Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation, has shown efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and type 2 inflammation and an elevated risk of exacerbation. Whether the findings would be confirmed in a second phase 3 trial was unclear. In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per microliter or higher to receive subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Key secondary end points, analyzed in a hierarchical manner to adjust for multiplicity, included the changes from baseline in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV ) at weeks 12 and 52 and in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating better quality of life) total score at week 52. A total of 935 patients underwent randomization: 470 were assigned to the dupilumab group and 465 to the placebo group. As prespecified, the primary analysis was performed after a positive interim analysis and included all available data for the 935 participants, 721 of whom were included in the analysis at week 52. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06) with dupilumab and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) with placebo; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV increased from baseline to week 12 with dupilumab (least-squares mean change, 139 ml [95% CI, 105 to 173]) as compared with placebo (least-squares mean change, 57 ml [95% CI, 23 to 91]), with a significant least-squares mean difference at week 12 of 82 ml (P<0.001) and at week 52 of 62 ml (P = 0.02). No significant between-group difference was observed in the change in SGRQ scores from baseline to 52 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups and consistent with the established profile of dupilumab. In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, dupilumab was associated with fewer exacerbations and better lung function than placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; NOTUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04456673.).

In this trial, long-term supplemental oxygen treatment did not result in longer survival than no use of supplemental oxygen among patients with stable COPD and moderate resting desaturation (Spo2, 89 to 93%) or moderate exercise-induced desaturation. Two trials that were conducted in the 1970s showed that long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen reduced mortality among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and severe resting hypoxemia. 1 , 2 These results led to the recommendation that supplemental oxygen be administered to patients with an oxyhemoglobin saturation, as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo 2 ), of less than 89%. 3 , 4 In the 1990s, two trials evaluated long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen in patients with COPD who had mild-to-moderate daytime hypoxemia; neither trial showed a mortality benefit, but both were underpowered to assess mortality. 5 , 6 The effects of oxygen treatment on . . .

BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation is a cornerstone of care for COPD but uptake of traditional centre-based programmes is poor. We assessed whether home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, delivered using minimal resources, had equivalent outcomes to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.MethodsA randomised controlled equivalence trial with 12 months follow-up. Participants with stable COPD were randomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation by either the standard outpatient centre-based model, or a new home-based model including one home visit and seven once-weekly telephone calls from a physiotherapist. The primary outcome was change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD).ResultsWe enrolled 166 participants to receive centre-based rehabilitation (n=86) or home-based rehabilitation (n=80). Intention-to-treat analysis confirmed non-inferiority of home-based rehabilitation for 6MWD at end-rehabilitation and the confidence interval (CI) did not rule out superiority (mean difference favouring home group 18.6 m, 95% CI −3.3 to 40.7). At 12 months the CI did not exclude inferiority (−5.1 m, −29.2 to 18.9). Between-group differences for dyspnoea-related quality of life did not rule out superiority of home-based rehabilitation at programme completion (1.6 points, −0.3 to 3.5) and groups were equivalent at 12 months (0.05 points, −2.0 to 2.1). The per-protocol analysis showed the same pattern of findings. Neither group maintained postrehabilitation gains at 12 months.ConclusionsThis home-based pulmonary rehabilitation model, delivered with minimal resources, produced short-term clinical outcomes that were equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Neither model was effective in maintaining gains at 12 months. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation could be considered for people with COPD who cannot access centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.Trial registration numberNCT01423227, clinicaltrials.gov.

Mepolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets interleukin-5, a cytokine that plays a central role in eosinophilic inflammation, which is present in 20 to 40% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, patients with COPD, a history of exacerbations, and a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per microliter who were receiving triple inhaled therapy were assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive mepolizumab (at a dose of 100 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 to 104 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. Secondary end points, tested hierarchically to control for multiplicity, were moderate or severe exacerbation as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis, measures of health-related quality of life and symptoms, and the annualized rate of exacerbations leading to an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or both. Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 403 were assigned to receive mepolizumab and 401 to receive placebo. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower with mepolizumab than with placebo (0.80 vs. 1.01 events per year; rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.94; P = 0.01). The time to the first moderate or severe exacerbation was longer with mepolizumab than with placebo (Kaplan-Meier median time to the first moderate or severe exacerbation, 419 vs. 321 days; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.93; P = 0.009). Between-group differences in measures of health-related quality of life and symptoms were not significant; thus, no statistical inferences regarding subsequent secondary end points in the statistical testing hierarchy were made. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the mepolizumab and placebo groups. Treatment with mepolizumab led to a lower annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations when added to background triple inhaled therapy among patients with COPD and an eosinophilic phenotype. (Funded by GSK; MATINEE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04133909.).

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are common, associated with acute inflammation, and may increase subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Determine whether AECOPD events are associated with increased risk of subsequent CVD. We performed a secondary cohort analysis of the SUMMIT (Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity) trial, a convenience sample of current/former smokers with moderate COPD from 1,368 centers in 43 countries. All had CVD or increased CVD risk. AECOPD was defined as an increase in respiratory symptoms requiring treatment with antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, and/or hospitalization. CVD events were a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, and transient ischemic attack. All CVD events were adjudicated. Cox proportional hazards models compared the hazard for a CVD event before AECOPD versus after AECOPD. Among 16,485 participants in SUMMIT, 4,704 participants had at least one AECOPD and 688 had at least one CVD event. The hazard ratio (HR) for CVD events after AECOPD was increased, particularly in the first 30 days after AECOPD (HR, 3.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-5.5) and was elevated up to 1 year after AECOPD. The 30-day HR after hospitalized AECOPD was more than twofold greater (HR, 9.9; 95% confidence interval, 6.6-14.9). In patients with COPD with CVD or risk factors for CVD, exacerbations confer an increased risk of subsequent CVD events, especially in hospitalized patients and within the first 30 days after exacerbation. Patients and clinicians should have heightened vigilance for early CVD events after AECOPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01313676).

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and responses to treatment are heterogeneous. Investigate the usefulness of blood eosinophils to direct corticosteroid therapy during exacerbations. Subjects with COPD exacerbations were entered into a randomized biomarker-directed double-blind corticosteroid versus standard therapy study. Subjects in the standard arm received prednisolone for 2 weeks, whereas in the biomarker-directed arm, prednisolone or matching placebo was given according to the blood eosinophil count biomarker. Both study groups received antibiotics. Blood eosinophils were measured in the biomarker-directed and standard therapy arms to define biomarker-positive and -negative exacerbations (blood eosinophil count > and ≤ 2%, respectively). The primary outcome was to determine noninferiority in health status using the chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ) and in the proportion of exacerbations associated with a treatment failure between subjects allocated to the biomarker-directed and standard therapy arms. There were 86 and 80 exacerbations in the biomarker-directed and standard treatment groups, respectively. In the biomarker-directed group, 49% of the exacerbations were not treated with prednisolone. CRQ improvement after treatment in the standard and biomarker-directed therapy groups was similar (0.8 vs. 1.1; mean difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.6; P = 0.05). There was a greater improvement in CRQ in biomarker-negative exacerbations given placebo compared with those given prednisolone (mean difference, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.90; P = 0.04). In biomarker-negative exacerbations, treatment failures occurred in 15% given prednisolone and 2% of those given placebo (P = 0.04). The peripheral blood eosinophil count is a promising biomarker to direct corticosteroid therapy during COPD exacerbations, but larger studies are required.

In some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 2 inflammation may increase exacerbation risk and may be indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 per microliter and an elevated exacerbation risk despite the use of standard triple therapy to receive dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD. Key secondary and other end points that were corrected for multiplicity were the change in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV ) and in the scores on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; range, 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) and the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS-COPD; range, 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms). A total of 939 patients underwent randomization: 468 to the dupilumab group and 471 to the placebo group. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.93) with dupilumab and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.30) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV increased from baseline to week 12 by a least-squares (LS) mean of 160 ml (95% CI, 126 to 195) with dupilumab and 77 ml (95% CI, 42 to 112) with placebo (LS mean difference, 83 ml; 95% CI, 42 to 125; P<0.001), a difference that was sustained through week 52. At week 52, the SGRQ score had improved by an LS mean of -9.7 (95% CI, -11.3 to -8.1) with dupilumab and -6.4 (95% CI, -8.0 to -4.8) with placebo (LS mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.5 to -1.3; P = 0.002). The E-RS-COPD score at week 52 had improved by an LS mean of -2.7 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.2) with dupilumab and -1.6 (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.1) with placebo (LS mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.4; P = 0.001). The numbers of patients with adverse events that led to discontinuation of dupilumab or placebo, serious adverse events, and adverse events that led to death were balanced in the two groups. Among patients with COPD who had type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, those who received dupilumab had fewer exacerbations, better lung function and quality of life, and less severe respiratory symptoms than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; BOREAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03930732.).

Many persons with a history of smoking tobacco have clinically significant respiratory symptoms despite an absence of airflow obstruction as assessed by spirometry. They are often treated with medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but supporting evidence for this treatment is lacking. We randomly assigned persons who had a tobacco-smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, respiratory symptoms as defined by a COPD Assessment Test score of at least 10 (scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), and preserved lung function on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV ] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ≥0.70 and FVC ≥70% of the predicted value after bronchodilator use) to receive either indacaterol (27.5 μg) plus glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was at least a 4-point decrease (i.e., improvement) in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health status) after 12 weeks without treatment failure (defined as an increase in lower respiratory symptoms treated with a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, glucocorticoid, or antibiotic agent). A total of 535 participants underwent randomization. In the modified intention-to-treat population (471 participants), 128 of 227 participants (56.4%) in the treatment group and 144 of 244 (59.0%) in the placebo group had at least a 4-point decrease in the SGRQ score (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.6 to 6.3; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.37; P = 0.65). The mean change in the percent of predicted FEV was 2.48 percentage points (95% CI, 1.49 to 3.47) in the treatment group and -0.09 percentage points (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.89) in the placebo group, and the mean change in the inspiratory capacity was 0.12 liters (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) in the treatment group and 0.02 liters (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events occurred in the treatment group, and 11 occurred in the placebo group; none were deemed potentially related to the treatment or placebo. Inhaled dual bronchodilator therapy did not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with preserved lung function as assessed by spirometry. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; RETHINC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867761.).

Objective To test the effectiveness of telemonitoring integrated into existing clinical services such that intervention and control groups have access to the same clinical care.Design Researcher blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Setting UK primary care (Lothian, Scotland).Participants Adults with at least one admission for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the year before randomisation. We excluded people who had other significant lung disease, who were unable to provide informed consent or complete the study, or who had other significant social or clinical problems.Interventions Participants were recruited between 21 May 2009 and 28 March 2011, and centrally randomised to receive telemonitoring or conventional self monitoring. Using a touch screen, telemonitoring participants recorded a daily questionnaire about symptoms and treatment use, and monitored oxygen saturation using linked instruments. Algorithms, based on the symptom score, generated alerts if readings were omitted or breached thresholds. Both groups received similar care from existing clinical services.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to hospital admission due to COPD exacerbation up to one year after randomisation. Other outcomes included number and duration of admissions, and validated questionnaire assessments of health related quality of life (using St George’s respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ)), anxiety or depression (or both), self efficacy, knowledge, and adherence to treatment. Analysis was intention to treat.Results Of 256 patients completing the study, 128 patients were randomised to telemonitoring and 128 to usual care; baseline characteristics of each group were similar. The number of days to admission did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.44). Over one year, the mean number of COPD admissions was similar in both groups (telemonitoring 1.2 admissions per person (standard deviation 1.9) v control 1.1 (1.6); P=0.59). Mean duration of COPD admissions over one year was also similar between groups (9.5 days per person (standard deviation 19.1) v 8.8 days (15.9); P=0.88). The intervention had no significant effect on SGRQ scores between groups (68.2 (standard deviation 16.3) v 67.3 (17.3); adjusted mean difference 1.39 (95% confidence interval −1.57 to 4.35)), or on other questionnaire outcomes. Conclusions In participants with a history of admission for exacerbations of COPD, telemonitoring was not effective in postponing admissions and did not improve quality of life. The positive effect of telemonitoring seen in previous trials could be due to enhancement of the underpinning clinical service rather than the telemonitoring communication. Trial registration ISRCTN96634935.Funding: The trial was funded by an NHS applied research programme grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish government (ARPG/07/03). The funder had no role in study design and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and the writing of the article and the decision to submit it for publication. NHS Lothian supported the telemonitoring service and the clinical services.

Patients with COPD and nocturnal oxygen desaturation were assigned to nighttime oxygen supplementation or placebo. When the trial was stopped because it could not meet its enrollment goal, the incidence of death or progression of COPD was similar in the two groups.