Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and ...LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.
To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.
Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).
The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.
Background The use of High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasing in admitted COPD-patients and could provide a step in between non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard oxygen supply. Recent ...studies demonstrated that HFNC is capable of facilitating secretion removal and reduce the work of breathing. Therefore, it might be of advantage in the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). No randomized trials have assessed this for admitted COPD-patients on a regular ward and only limited data from non-randomized studies is available. Objectives The aim of our study was to identify the reasons to initiate treatment with HFNC in a group of COPD-patients during an exacerbation, further identify those most likely to benefit from HFNC treatment and to find factors associated with treatment success on the pulmonary ward. Material and methods This retrospective study included COPD-patients admitted to the pulmonary ward and treated with HFNC from April 2016 until April 2019. Only patients admitted with severe acute exacerbations were included. Patients who had an indication for NIV-treatment where treated with NIV and were included only if they subsequently needed HFNC, e.g. when they did not tolerate NIV. Known asthma patients were excluded. Results A total of 173 patients were included. Stasis of sputum was the indication most reported to initiate HFNC-treatment. Treatment was well tolerated in 83% of the patients. Cardiac and vascular co-morbidities were significantly associated with a smaller chance of successful treatment (Respectively OR = 0.435; p = 0.013 and OR = 0.493;p = 0.035). Clinical assessment judged HFNC-treatment to be successful in 61% of the patients. Furthermore, in-hospital treatment with NIV was associated with a higher chance of HFNC failure afterwards (OR = 0.439; p = 0.045). Conclusion This large retrospective study showed that HFNC-treatment in patients with an AECOPD was initiated most often for sputum stasis as primary reason. Factors associated with improved outcomes of HFNC-treatment was the absence of vascular and/or cardiac co-morbidities and no need for in-hospital NIV-treatment.
Lung volume reduction for emphysema Shah, Pallav L; Herth, Felix J; van Geffen, Wouter H ...
The lancet respiratory medicine,
02/2017, Letnik:
5, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Advanced emphysema is a lung disease in which alveolar capillary units are destroyed and supporting tissue is lost. The combined effect of reduced gas exchange and changes in airway dynamics impairs ...expiratory airflow and leads to progressive air trapping. Pharmacological therapies have limited effects. Surgical resection of the most destroyed sections of the lung can improve pulmonary function and exercise capacity but its benefit is tempered by significant morbidity. This issue stimulated a search for novel approaches to lung volume reduction. Alternative minimally invasive approaches using bronchoscopic techniques including valves, coils, vapour thermal ablation, and sclerosant agents have been at the forefront of these developments. Insertion of endobronchial valves in selected patients could have benefits that are comparable with lung volume reduction surgery. Endobronchial coils might have a role in the treatment of patients with emphysema with severe hyperinflation and less parenchymal destruction. Use of vapour thermal energy or a sclerosant might allow focal treatment but the unpredictability of the inflammatory response limits their current use. In this Review, we aim to summarise clinical trial evidence on lung volume reduction and provide guidance on patient selection for available therapies.
Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the ...performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer.
To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people.
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio HR 0.67, 95% confidence interval CI 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy.
This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.
Despite the potential of exhaled breath analysis of volatile organic compounds to diagnose lung cancer, clinical implementation has not been realized, partly due to the lack of validation studies.
...This study addressed two questions. First, can we simultaneously train and validate a prediction model to distinguish patients with non-small cell lung cancer from non-lung cancer subjects based on exhaled breath patterns? Second, does addition of clinical variables to exhaled breath data improve the diagnosis of lung cancer?
In this multicenter study, subjects with non-small cell lung cancer and control subjects performed 5 min of tidal breathing through the aeoNose, a handheld electronic nose device. A training cohort was used for developing a prediction model based on breath data, and a blinded cohort was used for validation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, including breath data and clinical variables, in which the formula and cutoff value for the probability of lung cancer were applied to the validation data.
A total of 376 subjects formed the training set, and 199 subjects formed the validation set. The full training model (including exhaled breath data and clinical parameters from the training set) were combined in a multivariable logistic regression analysis, maintaining a cut off of 16% probability of lung cancer, resulting in a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 51%, and a negative predictive value of 94%; the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.87. Performance of the prediction model on the validation cohort showed corresponding results with a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 49%, a negative predictive value of 94%, and an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.86.
Combining exhaled breath data and clinical variables in a multicenter, multi-device validation study can adequately distinguish patients with lung cancer from subjects without lung cancer in a noninvasive manner. This study paves the way to implement exhaled breath analysis in the daily practice of diagnosing lung cancer.
The Netherlands Trial Register; No.: NL7025; URL: https://trialregister.nl/trial/7025.
Severe emphysema is a debilitating condition with few treatment options. Lung volume reduction procedures in the treatment of severe emphysema have shown excellent results in selected patients but ...their exact role remains unclear with studies reporting a wide variation in outcomes. We therefore aimed to evaluate the effects of volume reduction.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE on Sept 29, 2016, for trials of lung volume reduction in patients with emphysema, and we did an updated search on Embase and PubMed on June 18, 2018. We only included randomised controlled studies published in English evaluating the intervention with either sham or standard of care. Inclusion was limited to trials of techniques in which there was sustainable volume reduction. Primary outcomes were residual volume, FEV
, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and 6-min walk distance (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were severe adverse events (including mortality), short-term mortality, and overall mortality. We extracted summary level data from the trial publications and where necessary we obtained unpublished data. A random-effects model with the I
statistic was used to determine heterogeneity and trial weight in each analysis. The study is registered with the PROSPERO database, number CRD42016045705.
We identified 4747 references in the search, and included 20 randomised controlled trials of lung volume reduction involving 2794 participants with emphysema. Following lung volume reduction from any of the interventions in pooled analyses (ie, surgery, endobronchial valve, endobronchial coil, or sclerosing agents), the mean differences compared with the control were reduction in residual volume of 0·58 L (95% CI -0·80 to -0·37), increase in FEV
of 15·87% (95% CI 12·27 to 19·47), improvement in 6MWT of 43·28 m (31·36 to 55·21), and reduction in the SGRQ of 9·39 points (-10·92 to -7·86). The odds ratio for a severe adverse event, which included mortality, was 6·21 (95% CI 4·02 to 9·58) following intervention. Regression analysis showed improvements relative to the degree of volume reduction: FEV
(r
=0·86; p<0·0001), 6MWT (r
=0·77; p<0·0001), and SGRQ (r
=0·70; p<0·0001). Most studies were at high risk of bias for lack of blinding, and heterogeneity was high for some outcomes when pooled across all interventions, but was generally lower in the subgroups by intervention type.
Despite limitations of high risk of bias and heterogeneity for some analyses, our results provide support that lung volume reduction in patients with severe emphysema on maximal medical treatment has clinically meaningful benefits. These benefits should be considered alongside potential adverse events.
None.
Respiratory infections, viral or bacterial, are a common cause of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). A rapid, point-of-care, and easy-to-use tool distinguishing ...viral and bacterial from other causes would be valuable in routine clinical care. An electronic nose (e-nose) could fit this profile but has never been tested in this setting before. In a single-center registered trial (NTR 4601) patients admitted with AECOPD were tested with the Aeonose® electronic nose, and a diagnosis of viral or bacterial infection was obtained by bacterial culture on sputa and viral PCR on nose swabs. A neural network with leave-10%-out cross-validation was used to assess the e-nose data. Forty three patients were included. In the bacterial infection model, 22 positive cases were tested versus the negatives; and similarly 18 positive cases were tested in the viral infection model. The Aeonose was able to distinguish between COPD-subjects suffering from a viral infection and COPD patients without infection, showing an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74. Similarly, for bacterial infections, an AUC of 0.72 was obtained. The Aeonose e-nose yields promising results in 'smelling' the presence or absence of a viral or bacterial respiratory infection during an acute exacerbation of COPD. Validation of these results using a new and large cohort is required before introduction into clinical practice.
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of early tocilizumab treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease. Open-label randomized phase II clinical trial investigating ...tocilizumab in patients with proven COVID-19 admitted to the general ward and in need of supplemental oxygen. The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality with a prespecified 2-sided significance level of alpha = 0.10. A post-hoc analysis was performed for a combined endpoint of mechanical ventilation or death at 30 days. Secondary objectives included comparing the duration of hospital stay, ICU admittance and duration of ICU stay and the duration of mechanical ventilation. A total of 354 patients (67% men; median age 66 years) were enrolled of whom 88% received dexamethasone. Thirty-day mortality was 19% (95% CI 14%-26%) in the standard arm versus 12% (95% CI: 8%-18%) in the tocilizumab arm, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62 (90% CI 0.39-0.98; p = 0.086). 17% of patients were admitted to the ICU in each arm (p = 0.89). The median stay in the ICU was 14 days (IQR 9-28) in the standard arm versus 9 days (IQR 5-14) in the tocilizumab arm (p = 0.014). Mechanical ventilation or death at thirty days was 31% (95% CI 24%-38%) in the standard arm versus 21% (95% CI 16%-28%) in the tocilizumab arm, HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.42-0.98; p = 0.042). This randomized phase II study supports efficacy for tocilizumab when given early in the disease course in hospitalized patients who need oxygen support, especially when concomitantly treated with dexamethasone.
PDF