Explore the vast range of titles available.

The concept of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is well established. Here, we review the evidence base and methods used to define MCIDs as well as their strengths and limitations. Most MCIDs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are empirically derived estimates applying to populations of patients. Validated MCIDs are available for many commonly used outcomes in COPD, including lung function (100 ml for trough FEV1), dyspnea (improvement of ≥ 1 unit in the Transition Dyspnea Index total score or 5 units in the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire), health status (reduction of 4 units in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score), and exercise capacity (47.5 m for the incremental shuttle walking test, 45-85 s for the endurance shuttle walking test, and 46-105 s for constant-load cycling endurance tests), but there is currently no validated MCID for exacerbations. In a clinical trial setting, many factors, including study duration, withdrawal rate, baseline severity, and Hawthorne effects, can influence the measured treatment effect and determine whether it reaches the MCID. We also address recent challenges presented by clinical trials that compare active treatments and suggest that MCIDs should be used to identify the additional proportion of patients who benefit, for example, when one drug is replaced by another or when a second drug is added to a first. We propose the term \"minimum worthwhile incremental advantage\" to describe this parameter.

This trial involving more than 6000 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared the effects on all-cause mortality of treatment with an inhaler containing both salmeterol and fluticasone, salmeterol or fluticasone alone, or placebo. After 3 years, the study showed a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the mortality rate; this fell short of the study's prespecified goals. There were improved clinical outcomes among patients treated with the combination regimen. This trial involving more than 6000 patients with COPD compared the effects on all-cause mortality of treatment with an inhaler containing both salmeterol and fluticasone, salmeterol or fluticasone alone, or placebo. After 3 years, the study showed a reduction of 2.6 percentage points in the mortality rate, which fell short of the prespecified goal. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of illness, death, and the use of health care resources globally. 1 – 3 The disease causes approximately 2.75 million deaths annually, and the number is projected to increase. 2 Treatment for COPD is focused on minimizing risk factors, improving symptoms, and preventing exacerbations. 3 With the exception of smoking-cessation programs for patients with early disease, 4 home oxygen treatment for persistent hypoxemia, 5 , 6 and lung-reduction surgery for selected patients with emphysema, 7 no treatment has been shown to reduce mortality. Pulmonary inflammation is prominent in COPD. 8 Antiinflammatory drugs such as inhaled corticosteroids have little or no . . .

Background Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. Results Change from baseline in trough FEV 1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p  < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p  = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p  = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16–25% [ p  < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26–41% [ p  < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. Conclusions Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and resource use worldwide. The goal of this Official American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) Research Statement is to describe evidence related to diagnosis, assessment, and management; identify gaps in knowledge; and make recommendations for future research. It is not intended to provide clinical practice recommendations on COPD diagnosis and management. Clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates with expertise in COPD were invited to participate. A literature search of Medline was performed, and studies deemed relevant were selected. The search was not a systematic review of the evidence. Existing evidence was appraised and summarized, and then salient knowledge gaps were identified. Recommendations for research that addresses important gaps in the evidence in all areas of COPD were formulated via discussion and consensus. Great strides have been made in the diagnosis, assessment, and management of COPD as well as understanding its pathogenesis. Despite this, many important questions remain unanswered. This ATS/ERS Research Statement highlights the types of research that leading clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates believe will have the greatest impact on patient-centered outcomes.

The Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT) is an eight-item questionnaire designed to assess and quantify the impact of COPD symptoms on health status. COPD exacerbations impair quality of life and are characterized by worsening respiratory symptoms from the stable state. We hypothesized that CAT scores at exacerbation relate to exacerbation severity as measured by exacerbation duration, lung function impairment, and systemic inflammation. To evaluate the usefulness of the CAT to assess exacerbation severity. One hundred sixty-one patients enrolled in the London COPD cohort completed the CAT at baseline (stable state), exacerbation, and during recovery between April 2010 and June 2011. Frequent exacerbators had significantly higher baseline CAT scores than infrequent exacerbators (19.5 ± 6.6 vs. 16.8 ± 8.0, P = 0.025). In 152 exacerbations, CAT scores rose from an average baseline value of 19.4 ± 6.8 to 24.1 ± 7.3 (P < 0.001) at exacerbation. Change in CAT score from baseline to exacerbation onset was significantly but weakly related to change in C-reactive protein (rho = 0.26, P = 0.008) but not to change in fibrinogen (rho = 0.09, P = 0.351) from baseline to exacerbation. At exacerbation, rises in CAT score were significantly associated with falls in FEV(1) (rho = -0.20, P = 0.032). Median recovery time as judged by symptom diary cards was significantly related to the time taken for the CAT score to return to baseline (rho = 0.42, P = 0.012). The CAT provides a reliable score of exacerbation severity. Baseline CAT scores are elevated in frequent exacerbators. CAT scores increase at exacerbation and reflect severity as determined by lung function and exacerbation duration.

Background The COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) is a new short health status measure for routine use. New questionnaires require reference points so that users can understand the scores; descriptive scenarios are one way of doing this. A novel method of creating scenarios is described. Methods A Bland and Altman plot showed a consistent relationship between CAT scores and scores obtained with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) permitting a direct mapping process between CAT and SGRQ items. The severity associated with each CAT item was calculated using a probabilistic model and expressed in logits (log odds of a patient of given severity affirming that item 50% of the time). Severity estimates for SGRQ-C items in logits were also available, allowing direct comparisons with CAT items. CAT scores were categorised into Low, Medium, High and Very High Impact. SGRQ items of corresponding severity were used to create scenarios associated with each category. Results Each CAT category was associated with a scenario comprising 12 to 16 SGRQ-C items. A severity 'ladder' associating CAT scores with exemplar health status effects was also created. Items associated with 'Low' and 'Medium' Impact appeared to be subjectively quite severe in terms of their effect on daily life. Conclusions These scenarios provide users of the CAT with a good sense of the health impact associated with different scores. More generally they provide a surprising insight into the severity of the effects of COPD, even in patients with apparently mild-moderate health status impact.

Given the heterogeneity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), personalized clinical management is key to optimizing patient outcomes. Important treatment goals include minimizing disease activity and preventing disease progression; however, quantification of these components remains a challenge. Growing evidence suggests that decline over time in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), traditionally the key marker of disease progression, may not be sufficient to fully determine deterioration across COPD populations. In addition, there is a lack of evidence showing that currently available multidimensional COPD indexes improve clinical decision-making, treatment, or patient outcomes. The composite clinically important deterioration (CID) endpoint was developed to assess disease worsening by detecting early deteriorations in lung function (measured by FEV 1 ), health status (assessed by the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire), and the presence of exacerbations. Post hoc and prospective analyses of clinical trial data have confirmed that the multidimensional composite CID endpoint better predicts poorer medium-term outcomes compared with any single CID component alone, and that it can demonstrate differences in treatment efficacy in short-term trials. Given the widely acknowledged need for an individualized holistic approach to COPD management, monitoring short-term CID has the potential to facilitate early identification of suboptimal treatment responses and patients at risk of increased disease progression. CID monitoring may lead to better-informed clinical management decisions and potentially improved prognosis.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by varying trajectories of decline. Information regarding the prognostic value of preventing short-term clinically important deterioration (CID) in lung function, health status, or first moderate/severe exacerbation as a composite endpoint of worsening is needed. We evaluated post hoc the link between early CID and long-term adverse outcomes. Methods CID was defined as ≥100 mL decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), ≥4-unit increase in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score from baseline, and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation during enrollment in two 3-year studies. Presence of CID was assessed at 6 months for the principal analysis (TORCH) and 12 months for the confirmatory analysis (ECLIPSE). Association between presence (+) or absence (-) of CID and long-term deterioration in FEV 1 , SGRQ, future risk of exacerbations, and all-cause mortality was assessed. Results In total, 2870 (54%; TORCH) and 1442 (73%; ECLIPSE) patients were CID+. At 36 months, in TORCH, CID+ patients (vs CID-) had sustained clinically significant worsening of FEV 1 (- 117 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 134, - 100 mL; P  < 0.001) and SGRQ score (+ 6.42 units; 95% CI: 5.40, 7.45; P  < 0.001), and had higher risk of exacerbations (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61 [95% CI: 1.50, 1.72]; P  < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.15, 1.72]; P  < 0.001). Similar risks post-CID were observed in ECLIPSE. Conclusions A CID within 6–12 months of follow-up was consistently associated with increased long-term risk of exacerbations and all-cause mortality, and predicted sustained meaningful loss in FEV 1 and health status amongst survivors. Trial registration NCT00268216 ; NCT00292552 .

Changes in brain structure and cognitive decline occur in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). They also occur with smoking and coronary artery disease (CAD), but it is unclear whether a common mechanism is responsible. Brain MRI markers of brain structure were tested for association with disease markers in other organs. Where possible, principal component analysis (PCA) was used to group markers within organ systems into composite markers. Univariate relationships between brain structure and the disease markers were explored using hierarchical regression and then entered into multivariable regression models. 100 participants were studied (53 COPD, 47 CAD). PCA identified two brain components: brain tissue volumes and white matter microstructure, and six components from other organ systems: respiratory function, plasma lipids, blood pressure, glucose dysregulation, retinal vessel calibre and retinal vessel tortuosity. Several markers could not be grouped into components and were analysed as single variables, these included brain white matter hyperintense lesion (WMH) volume. Multivariable regression models showed that less well organised white matter microstructure was associated with lower respiratory function (p = 0.028); WMH volume was associated with higher blood pressure (p = 0.036) and higher C-Reactive Protein (p = 0.011) and lower brain tissue volume was associated with lower cerebral blood flow (p<0.001) and higher blood pressure (p = 0.001). Smoking history was not an independent correlate of any brain marker. Measures of brain structure were associated with a range of markers of disease, some of which appeared to be common to both COPD and CAD. No single common pathway was identified, but the findings suggest that brain changes associated with smoking-related diseases may be due to vascular, respiratory, and inflammatory changes.

Previous studies on chronic bronchitis (CB) have used varying definitions. We sought to compare an alternative CB definition, using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), a commonly used assessment tool, with the classic definition and to investigate if it had independent or additive value. We analyzed data from 4,513 subjects from Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease groups 1 to 4 in the COPDGene cohort. We compared the classic definition of CB with the SGRQ definition, defined by their answers to the questions about both cough and phlegm. We compared the Classic CB+ versus CB- groups, and the SGRQ CB+ and CB- groups. We also analyzed the cohort split into four groups: Classic CB+/SGRQ CB+, Classic CB+/SGRQ CB-, Classic CB-/SGRQ CB+, Classic CB-/SGRQ CB-. A total of 26.1% subjects were Classic CB+, whereas 39.9% were SGRQ CB+. When the SGRQ definition was compared with the Classic CB definition, using this as the gold standard, the SGRQ CB definition had a sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 and 0.77, respectively. The SGRQ CB+ and Classic CB+ groups were strikingly similar, with more respiratory symptoms and exacerbations, worse lung function, and greater airway wall thickness. In addition, the Classic CB+/SGRQ CB+, Classic CB+/SGRQ CB-, and Classic CB-/SGRQ CB+ groups shared similar characteristics as well. The SGRQ CB definition identifies more subjects with chronic cough and sputum who share a similar phenotype identified by the Classic CB definition. The addition of the SGRQ CB definition to the classic one can be used to identify more patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk for poor outcomes.