COPD

A potentially protective role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suggested by the finding that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are inversely associated with COPD incidence and mortality. COPD risk was 23% higher in people within the lowest quintile vs. the fourth quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, according to research appearing in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

While low vitamin D status has been linked to increased inflammatory diseases risk and to the regulation of pathogenic mechanisms in COPD, epidemiological evidence regarding the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD incidence and survival remains inconclusive, Zheng Zhu, MD, of Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China, and colleagues wrote.

From UK Biobank data recorded from 403,648 participants (mean age 56.4 years; 54% women) who were free of COPD at baseline and had 25(OH)D measurements, researchers estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD risk and survival. After median follow-up of 12.3 years (ending Sept. 30, 2021), with 11,008 COPD cases recorded, beyond the COPD and mortality increase (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31) in the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, risk for overall death was 38% higher, as well (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56). Serum concentrations were greater than 64.6 nmol/L in the highest (quintile 5) and less than 31.7 nmol/L in the lowest (quintile 1). Also, men and current smokers had higher COPD and mortality risk (P interaction for both: < .05).

While event rates tracked generally inversely with 25(OH)D concentrations, overall the event curves were non-linear. Dr Zhu and associates reported that the decreasing risk of COPD appeared to be lowest at 55 nmol/L of 25(OH)D within quintile 4 (51.8 to < 64.6 nmol/L). Furthermore, lower prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a significant decrease in overall and COPD-specific survival.

Smoking is the most commonly encountered risk factor for COPD, the researchers noted, and their findings indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with COPD risk in both smokers and never-smokers. In a fully adjusted model, compared with quintile 4, the quintile 1 increase in COPD risk was 25% in never-smokers and 23% in smokers.

“Our findings imply that vitamin D might play a role in progression of COPD,” the authors stated. They added, “Whether lower concentrations of 25(OH)D are causal or contributory to COPD risk may spur future long-duration and large-scale RCTs.”

“Vitamin D has an important function in the immune system and lower serum levels have been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases,” commented associate professor of medicine Diego J. Maselli, MD, who is chief of the division of pulmonary diseases & critical care at UT Health San Antonio. “Patients with COPD often have lower levels of vitamin D compared to healthy individuals. COPD patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have a higher risk of exacerbations and worse lung function.”

He added, “The research by Zhu and colleagues adds to the field of study and highlights the potential role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of COPD. It is important to remember that these associations do not establish causality, as patients with chronic and debilitating diseases may have limited sunlight exposure, poor nutritional intake, and other behaviors that may affect vitamin D levels. There are mixed results in studies evaluating the role of supplementing vitamin D in COPD with regards to disease progression and exacerbation reduction. While there are some studies that report that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce COPD exacerbations, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies that explore if the supplementation of vitamin D can prevent the development of COPD, particularly in those who actively smoke. Yet, it is reasonable to evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in COPD patients who have had exacerbations and supplement when there is a severe deficiency.” 

Given that the majority of participants in this study were from the United Kingdom, the researchers stated, a study limitation is that findings might not apply to other populations.

No disclosures were reported by Dr. Zhu or by Dr. Maselli.

A potentially protective role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suggested by the finding that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are inversely associated with COPD incidence and mortality. COPD risk was 23% higher in people within the lowest quintile vs. the fourth quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, according to research appearing in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

While low vitamin D status has been linked to increased inflammatory diseases risk and to the regulation of pathogenic mechanisms in COPD, epidemiological evidence regarding the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD incidence and survival remains inconclusive, Zheng Zhu, MD, of Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China, and colleagues wrote.

From UK Biobank data recorded from 403,648 participants (mean age 56.4 years; 54% women) who were free of COPD at baseline and had 25(OH)D measurements, researchers estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD risk and survival. After median follow-up of 12.3 years (ending Sept. 30, 2021), with 11,008 COPD cases recorded, beyond the COPD and mortality increase (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31) in the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, risk for overall death was 38% higher, as well (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56). Serum concentrations were greater than 64.6 nmol/L in the highest (quintile 5) and less than 31.7 nmol/L in the lowest (quintile 1). Also, men and current smokers had higher COPD and mortality risk (P interaction for both: < .05).

While event rates tracked generally inversely with 25(OH)D concentrations, overall the event curves were non-linear. Dr Zhu and associates reported that the decreasing risk of COPD appeared to be lowest at 55 nmol/L of 25(OH)D within quintile 4 (51.8 to < 64.6 nmol/L). Furthermore, lower prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a significant decrease in overall and COPD-specific survival.

Smoking is the most commonly encountered risk factor for COPD, the researchers noted, and their findings indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with COPD risk in both smokers and never-smokers. In a fully adjusted model, compared with quintile 4, the quintile 1 increase in COPD risk was 25% in never-smokers and 23% in smokers.

“Our findings imply that vitamin D might play a role in progression of COPD,” the authors stated. They added, “Whether lower concentrations of 25(OH)D are causal or contributory to COPD risk may spur future long-duration and large-scale RCTs.”

“Vitamin D has an important function in the immune system and lower serum levels have been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases,” commented associate professor of medicine Diego J. Maselli, MD, who is chief of the division of pulmonary diseases & critical care at UT Health San Antonio. “Patients with COPD often have lower levels of vitamin D compared to healthy individuals. COPD patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have a higher risk of exacerbations and worse lung function.”

He added, “The research by Zhu and colleagues adds to the field of study and highlights the potential role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of COPD. It is important to remember that these associations do not establish causality, as patients with chronic and debilitating diseases may have limited sunlight exposure, poor nutritional intake, and other behaviors that may affect vitamin D levels. There are mixed results in studies evaluating the role of supplementing vitamin D in COPD with regards to disease progression and exacerbation reduction. While there are some studies that report that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce COPD exacerbations, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies that explore if the supplementation of vitamin D can prevent the development of COPD, particularly in those who actively smoke. Yet, it is reasonable to evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in COPD patients who have had exacerbations and supplement when there is a severe deficiency.” 

Given that the majority of participants in this study were from the United Kingdom, the researchers stated, a study limitation is that findings might not apply to other populations.

No disclosures were reported by Dr. Zhu or by Dr. Maselli.

A potentially protective role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suggested by the finding that serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations are inversely associated with COPD incidence and mortality. COPD risk was 23% higher in people within the lowest quintile vs. the fourth quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, according to research appearing in BMJ Open Respiratory Research.

While low vitamin D status has been linked to increased inflammatory diseases risk and to the regulation of pathogenic mechanisms in COPD, epidemiological evidence regarding the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD incidence and survival remains inconclusive, Zheng Zhu, MD, of Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Nanjing, China, and colleagues wrote.

From UK Biobank data recorded from 403,648 participants (mean age 56.4 years; 54% women) who were free of COPD at baseline and had 25(OH)D measurements, researchers estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations of 25(OH)D concentrations with COPD risk and survival. After median follow-up of 12.3 years (ending Sept. 30, 2021), with 11,008 COPD cases recorded, beyond the COPD and mortality increase (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31) in the lowest quintile of 25(OH)D concentrations, risk for overall death was 38% higher, as well (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56). Serum concentrations were greater than 64.6 nmol/L in the highest (quintile 5) and less than 31.7 nmol/L in the lowest (quintile 1). Also, men and current smokers had higher COPD and mortality risk (P interaction for both: < .05).

While event rates tracked generally inversely with 25(OH)D concentrations, overall the event curves were non-linear. Dr Zhu and associates reported that the decreasing risk of COPD appeared to be lowest at 55 nmol/L of 25(OH)D within quintile 4 (51.8 to < 64.6 nmol/L). Furthermore, lower prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations were associated with a significant decrease in overall and COPD-specific survival.

Smoking is the most commonly encountered risk factor for COPD, the researchers noted, and their findings indicated that 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with COPD risk in both smokers and never-smokers. In a fully adjusted model, compared with quintile 4, the quintile 1 increase in COPD risk was 25% in never-smokers and 23% in smokers.

“Our findings imply that vitamin D might play a role in progression of COPD,” the authors stated. They added, “Whether lower concentrations of 25(OH)D are causal or contributory to COPD risk may spur future long-duration and large-scale RCTs.”

“Vitamin D has an important function in the immune system and lower serum levels have been implicated in a variety of inflammatory diseases,” commented associate professor of medicine Diego J. Maselli, MD, who is chief of the division of pulmonary diseases & critical care at UT Health San Antonio. “Patients with COPD often have lower levels of vitamin D compared to healthy individuals. COPD patients with low serum levels of vitamin D may have a higher risk of exacerbations and worse lung function.”

He added, “The research by Zhu and colleagues adds to the field of study and highlights the potential role of vitamin D in the pathophysiology of COPD. It is important to remember that these associations do not establish causality, as patients with chronic and debilitating diseases may have limited sunlight exposure, poor nutritional intake, and other behaviors that may affect vitamin D levels. There are mixed results in studies evaluating the role of supplementing vitamin D in COPD with regards to disease progression and exacerbation reduction. While there are some studies that report that supplementation of vitamin D can reduce COPD exacerbations, there is still a need for randomized controlled studies that explore if the supplementation of vitamin D can prevent the development of COPD, particularly in those who actively smoke. Yet, it is reasonable to evaluate the serum vitamin D levels in COPD patients who have had exacerbations and supplement when there is a severe deficiency.” 

Given that the majority of participants in this study were from the United Kingdom, the researchers stated, a study limitation is that findings might not apply to other populations.

No disclosures were reported by Dr. Zhu or by Dr. Maselli.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

It’s tough to keep up with the proliferation of monoclonal antibodies. Seems every day I’m confronted by a patient who’s using a new drug with a name ending in “mab.” That drug blocks a cellular receptor I haven’t heard of that’s involved in a cascade of interactions I haven’t thought about since medical school. The resulting disruption reduces disease burden, typically at great expense to the medical system, the patient, or both. We’ve truly entered the era of precision medicine. It’s not enough to understand disease; you also must know its heterogeneous expression so that you can prescribe the ‘mab that targets the biology responsible for variants in behavior. All diseases are, in fact, syndromes. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s a challenge.

A series of ‘mabs have been approved for treating type 2 high (TH2) or eosinophilic asthma. We refer to this group of ‘mabs generically as biologics. The group includes omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, and tezepelumab. While mechanism of action varies slightly across drugs, the biologics all target a specific arm of the immune system. Efficacy is linearly related to serum eosinophil count and there’s little clinically or pharmacologically to distinguish one from another. Of course, no head-to-head comparisons of efficacy are available and there’s no financial incentive for them to be performed.
 

Latest research

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of dupilumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adds to the aforementioned biologic knowledge base. Turns out it works as long as the patients are carefully selected. Researchers enrolled GOLD D (or E depending on which iteration of the GOLD Statement you use) patients on triple inhaler therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]/long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) with two moderate exacerbations or one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the past year. Blood eosinophil counts were > 300 cells/mcL and chronic bronchitis was present clinically. The primary and multiple secondary outcomes were improved with dupilumab.

This is welcome news. I’ve treated countless patients with severe COPD who have repeated exacerbations despite my efforts to prevent them. These patients are on ICS/LABA/LAMA and azithromycin or roflumilast, and occasionally both. While every COPD guideline known to man forbids using chronic oral corticosteroids (OCS), I’ve prescribed them repeatedly because the benefits to keeping a recalcitrant, exacerbating patient out of the hospital seem to outweigh OCS risks. It would be nice to have a better option. Although we were taught that they were immutably distinct in medical school, every first-year pulmonary fellow knows that asthma and COPD share more similarities than differences, so it makes sense that proven asthma therapies would work for some patients with COPD.

However, the dupilumab study must be placed in context. Past studies haven’t been as positive. In 2017, two separate RCTs found that mepolizumab reduced the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (primary outcome) in one trial but not the other. Interpretation gets more complicated when broken down by intention to treat (ITT) vs. modified ITT and when secondary outcomes are considered. Sparing you those details, this trial does not instill confidence, leading the Food and Drug Administration to refuse approval for mepolizumab for COPD. A second RCT of benralizumab for COPD was published in 2019. Much less cognitive load was required to interpret this one; it was negative. FDA approval was not requested.

Looking through the trial designs for the three RCTs of biologics for COPD, I couldn’t find major differences that could explain the discordant results. Sample size and enrollment criteria were similar. As stated, I don’t believe that the biologic data in asthma allow for predicting efficacy in one eosinophilic patient vs. another and I assume the same would be true for COPD. All three trials found that eosinophils were eliminated, so responses were biologically equivalent.
 

Key takeaways

If trial design and pharmacology don’t account for the disparate outcomes, how do we explain them? More important, how do we translate these trials into clinical practice? I looked for a review or editorial by a scientist-clinician smarter than I so I could steal their ideas and express them as pedantic euphemisms here. I found it curious that I was unable to find one. A recent publication in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine suggests that the answer lies within the complex lattice of eosinophil subtypes, but I’m unqualified to judge the veracity of this “phenotype within a phenotype” theory.

For now, there will be no biologics prescribed for COPD – at least not by me. More trials in COPD are being done. We should have results on tezepelumab, that great savior that may cover noneosinophilic asthma phenotypes, within the next few years. Until then, we’re stuck defying guidelines with the anachronistic use of OCS for the COPD patient who exacerbates through ICS/LABA/LAMA, roflumilast, and azithromycin.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported receiving income from CHEST College, Metapharm, and WebMD.

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

It’s tough to keep up with the proliferation of monoclonal antibodies. Seems every day I’m confronted by a patient who’s using a new drug with a name ending in “mab.” That drug blocks a cellular receptor I haven’t heard of that’s involved in a cascade of interactions I haven’t thought about since medical school. The resulting disruption reduces disease burden, typically at great expense to the medical system, the patient, or both. We’ve truly entered the era of precision medicine. It’s not enough to understand disease; you also must know its heterogeneous expression so that you can prescribe the ‘mab that targets the biology responsible for variants in behavior. All diseases are, in fact, syndromes. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s a challenge.

A series of ‘mabs have been approved for treating type 2 high (TH2) or eosinophilic asthma. We refer to this group of ‘mabs generically as biologics. The group includes omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, and tezepelumab. While mechanism of action varies slightly across drugs, the biologics all target a specific arm of the immune system. Efficacy is linearly related to serum eosinophil count and there’s little clinically or pharmacologically to distinguish one from another. Of course, no head-to-head comparisons of efficacy are available and there’s no financial incentive for them to be performed.
 

Latest research

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of dupilumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adds to the aforementioned biologic knowledge base. Turns out it works as long as the patients are carefully selected. Researchers enrolled GOLD D (or E depending on which iteration of the GOLD Statement you use) patients on triple inhaler therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]/long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) with two moderate exacerbations or one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the past year. Blood eosinophil counts were > 300 cells/mcL and chronic bronchitis was present clinically. The primary and multiple secondary outcomes were improved with dupilumab.

This is welcome news. I’ve treated countless patients with severe COPD who have repeated exacerbations despite my efforts to prevent them. These patients are on ICS/LABA/LAMA and azithromycin or roflumilast, and occasionally both. While every COPD guideline known to man forbids using chronic oral corticosteroids (OCS), I’ve prescribed them repeatedly because the benefits to keeping a recalcitrant, exacerbating patient out of the hospital seem to outweigh OCS risks. It would be nice to have a better option. Although we were taught that they were immutably distinct in medical school, every first-year pulmonary fellow knows that asthma and COPD share more similarities than differences, so it makes sense that proven asthma therapies would work for some patients with COPD.

However, the dupilumab study must be placed in context. Past studies haven’t been as positive. In 2017, two separate RCTs found that mepolizumab reduced the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (primary outcome) in one trial but not the other. Interpretation gets more complicated when broken down by intention to treat (ITT) vs. modified ITT and when secondary outcomes are considered. Sparing you those details, this trial does not instill confidence, leading the Food and Drug Administration to refuse approval for mepolizumab for COPD. A second RCT of benralizumab for COPD was published in 2019. Much less cognitive load was required to interpret this one; it was negative. FDA approval was not requested.

Looking through the trial designs for the three RCTs of biologics for COPD, I couldn’t find major differences that could explain the discordant results. Sample size and enrollment criteria were similar. As stated, I don’t believe that the biologic data in asthma allow for predicting efficacy in one eosinophilic patient vs. another and I assume the same would be true for COPD. All three trials found that eosinophils were eliminated, so responses were biologically equivalent.
 

Key takeaways

If trial design and pharmacology don’t account for the disparate outcomes, how do we explain them? More important, how do we translate these trials into clinical practice? I looked for a review or editorial by a scientist-clinician smarter than I so I could steal their ideas and express them as pedantic euphemisms here. I found it curious that I was unable to find one. A recent publication in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine suggests that the answer lies within the complex lattice of eosinophil subtypes, but I’m unqualified to judge the veracity of this “phenotype within a phenotype” theory.

For now, there will be no biologics prescribed for COPD – at least not by me. More trials in COPD are being done. We should have results on tezepelumab, that great savior that may cover noneosinophilic asthma phenotypes, within the next few years. Until then, we’re stuck defying guidelines with the anachronistic use of OCS for the COPD patient who exacerbates through ICS/LABA/LAMA, roflumilast, and azithromycin.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported receiving income from CHEST College, Metapharm, and WebMD.

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

It’s tough to keep up with the proliferation of monoclonal antibodies. Seems every day I’m confronted by a patient who’s using a new drug with a name ending in “mab.” That drug blocks a cellular receptor I haven’t heard of that’s involved in a cascade of interactions I haven’t thought about since medical school. The resulting disruption reduces disease burden, typically at great expense to the medical system, the patient, or both. We’ve truly entered the era of precision medicine. It’s not enough to understand disease; you also must know its heterogeneous expression so that you can prescribe the ‘mab that targets the biology responsible for variants in behavior. All diseases are, in fact, syndromes. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s a challenge.

A series of ‘mabs have been approved for treating type 2 high (TH2) or eosinophilic asthma. We refer to this group of ‘mabs generically as biologics. The group includes omalizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, reslizumab, and tezepelumab. While mechanism of action varies slightly across drugs, the biologics all target a specific arm of the immune system. Efficacy is linearly related to serum eosinophil count and there’s little clinically or pharmacologically to distinguish one from another. Of course, no head-to-head comparisons of efficacy are available and there’s no financial incentive for them to be performed.
 

Latest research

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) of dupilumab for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) adds to the aforementioned biologic knowledge base. Turns out it works as long as the patients are carefully selected. Researchers enrolled GOLD D (or E depending on which iteration of the GOLD Statement you use) patients on triple inhaler therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]/long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]/long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) with two moderate exacerbations or one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the past year. Blood eosinophil counts were > 300 cells/mcL and chronic bronchitis was present clinically. The primary and multiple secondary outcomes were improved with dupilumab.

This is welcome news. I’ve treated countless patients with severe COPD who have repeated exacerbations despite my efforts to prevent them. These patients are on ICS/LABA/LAMA and azithromycin or roflumilast, and occasionally both. While every COPD guideline known to man forbids using chronic oral corticosteroids (OCS), I’ve prescribed them repeatedly because the benefits to keeping a recalcitrant, exacerbating patient out of the hospital seem to outweigh OCS risks. It would be nice to have a better option. Although we were taught that they were immutably distinct in medical school, every first-year pulmonary fellow knows that asthma and COPD share more similarities than differences, so it makes sense that proven asthma therapies would work for some patients with COPD.

However, the dupilumab study must be placed in context. Past studies haven’t been as positive. In 2017, two separate RCTs found that mepolizumab reduced the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (primary outcome) in one trial but not the other. Interpretation gets more complicated when broken down by intention to treat (ITT) vs. modified ITT and when secondary outcomes are considered. Sparing you those details, this trial does not instill confidence, leading the Food and Drug Administration to refuse approval for mepolizumab for COPD. A second RCT of benralizumab for COPD was published in 2019. Much less cognitive load was required to interpret this one; it was negative. FDA approval was not requested.

Looking through the trial designs for the three RCTs of biologics for COPD, I couldn’t find major differences that could explain the discordant results. Sample size and enrollment criteria were similar. As stated, I don’t believe that the biologic data in asthma allow for predicting efficacy in one eosinophilic patient vs. another and I assume the same would be true for COPD. All three trials found that eosinophils were eliminated, so responses were biologically equivalent.
 

Key takeaways

If trial design and pharmacology don’t account for the disparate outcomes, how do we explain them? More important, how do we translate these trials into clinical practice? I looked for a review or editorial by a scientist-clinician smarter than I so I could steal their ideas and express them as pedantic euphemisms here. I found it curious that I was unable to find one. A recent publication in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine suggests that the answer lies within the complex lattice of eosinophil subtypes, but I’m unqualified to judge the veracity of this “phenotype within a phenotype” theory.

For now, there will be no biologics prescribed for COPD – at least not by me. More trials in COPD are being done. We should have results on tezepelumab, that great savior that may cover noneosinophilic asthma phenotypes, within the next few years. Until then, we’re stuck defying guidelines with the anachronistic use of OCS for the COPD patient who exacerbates through ICS/LABA/LAMA, roflumilast, and azithromycin.

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported receiving income from CHEST College, Metapharm, and WebMD.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

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

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

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

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

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

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia treatment may be a way to reduce risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, according to Yoshitaka Oku, MD, of Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Gastroesophageal regurgitation disease (GERD) is known to be associated with exacerbations in COPD, but previous studies have shown little impact of standard GERD therapy on COPD exacerbations. However, additional research indicates that delayed swallowing contributes to COPD exacerbations, as reported in a research review.

In an article published recently in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Dr. Oku hypothesized that swallowing abnormalities are a confounding factor in the association between GERD and COPD exacerbation, and that counteracting swallowing disorders may reduce COPD exacerbations.

Swallowing disorder (dysphagia) is a common comorbidity in patients with COPD and has been reported at a 17%-20% greater prevalence in those with COPD, compared with controls, the researchers said.

Patients with COPD have altered swallowing behavior because of several factors, including decreased maximal laryngeal elevation, Dr. Oku said. Individuals with COPD “are also prone to laryngeal penetration and aspiration when swallowing large volumes of liquid and tend to follow an inspiratory-swallow-expiratory (I-SW-E) pattern when swallowing large volumes,” he explained.

Dr. Oku conducted prospective studies to investigate the impact of breathing-swallowing discoordination on COPD exacerbation. He found that discoordination in swallowing patterns and the inability to produce airway protective mechanism (such as the I-SW-E pattern) may contribute to more frequent aspirations and more frequent exacerbations.

Dr. Oku also examined whether CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) might affect breathing-swallowing coordination in healthy controls and patients with COPD. They found a decrease in breathing-swallowing coordination with CPAP, but not BiPAP, in both controls and stable COPD patients. “During BiPAP, a brief negative flow associated with relaxation of the pharyngeal constrictor muscle triggers inspiratory support, which results in the SW-I pattern,” Dr. Oku noted.

Dr. Oku also wrote that interferential current stimulation (IFC) has been used to stimulate muscles. Studies of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation using IFC (IFC-TESS) as an intervention to improve swallowing have shown some success, and also may improve airway protection.

“However, its safety and efficacy in patients with COPD remains unknown,” he wrote. Dr. Oku conducted a study of stable COPD patients and found that repeated salivary swallow test (RSST) scores improved significantly after an IFC-TESS intervention.

Breathing-swallowing discoordination may be an early indicator of swallowing disorder in COPD, and interventions can improve these disorders, Dr. Oku added. However, more research is needed to explore whether interventions to improve dysphagia reduce the frequency of exacerbations in COPD patients, he concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from JSPS KAKENHI. Dr. Oku serves as a senior managing director at EuSense Medical Co.

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

Dysphagia treatment may be a way to reduce risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, according to Yoshitaka Oku, MD, of Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Gastroesophageal regurgitation disease (GERD) is known to be associated with exacerbations in COPD, but previous studies have shown little impact of standard GERD therapy on COPD exacerbations. However, additional research indicates that delayed swallowing contributes to COPD exacerbations, as reported in a research review.

In an article published recently in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Dr. Oku hypothesized that swallowing abnormalities are a confounding factor in the association between GERD and COPD exacerbation, and that counteracting swallowing disorders may reduce COPD exacerbations.

Swallowing disorder (dysphagia) is a common comorbidity in patients with COPD and has been reported at a 17%-20% greater prevalence in those with COPD, compared with controls, the researchers said.

Patients with COPD have altered swallowing behavior because of several factors, including decreased maximal laryngeal elevation, Dr. Oku said. Individuals with COPD “are also prone to laryngeal penetration and aspiration when swallowing large volumes of liquid and tend to follow an inspiratory-swallow-expiratory (I-SW-E) pattern when swallowing large volumes,” he explained.

Dr. Oku conducted prospective studies to investigate the impact of breathing-swallowing discoordination on COPD exacerbation. He found that discoordination in swallowing patterns and the inability to produce airway protective mechanism (such as the I-SW-E pattern) may contribute to more frequent aspirations and more frequent exacerbations.

Dr. Oku also examined whether CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) might affect breathing-swallowing coordination in healthy controls and patients with COPD. They found a decrease in breathing-swallowing coordination with CPAP, but not BiPAP, in both controls and stable COPD patients. “During BiPAP, a brief negative flow associated with relaxation of the pharyngeal constrictor muscle triggers inspiratory support, which results in the SW-I pattern,” Dr. Oku noted.

Dr. Oku also wrote that interferential current stimulation (IFC) has been used to stimulate muscles. Studies of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation using IFC (IFC-TESS) as an intervention to improve swallowing have shown some success, and also may improve airway protection.

“However, its safety and efficacy in patients with COPD remains unknown,” he wrote. Dr. Oku conducted a study of stable COPD patients and found that repeated salivary swallow test (RSST) scores improved significantly after an IFC-TESS intervention.

Breathing-swallowing discoordination may be an early indicator of swallowing disorder in COPD, and interventions can improve these disorders, Dr. Oku added. However, more research is needed to explore whether interventions to improve dysphagia reduce the frequency of exacerbations in COPD patients, he concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from JSPS KAKENHI. Dr. Oku serves as a senior managing director at EuSense Medical Co.

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

Dysphagia treatment may be a way to reduce risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, according to Yoshitaka Oku, MD, of Hyogo Medical University, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Gastroesophageal regurgitation disease (GERD) is known to be associated with exacerbations in COPD, but previous studies have shown little impact of standard GERD therapy on COPD exacerbations. However, additional research indicates that delayed swallowing contributes to COPD exacerbations, as reported in a research review.

In an article published recently in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, Dr. Oku hypothesized that swallowing abnormalities are a confounding factor in the association between GERD and COPD exacerbation, and that counteracting swallowing disorders may reduce COPD exacerbations.

Swallowing disorder (dysphagia) is a common comorbidity in patients with COPD and has been reported at a 17%-20% greater prevalence in those with COPD, compared with controls, the researchers said.

Patients with COPD have altered swallowing behavior because of several factors, including decreased maximal laryngeal elevation, Dr. Oku said. Individuals with COPD “are also prone to laryngeal penetration and aspiration when swallowing large volumes of liquid and tend to follow an inspiratory-swallow-expiratory (I-SW-E) pattern when swallowing large volumes,” he explained.

Dr. Oku conducted prospective studies to investigate the impact of breathing-swallowing discoordination on COPD exacerbation. He found that discoordination in swallowing patterns and the inability to produce airway protective mechanism (such as the I-SW-E pattern) may contribute to more frequent aspirations and more frequent exacerbations.

Dr. Oku also examined whether CPAP and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) might affect breathing-swallowing coordination in healthy controls and patients with COPD. They found a decrease in breathing-swallowing coordination with CPAP, but not BiPAP, in both controls and stable COPD patients. “During BiPAP, a brief negative flow associated with relaxation of the pharyngeal constrictor muscle triggers inspiratory support, which results in the SW-I pattern,” Dr. Oku noted.

Dr. Oku also wrote that interferential current stimulation (IFC) has been used to stimulate muscles. Studies of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation using IFC (IFC-TESS) as an intervention to improve swallowing have shown some success, and also may improve airway protection.

“However, its safety and efficacy in patients with COPD remains unknown,” he wrote. Dr. Oku conducted a study of stable COPD patients and found that repeated salivary swallow test (RSST) scores improved significantly after an IFC-TESS intervention.

Breathing-swallowing discoordination may be an early indicator of swallowing disorder in COPD, and interventions can improve these disorders, Dr. Oku added. However, more research is needed to explore whether interventions to improve dysphagia reduce the frequency of exacerbations in COPD patients, he concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from JSPS KAKENHI. Dr. Oku serves as a senior managing director at EuSense Medical Co.

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

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, significantly improved quality of life and respiratory symptoms compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.

In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.

Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).

In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).

Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.

The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.

The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.

The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).

Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).

Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.

The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, significantly improved quality of life and respiratory symptoms compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.

In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.

Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).

In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).

Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.

The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.

The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.

The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).

Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).

Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.

The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, significantly improved quality of life and respiratory symptoms compared with placebo in a phase 3 trial of more than 900 adults with uncontrolled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the study, known as the BOREAS trial, dupilumab met its primary and secondary endpoints, with a significant reduction compared with placebo in exacerbations for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that was uncontrolled despite use of the maximal standard-of-care inhaled therapy (triple therapy), according to a press release from manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

Dupilumab, which inhibits the signaling of the interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathways, is currently approved in multiple countries for certain patients with conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, or prurigo nodularis in different age groups. The drug is not an immunosuppressant, and would be the first biologic approved for COPD, according to the manufacturers.

In the BOREAS trial, 468 adults with COPD who were current or former smokers aged 40-80 years were randomized to dupilumab and 471 to placebo; both groups continued to receive maximal standard of care.

Over 52 weeks, patients in the dupilumab group experienced a 30% reduction in moderate to severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo (P = .0005).

In addition, patients treated with dupilumab met the key secondary endpoints of significant improvement in lung function from baseline to 12 weeks compared with placebo (160 mL vs. 77 mL, P < .0001); this difference persisted at 52 weeks (P = .0003).

Dupilumab also met endpoints for improvement in patient-reported health-related quality of life based on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and reduction in the severity of respiratory symptoms of COPD based on the Evaluation Respiratory Symptoms: COPD (E-RS: COPD) Scale, according to the companies’ statement.

The results represent a previously unreported magnitude of improvement for COPD patients treated with a biologic, principal investigator George D. Yancopoulos, MD, said in the statement. “These results also validate the role type 2 inflammation plays in driving COPD in these patients, advancing the scientific community’s understanding of the underlying biology of this disease,” he added.

The safety results in the BOREAS trial were generally consistent with the known safety profile of Dupixent in its approved indications. Overall adverse event rates were similar for dupilumab and placebo patients (77% and 76%, respectively) and the overall safety profiles were consistent with the currently approved dupilumab indications, according to the manufacturers.

The adverse events that were more common in dupilumab patients compared with placebo patients were headache (8.1% vs. 6.8%), diarrhea (5.3% vs. 3.6%), and back pain (5.1% vs. 3.4%).

Adverse events leading to deaths were similar between the groups (1.7% in placebo patients and 1.5% in dupilumab patients).

Complete safety and efficacy results from the BOREAS trial are scheduled to be presented in a future scientific forum, and a second phase 3 trial of dupilumab for COPD, known as NOTUS, is ongoing, with data expected in 2024, according to the manufacturers.

The Boreas trial was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

A nationwide shortage of liquid albuterol is having minimal impact on patient care, as treatment alternatives are available, and supply appears to be recovering fast, suggest accounts from experts at health care centers around the country.

The shortage of 0.5% albuterol sulfate inhalation solution, first reported by the FDA last October, gained increasing attention earlier this month when Akorn Pharmaceuticals – one of just two companies making the product – shut down after years of financial and regulatory troubles.

The other manufacturer, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, is producing 0.5% albuterol “as fast as possible” to overcome the shortage, CEO Lou Kennedy said in a written comment.

Meanwhile, the more commonly used version of liquid albuterol, with a concentration of 0.083%, remains in “good supply from several manufacturers,” according to an FDA spokesperson.

Even infants and toddlers can use inhalers

Although Dr. Stukus noted that certain patients do require nebulizers, such as those with conditions that physically limit their breathing, like muscular dystrophy, most patients can use inhalers just fine. He said it’s a “pretty common misconception, even among medical professionals,” that infants and toddlers need nebulizers instead.

“In our institution, for example, we rarely ever start babies on a nebulizer when we diagnose them with asthma,” Dr. Stukus said. “We often just start right away with an inhaler with a spacer and a face mask.”

The shortage of liquid albuterol may therefore have a silver lining, he suggested, as it prompts clinicians to reconsider their routine practice.

“When situations like this arise, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to just take a step back and reevaluate the way we do things,” Dr. Stukus said. “Sometimes we just get caught up with inertia and we continue to do things the same way even though new options are available, or evidence has changed to the contrary.”

National Jewish Health

Nathan Rabinovitch, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy and clinical immunology at National Jewish Health, Denver, said that his center had trouble obtaining liquid albuterol about 2 weeks ago, so they pivoted to the more expensive levalbuterol for about a week and a half, until their albuterol supply was restored.

While Dr. Rabinovitch agreed that most children don’t need a nebulizer, he said about 5%-10% of kids with severe asthma should have one on hand in case their inhaler fails to control an exacerbation.

Personal preferences may also considered, he added.

“If [a parent] says, ‘I like to use the nebulizer. The kid likes it,’ I’m fine if they just use a nebulizer.”

Michican Medicine

One possible downside of relying on a nebulizer, however, is portability, according to Kelly O’Shea, MD, assistant professor in the division of allergy and clinical immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“If you’re out at the park or out at a soccer game with your kids, and they are having trouble breathing ... and they need their albuterol, you don’t have that ability if you are tied to a nebulizer,” Dr. O’Shea said in an interview. “As long as a parent feels comfortable – they feel like [their child] can get deep breaths in, I agree that you can use [an inhaler] in the infant and toddler population.”

She also agreed that a nebulizer may serve as a kind of second step if an inhaler isn’t controlling an exacerbation; however, she emphasized that a nebulizer should not be considered a replacement for professional care, and should not give a false sense of security.

“I caution parents to make sure that when they need it, they also take the next step and head over to the emergency room,” Dr. O’Shea said.
 

Generic drug shortages becoming more common

While the present scarcity of liquid albuterol appears relatively mild in terms of clinical impact, it brings up broader concerns about generic drug supply, and why shortages like this are becoming more common, according to Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, professor of medicine and pharmacy, and associate director, center for pharmaceutical policy and prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

“Drug shortages continue to increase in frequency, and the duration and severity of the shortages are also getting worse,” Dr. Suda said in an interview.

The reasons for these shortages can be elusive, according to 2022 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which found that more than half of shortages came with no explanation from manufacturers.

The same report showed that only 5% of shortages were due to a “business decision,” but this factor is likely more central than publicly stated.

A recent FDA analysis on drug shortages, for instance, lists “lack of incentives to produce less profitable drugs,” as the first “root cause,” and Dr. Suda agrees.

“It’s important that we have generic medicines to decrease costs to our health systems, as well as for our patients,” Dr. Suda said. “But frequently, with those generic products, the price is driven so low that it increases the risk of a shortage.”

The drive to maintain profit margins may motivate companies to cut corners in production, Dr. Suda explained. She emphasized that this connection is speculative, because motivations are effectively unknowable, but the rationale is supported by past and present shortages.

Akorn Pharmaceuticals, for example, received a warning letter from the FDA in 2019 because of a variety of manufacturing issues, including defective bottles, questionable data, and metal shavings on aseptic filling equipment.

When a manufacturer like Akorn fails, the effects can be far-reaching, Dr. Suda said, noting their broad catalog of agents. Beyond liquid albuterol, Akorn was producing cardiac drugs, antibiotics, vitamins, local anesthetics, eye products, and others.

Drug shortages cause “a significant strain on our health care system,” Dr. Suda said, and substituting other medications increases risk of medical errors.

Fortunately, the increasing number of drug shortages is not going unnoticed, according to Dr. Suda. The FDA and multiple other organizations, including the ASHP, American Medical Association, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, are all taking steps to ensure that essential medicines are in steady supply, including moves to gather more data from manufacturers.

“I hope that a lot of the efforts that are moving forward ... will help us decrease the impact of shortages on our patients,” Dr. Suda said.

Lou Kennedy is the CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals, which commercially produces liquid albuterol. The other interviewees disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A nationwide shortage of liquid albuterol is having minimal impact on patient care, as treatment alternatives are available, and supply appears to be recovering fast, suggest accounts from experts at health care centers around the country.

The shortage of 0.5% albuterol sulfate inhalation solution, first reported by the FDA last October, gained increasing attention earlier this month when Akorn Pharmaceuticals – one of just two companies making the product – shut down after years of financial and regulatory troubles.

The other manufacturer, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, is producing 0.5% albuterol “as fast as possible” to overcome the shortage, CEO Lou Kennedy said in a written comment.

Meanwhile, the more commonly used version of liquid albuterol, with a concentration of 0.083%, remains in “good supply from several manufacturers,” according to an FDA spokesperson.

Even infants and toddlers can use inhalers

Although Dr. Stukus noted that certain patients do require nebulizers, such as those with conditions that physically limit their breathing, like muscular dystrophy, most patients can use inhalers just fine. He said it’s a “pretty common misconception, even among medical professionals,” that infants and toddlers need nebulizers instead.

“In our institution, for example, we rarely ever start babies on a nebulizer when we diagnose them with asthma,” Dr. Stukus said. “We often just start right away with an inhaler with a spacer and a face mask.”

The shortage of liquid albuterol may therefore have a silver lining, he suggested, as it prompts clinicians to reconsider their routine practice.

“When situations like this arise, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to just take a step back and reevaluate the way we do things,” Dr. Stukus said. “Sometimes we just get caught up with inertia and we continue to do things the same way even though new options are available, or evidence has changed to the contrary.”

National Jewish Health

Nathan Rabinovitch, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy and clinical immunology at National Jewish Health, Denver, said that his center had trouble obtaining liquid albuterol about 2 weeks ago, so they pivoted to the more expensive levalbuterol for about a week and a half, until their albuterol supply was restored.

While Dr. Rabinovitch agreed that most children don’t need a nebulizer, he said about 5%-10% of kids with severe asthma should have one on hand in case their inhaler fails to control an exacerbation.

Personal preferences may also considered, he added.

“If [a parent] says, ‘I like to use the nebulizer. The kid likes it,’ I’m fine if they just use a nebulizer.”

Michican Medicine

One possible downside of relying on a nebulizer, however, is portability, according to Kelly O’Shea, MD, assistant professor in the division of allergy and clinical immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“If you’re out at the park or out at a soccer game with your kids, and they are having trouble breathing ... and they need their albuterol, you don’t have that ability if you are tied to a nebulizer,” Dr. O’Shea said in an interview. “As long as a parent feels comfortable – they feel like [their child] can get deep breaths in, I agree that you can use [an inhaler] in the infant and toddler population.”

She also agreed that a nebulizer may serve as a kind of second step if an inhaler isn’t controlling an exacerbation; however, she emphasized that a nebulizer should not be considered a replacement for professional care, and should not give a false sense of security.

“I caution parents to make sure that when they need it, they also take the next step and head over to the emergency room,” Dr. O’Shea said.
 

Generic drug shortages becoming more common

While the present scarcity of liquid albuterol appears relatively mild in terms of clinical impact, it brings up broader concerns about generic drug supply, and why shortages like this are becoming more common, according to Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, professor of medicine and pharmacy, and associate director, center for pharmaceutical policy and prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

“Drug shortages continue to increase in frequency, and the duration and severity of the shortages are also getting worse,” Dr. Suda said in an interview.

The reasons for these shortages can be elusive, according to 2022 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which found that more than half of shortages came with no explanation from manufacturers.

The same report showed that only 5% of shortages were due to a “business decision,” but this factor is likely more central than publicly stated.

A recent FDA analysis on drug shortages, for instance, lists “lack of incentives to produce less profitable drugs,” as the first “root cause,” and Dr. Suda agrees.

“It’s important that we have generic medicines to decrease costs to our health systems, as well as for our patients,” Dr. Suda said. “But frequently, with those generic products, the price is driven so low that it increases the risk of a shortage.”

The drive to maintain profit margins may motivate companies to cut corners in production, Dr. Suda explained. She emphasized that this connection is speculative, because motivations are effectively unknowable, but the rationale is supported by past and present shortages.

Akorn Pharmaceuticals, for example, received a warning letter from the FDA in 2019 because of a variety of manufacturing issues, including defective bottles, questionable data, and metal shavings on aseptic filling equipment.

When a manufacturer like Akorn fails, the effects can be far-reaching, Dr. Suda said, noting their broad catalog of agents. Beyond liquid albuterol, Akorn was producing cardiac drugs, antibiotics, vitamins, local anesthetics, eye products, and others.

Drug shortages cause “a significant strain on our health care system,” Dr. Suda said, and substituting other medications increases risk of medical errors.

Fortunately, the increasing number of drug shortages is not going unnoticed, according to Dr. Suda. The FDA and multiple other organizations, including the ASHP, American Medical Association, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, are all taking steps to ensure that essential medicines are in steady supply, including moves to gather more data from manufacturers.

“I hope that a lot of the efforts that are moving forward ... will help us decrease the impact of shortages on our patients,” Dr. Suda said.

Lou Kennedy is the CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals, which commercially produces liquid albuterol. The other interviewees disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A nationwide shortage of liquid albuterol is having minimal impact on patient care, as treatment alternatives are available, and supply appears to be recovering fast, suggest accounts from experts at health care centers around the country.

The shortage of 0.5% albuterol sulfate inhalation solution, first reported by the FDA last October, gained increasing attention earlier this month when Akorn Pharmaceuticals – one of just two companies making the product – shut down after years of financial and regulatory troubles.

The other manufacturer, Nephron Pharmaceuticals, is producing 0.5% albuterol “as fast as possible” to overcome the shortage, CEO Lou Kennedy said in a written comment.

Meanwhile, the more commonly used version of liquid albuterol, with a concentration of 0.083%, remains in “good supply from several manufacturers,” according to an FDA spokesperson.

Even infants and toddlers can use inhalers

Although Dr. Stukus noted that certain patients do require nebulizers, such as those with conditions that physically limit their breathing, like muscular dystrophy, most patients can use inhalers just fine. He said it’s a “pretty common misconception, even among medical professionals,” that infants and toddlers need nebulizers instead.

“In our institution, for example, we rarely ever start babies on a nebulizer when we diagnose them with asthma,” Dr. Stukus said. “We often just start right away with an inhaler with a spacer and a face mask.”

The shortage of liquid albuterol may therefore have a silver lining, he suggested, as it prompts clinicians to reconsider their routine practice.

“When situations like this arise, it’s a great opportunity for all of us to just take a step back and reevaluate the way we do things,” Dr. Stukus said. “Sometimes we just get caught up with inertia and we continue to do things the same way even though new options are available, or evidence has changed to the contrary.”

National Jewish Health

Nathan Rabinovitch, MD, professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy and clinical immunology at National Jewish Health, Denver, said that his center had trouble obtaining liquid albuterol about 2 weeks ago, so they pivoted to the more expensive levalbuterol for about a week and a half, until their albuterol supply was restored.

While Dr. Rabinovitch agreed that most children don’t need a nebulizer, he said about 5%-10% of kids with severe asthma should have one on hand in case their inhaler fails to control an exacerbation.

Personal preferences may also considered, he added.

“If [a parent] says, ‘I like to use the nebulizer. The kid likes it,’ I’m fine if they just use a nebulizer.”

Michican Medicine

One possible downside of relying on a nebulizer, however, is portability, according to Kelly O’Shea, MD, assistant professor in the division of allergy and clinical immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“If you’re out at the park or out at a soccer game with your kids, and they are having trouble breathing ... and they need their albuterol, you don’t have that ability if you are tied to a nebulizer,” Dr. O’Shea said in an interview. “As long as a parent feels comfortable – they feel like [their child] can get deep breaths in, I agree that you can use [an inhaler] in the infant and toddler population.”

She also agreed that a nebulizer may serve as a kind of second step if an inhaler isn’t controlling an exacerbation; however, she emphasized that a nebulizer should not be considered a replacement for professional care, and should not give a false sense of security.

“I caution parents to make sure that when they need it, they also take the next step and head over to the emergency room,” Dr. O’Shea said.
 

Generic drug shortages becoming more common

While the present scarcity of liquid albuterol appears relatively mild in terms of clinical impact, it brings up broader concerns about generic drug supply, and why shortages like this are becoming more common, according to Katie J. Suda, PharmD, MS, professor of medicine and pharmacy, and associate director, center for pharmaceutical policy and prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh.

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

“Drug shortages continue to increase in frequency, and the duration and severity of the shortages are also getting worse,” Dr. Suda said in an interview.

The reasons for these shortages can be elusive, according to 2022 report by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which found that more than half of shortages came with no explanation from manufacturers.

The same report showed that only 5% of shortages were due to a “business decision,” but this factor is likely more central than publicly stated.

A recent FDA analysis on drug shortages, for instance, lists “lack of incentives to produce less profitable drugs,” as the first “root cause,” and Dr. Suda agrees.

“It’s important that we have generic medicines to decrease costs to our health systems, as well as for our patients,” Dr. Suda said. “But frequently, with those generic products, the price is driven so low that it increases the risk of a shortage.”

The drive to maintain profit margins may motivate companies to cut corners in production, Dr. Suda explained. She emphasized that this connection is speculative, because motivations are effectively unknowable, but the rationale is supported by past and present shortages.

Akorn Pharmaceuticals, for example, received a warning letter from the FDA in 2019 because of a variety of manufacturing issues, including defective bottles, questionable data, and metal shavings on aseptic filling equipment.

When a manufacturer like Akorn fails, the effects can be far-reaching, Dr. Suda said, noting their broad catalog of agents. Beyond liquid albuterol, Akorn was producing cardiac drugs, antibiotics, vitamins, local anesthetics, eye products, and others.

Drug shortages cause “a significant strain on our health care system,” Dr. Suda said, and substituting other medications increases risk of medical errors.

Fortunately, the increasing number of drug shortages is not going unnoticed, according to Dr. Suda. The FDA and multiple other organizations, including the ASHP, American Medical Association, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, are all taking steps to ensure that essential medicines are in steady supply, including moves to gather more data from manufacturers.

“I hope that a lot of the efforts that are moving forward ... will help us decrease the impact of shortages on our patients,” Dr. Suda said.

Lou Kennedy is the CEO of Nephron Pharmaceuticals, which commercially produces liquid albuterol. The other interviewees disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In an experimental medicine study of D-cycloserine given during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rehabilitation, only models including brain imaging markers of breathlessness-expectation successfully predicted Dyspnea-12 score improvement. D-cycloserine was independently associated with breathlessness improvement, according to original research published in Thorax.

Chronic breathlessness persisting despite maximal medical therapy is a key feature of COPD. While pulmonary rehabilitation is the best treatment for chronic breathlessness in COPD, responses to treatment are variable, with 30% deriving no clinical benefit, Sarah L. Finnegan, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

While recent research has shown fear and anxiety to be key components of the expectation that plays an important role in the mechanisms and maintenance of breathlessness, expectation-related effects have not previously been considered in prediction studies of pulmonary rehabilitation outcomes. The authors’ prior research showed a clear correlation between improvements in breathlessness through pulmonary rehabilitation and expectation-related brain activity in areas that include the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and prefrontal cortex. That research methodology, however, did not attempt to predict individual responses.

The current study focused on brain activity changes within preselected regions associated with breathlessness-expectation and body and symptom perception. Its purpose was to predict improvements in breathlessness during pulmonary rehabilitation by analyzing baseline data from a longitudinal experimental medicine study of D-cycloserine on breathlessness during pulmonary rehabilitation. D-cycloserine, a partial agonist of brain N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, was chosen because of its effects on neural plasticity and influence on brain expectation mechanisms associated with cognitive behavioral therapies. The authors hypothesized that baseline brain activity in response to breathlessness-related expectation would predict improvement in breathlessness through pulmonary rehabilitation, with D-cycloserine emerging as a significant factor in the prediction model.

The researchers recruited 71 participants (18 women, median age 71 years [46-85 years]) with mild to moderate COPD immediately prior to enrollment in a National Health Service–prescribed course of pulmonary rehabilitation. They were randomized double-blind to receive either 250 mg oral D-cycloserine or a matched placebo. Participants received a single dose on four occasions 30 minutes prior to the onset of the first four pulmonary rehabilitation sessions.

Baseline variables, including brain-activity, self-report questionnaires responses, clinical measures of respiratory function, and drug allocation were used to train three machine-learning models to predict the outcome, a minimally clinically relevant change in the Dyspnea-12 score.

Improvements in Dyspnea-12 score occurred only in the two models including brain imaging markers of breathlessness-expectation (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.77). The model that combined brain and behavior metrics produced the best classification performance (accuracy, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.90]; sensitivity, 0.88; specificity, 0.77; P < 0.001). While the brain-only model was able to correctly categorize participants with statistically significant likelihood (accuracy, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.58-0.81]), it demonstrated poor goodness of fit, a measure of how well sample data fit a distribution from a population with a normal distribution. “By enriching the brain-only models with questionnaires and physiology measures improved performance considerably,” the researchers stated.

“Our findings demonstrate the first predictive model of change in breathlessness across pulmonary rehabilitation and, for the first time, the clinical relevance of expectation-related brain activity as a therapeutic target in the treatment of breathlessness. ... This was achieved using sensitive brain imaging techniques in order to capture personalized responses to breathlessness-expectation which has, until recently remained relatively unexplored.”

“This study raises interesting questions about breathlessness-expectations,” commented assistant professor of medicine Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, director pulmonary hypertension service, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in an interview. “There is much more to be understood about expectations pathways as to how these pathways are built upon prior experience and pave the way for reaction to future experiences. There is need for a similar study with larger sample size and clarification of the role of the effect of the agent D-cycloserine on breathlessness-expectation.”

The researchers noted their study’s limitations, pointing out that the small sample size precluded holding out a proportion of the original data to create an external validation dataset.

Dr. Finnegan and Dr. Farmer declared no disclosures relevant to this study. This work was supported by the JABBS Foundation and Dunhill Medical Trust. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust.

In an experimental medicine study of D-cycloserine given during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rehabilitation, only models including brain imaging markers of breathlessness-expectation successfully predicted Dyspnea-12 score improvement. D-cycloserine was independently associated with breathlessness improvement, according to original research published in Thorax.

Chronic breathlessness persisting despite maximal medical therapy is a key feature of COPD. While pulmonary rehabilitation is the best treatment for chronic breathlessness in COPD, responses to treatment are variable, with 30% deriving no clinical benefit, Sarah L. Finnegan, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

While recent research has shown fear and anxiety to be key components of the expectation that plays an important role in the mechanisms and maintenance of breathlessness, expectation-related effects have not previously been considered in prediction studies of pulmonary rehabilitation outcomes. The authors’ prior research showed a clear correlation between improvements in breathlessness through pulmonary rehabilitation and expectation-related brain activity in areas that include the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and prefrontal cortex. That research methodology, however, did not attempt to predict individual responses.

The current study focused on brain activity changes within preselected regions associated with breathlessness-expectation and body and symptom perception. Its purpose was to predict improvements in breathlessness during pulmonary rehabilitation by analyzing baseline data from a longitudinal experimental medicine study of D-cycloserine on breathlessness during pulmonary rehabilitation. D-cycloserine, a partial agonist of brain N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, was chosen because of its effects on neural plasticity and influence on brain expectation mechanisms associated with cognitive behavioral therapies. The authors hypothesized that baseline brain activity in response to breathlessness-related expectation would predict improvement in breathlessness through pulmonary rehabilitation, with D-cycloserine emerging as a significant factor in the prediction model.

The researchers recruited 71 participants (18 women, median age 71 years [46-85 years]) with mild to moderate COPD immediately prior to enrollment in a National Health Service–prescribed course of pulmonary rehabilitation. They were randomized double-blind to receive either 250 mg oral D-cycloserine or a matched placebo. Participants received a single dose on four occasions 30 minutes prior to the onset of the first four pulmonary rehabilitation sessions.

Baseline variables, including brain-activity, self-report questionnaires responses, clinical measures of respiratory function, and drug allocation were used to train three machine-learning models to predict the outcome, a minimally clinically relevant change in the Dyspnea-12 score.

Improvements in Dyspnea-12 score occurred only in the two models including brain imaging markers of breathlessness-expectation (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.77). The model that combined brain and behavior metrics produced the best classification performance (accuracy, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.90]; sensitivity, 0.88; specificity, 0.77; P < 0.001). While the brain-only model was able to correctly categorize participants with statistically significant likelihood (accuracy, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.58-0.81]), it demonstrated poor goodness of fit, a measure of how well sample data fit a distribution from a population with a normal distribution. “By enriching the brain-only models with questionnaires and physiology measures improved performance considerably,” the researchers stated.

“Our findings demonstrate the first predictive model of change in breathlessness across pulmonary rehabilitation and, for the first time, the clinical relevance of expectation-related brain activity as a therapeutic target in the treatment of breathlessness. ... This was achieved using sensitive brain imaging techniques in order to capture personalized responses to breathlessness-expectation which has, until recently remained relatively unexplored.”

“This study raises interesting questions about breathlessness-expectations,” commented assistant professor of medicine Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, director pulmonary hypertension service, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in an interview. “There is much more to be understood about expectations pathways as to how these pathways are built upon prior experience and pave the way for reaction to future experiences. There is need for a similar study with larger sample size and clarification of the role of the effect of the agent D-cycloserine on breathlessness-expectation.”

The researchers noted their study’s limitations, pointing out that the small sample size precluded holding out a proportion of the original data to create an external validation dataset.

Dr. Finnegan and Dr. Farmer declared no disclosures relevant to this study. This work was supported by the JABBS Foundation and Dunhill Medical Trust. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust.

In an experimental medicine study of D-cycloserine given during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rehabilitation, only models including brain imaging markers of breathlessness-expectation successfully predicted Dyspnea-12 score improvement. D-cycloserine was independently associated with breathlessness improvement, according to original research published in Thorax.

Chronic breathlessness persisting despite maximal medical therapy is a key feature of COPD. While pulmonary rehabilitation is the best treatment for chronic breathlessness in COPD, responses to treatment are variable, with 30% deriving no clinical benefit, Sarah L. Finnegan, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

While recent research has shown fear and anxiety to be key components of the expectation that plays an important role in the mechanisms and maintenance of breathlessness, expectation-related effects have not previously been considered in prediction studies of pulmonary rehabilitation outcomes. The authors’ prior research showed a clear correlation between improvements in breathlessness through pulmonary rehabilitation and expectation-related brain activity in areas that include the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and prefrontal cortex. That research methodology, however, did not attempt to predict individual responses.

The current study focused on brain activity changes within preselected regions associated with breathlessness-expectation and body and symptom perception. Its purpose was to predict improvements in breathlessness during pulmonary rehabilitation by analyzing baseline data from a longitudinal experimental medicine study of D-cycloserine on breathlessness during pulmonary rehabilitation. D-cycloserine, a partial agonist of brain N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, was chosen because of its effects on neural plasticity and influence on brain expectation mechanisms associated with cognitive behavioral therapies. The authors hypothesized that baseline brain activity in response to breathlessness-related expectation would predict improvement in breathlessness through pulmonary rehabilitation, with D-cycloserine emerging as a significant factor in the prediction model.

The researchers recruited 71 participants (18 women, median age 71 years [46-85 years]) with mild to moderate COPD immediately prior to enrollment in a National Health Service–prescribed course of pulmonary rehabilitation. They were randomized double-blind to receive either 250 mg oral D-cycloserine or a matched placebo. Participants received a single dose on four occasions 30 minutes prior to the onset of the first four pulmonary rehabilitation sessions.

Baseline variables, including brain-activity, self-report questionnaires responses, clinical measures of respiratory function, and drug allocation were used to train three machine-learning models to predict the outcome, a minimally clinically relevant change in the Dyspnea-12 score.

Improvements in Dyspnea-12 score occurred only in the two models including brain imaging markers of breathlessness-expectation (sensitivity 0.88, specificity 0.77). The model that combined brain and behavior metrics produced the best classification performance (accuracy, 0.83 [95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.90]; sensitivity, 0.88; specificity, 0.77; P < 0.001). While the brain-only model was able to correctly categorize participants with statistically significant likelihood (accuracy, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.58-0.81]), it demonstrated poor goodness of fit, a measure of how well sample data fit a distribution from a population with a normal distribution. “By enriching the brain-only models with questionnaires and physiology measures improved performance considerably,” the researchers stated.

“Our findings demonstrate the first predictive model of change in breathlessness across pulmonary rehabilitation and, for the first time, the clinical relevance of expectation-related brain activity as a therapeutic target in the treatment of breathlessness. ... This was achieved using sensitive brain imaging techniques in order to capture personalized responses to breathlessness-expectation which has, until recently remained relatively unexplored.”

“This study raises interesting questions about breathlessness-expectations,” commented assistant professor of medicine Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, director pulmonary hypertension service, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in an interview. “There is much more to be understood about expectations pathways as to how these pathways are built upon prior experience and pave the way for reaction to future experiences. There is need for a similar study with larger sample size and clarification of the role of the effect of the agent D-cycloserine on breathlessness-expectation.”

The researchers noted their study’s limitations, pointing out that the small sample size precluded holding out a proportion of the original data to create an external validation dataset.

Dr. Finnegan and Dr. Farmer declared no disclosures relevant to this study. This work was supported by the JABBS Foundation and Dunhill Medical Trust. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust.