TLC ratio, and inspiratory capacity/RV ratio between pre- and post-BLVR.

“The sustained improvements seen at 7 months post-BLVR in patients with lower lobe disease were unexpected and promising,” Dr. Nicholson said in an interview. “In contrast to the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), which found lung volume reduction surgery ineffective for lower lobe disease, our study revealed significant improvements in lower lobe disease following BLVR,” he said. The sustained improvements up to 7 months post-BLVR are encouraging, given clinical concerns that the ongoing destruction of lung tissue in AATD could cause initial BLVR improvements to regress, he added.

Overall, the results suggest that BLVR is an effective therapy for appropriately selected patients with AATD and COPD, and that significant improvement in lung function can be achieved regardless of the affected lobe, Dr. Nicholson said.

“The primary obstacles to widespread BLVR implementation include the scarcity of equipment, as well as insufficient education and training for pulmonologists outside of major academic institutions,” Dr. Nicholson told this news organization. “Successful outcomes in BLVR require clinicians to have a deep understanding of patient selection criteria, extensive training in BLVR techniques, and access to the necessary technology within their facilities,” he said. However, BLVR has been integrated into pulmonary and interventional pulmonary fellowships nationwide, which paves the way for a new generation of pulmonologists to expand the use of the procedure, he said.

Looking ahead, prospective examination of BLVR vs the current standard of care in patients with AATD would provide invaluable data, Dr. Nicholson said. Since the presentation of the study at the meeting, additional patient data have been added to the analysis and increased the power of the findings, he said. “We intend to extend our assessment of pulmonary function testing beyond 7 months post-BLVR to evaluate the persistence of improvements in the long term,” he added.

Study Confirms Benefits for Wider Patient Population

“Lung volume reduction is an important intervention in patients with severe emphysema,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, in an interview. Most emphysema is in the upper lobes, but it tends to occur more in the lower lobes in patients with AATD, said Dr. Mannino, who was not involved in the study.

The findings were not especially surprising, but they were reassuring, Dr. Mannino told this news organization. “We know this intervention works in those with severe emphysema,” and it was helpful to confirm similar success in patients with AATD, he said.

The implications for practice are that BLVR is both a safe and an effective intervention for patients with lower or upper lobe emphysema, although longer-term follow-up studies are needed, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Mannino had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on spirometry results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.

Once they have been identified and randomly assigned to be treated by a pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator according to clinical guidelines, these previously undiagnosed patients have significant improvements in health care utilization, lung function, symptoms, and quality of life compared with patients randomly assigned to treatment by a general practitioner.

“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Undiagnosed diseases

“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.

He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.

“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.

Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.
 

Study details

To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.

Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.

The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).

In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia.

Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.
 

Improvements abound

During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition. 

Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.

The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).

Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (P = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.

Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (P = .03).

In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.
 

Translatable results?

Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.

In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.

“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.

Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.

“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.

Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.

He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.

Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Chest Physician that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.

She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on spirometry results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.

Once they have been identified and randomly assigned to be treated by a pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator according to clinical guidelines, these previously undiagnosed patients have significant improvements in health care utilization, lung function, symptoms, and quality of life compared with patients randomly assigned to treatment by a general practitioner.

“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Undiagnosed diseases

“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.

He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.

“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.

Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.
 

Study details

To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.

Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.

The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).

In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia.

Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.
 

Improvements abound

During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition. 

Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.

The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).

Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (P = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.

Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (P = .03).

In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.
 

Translatable results?

Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.

In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.

“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.

Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.

“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.

Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.

He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.

Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Chest Physician that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.

She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on spirometry results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.

Once they have been identified and randomly assigned to be treated by a pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator according to clinical guidelines, these previously undiagnosed patients have significant improvements in health care utilization, lung function, symptoms, and quality of life compared with patients randomly assigned to treatment by a general practitioner.

“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Undiagnosed diseases

“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.

He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.

“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.

Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.
 

Study details

To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.

Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.

The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).

In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia.

Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.
 

Improvements abound

During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition. 

Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.

The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).

Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (P = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.

Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (P = .03).

In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.
 

Translatable results?

Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.

In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.

“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.

Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.

“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.

Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.

He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.

Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Chest Physician that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.

She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.