Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized trial involving patients with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, the rate of pulmonary exacerbations over a 52-week period was lower with brensocatib (10 mg or 25 mg per day) than with placebo.

The efficacy of α1 proteinase inhibitor (A1PI) augmentation treatment for α1 antitrypsin deficiency has not been substantiated by a randomised, placebo-controlled trial. CT-measured lung density is a more sensitive measure of disease progression in α1 antitrypsin deficiency emphysema than spirometry is, so we aimed to assess the efficacy of augmentation treatment with this measure. The RAPID study was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial of A1PI treatment in patients with α1 antitrypsin deficiency. We recruited eligible non-smokers (aged 18–65 years) in 28 international study centres in 13 countries if they had severe α1 antitrypsin deficiency (serum concentration <11 μM) with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 35–70% (predicted). We excluded patients if they had undergone, or were on the waiting list to undergo, lung transplantation, lobectomy, or lung volume-reduction surgery, or had selective IgA deficiency. We randomly assigned patients (1:1; done by Accovion) using a computerised pseudorandom number generator (block size of four) with centre stratification to receive A1PI intravenously 60 mg/kg per week or placebo for 24 months. All patients and study investigators (including those assessing outcomes) were unaware of treatment allocation throughout the study. Primary endpoints were CT lung density at total lung capacity (TLC) and functional residual capacity (FRC) combined, and the two separately, at 0, 3, 12, 21, and 24 months, analysed by modified intention to treat (patients needed at least one evaluable lung density measurement). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00261833. A 2-year open-label extension study was also completed (NCT00670007). Between March 1, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, we randomly allocated 93 (52%) patients A1PI and 87 (48%) placebo, analysing 92 in the A1PI group and 85 in the placebo group. The annual rate of lung density loss at TLC and FRC combined did not differ between groups (A1PI −1·50 g/L per year [SE 0·22]; placebo −2·12 g/L per year [0·24]; difference 0·62 g/L per year [95% CI −0·02 to 1·26], p=0·06). However, the annual rate of lung density loss at TLC alone was significantly less in patients in the A1PI group (−1·45 g/L per year [SE 0·23]) than in the placebo group (−2·19 g/L per year [0·25]; difference 0·74 g/L per year [95% CI 0·06–1·42], p=0·03), but was not at FRC alone (A1PI −1·54 g/L per year [0·24]; placebo −2·02 g/L per year [0·26]; difference 0·48 g/L per year [–0·22 to 1·18], p=0·18). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups, with 1298 occurring in 92 (99%) patients in the A1PI group and 1068 occuring in 86 (99%) in the placebo group. 71 severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 25 (27%) patients in the A1PI group and 58 occurred in 27 (31%) in the placebo group. One treatment-emergent adverse event leading to withdrawal from the study occurred in one patient (1%) in the A1PI group and ten occurred in four (5%) in the placebo group. One death occurred in the A1PI group (respiratory failure) and three occurred in the placebo group (sepsis, pneumonia, and metastatic breast cancer). Measurement of lung density with CT at TLC alone provides evidence that purified A1PI augmentation slows progression of emphysema, a finding that could not be substantiated by lung density measurement at FRC alone or by the two measurements combined. These findings should prompt consideration of augmentation treatment to preserve lung parenchyma in individuals with emphysema secondary to severe α1 antitrypsin deficiency. CSL Behring.

Abstract Rationale Single-center randomized controlled trials of the Zephyr endobronchial valve (EBV) treatment have demonstrated benefit in severe heterogeneous emphysema. This is the first multicenter study evaluating this treatment approach. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zephyr EBVs in patients with heterogeneous emphysema and absence of collateral ventilation. Methods This was a prospective, multicenter 2:1 randomized controlled trial of EBVs plus standard of care or standard of care alone (SoC). Primary outcome at 3 months post-procedure was the percentage of subjects with FEV1 improvement from baseline of 12% or greater. Changes in FEV1, residual volume, 6-minute-walk distance, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and modified Medical Research Council score were assessed at 3 and 6 months, and target lobe volume reduction on chest computed tomography at 3 months. Measurements and Main Results Ninety seven subjects were randomized to EBV (n = 65) or SoC (n = 32). At 3 months, 55.4% of EBV and 6.5% of SoC subjects had an FEV1 improvement of 12% or more (P < 0.001). Improvements were maintained at 6 months: EBV 56.3% versus SoC 3.2% (P < 0.001), with a mean ± SD change in FEV1 at 6 months of 20.7 ± 29.6% and −8.6 ± 13.0%, respectively. A total of 89.8% of EBV subjects had target lobe volume reduction greater than or equal to 350 ml, mean 1.09 ± 0.62 L (P < 0.001). Between-group differences for changes at 6 months were statistically and clinically significant: ΔEBV–SoC for residual volume, −700 ml; 6-minute-walk distance, +78.7 m; St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, −6.5 points; modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, −0.6 points; and BODE (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) index, −1.8 points (all P < 0.05). Pneumothorax was the most common adverse event, occurring in 19 of 65 (29.2%) of EBV subjects. Conclusions EBV treatment in hyperinflated patients with heterogeneous emphysema without collateral ventilation resulted in clinically meaningful benefits in lung function, dyspnea, exercise tolerance, and quality of life, with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02022683).

Lung volume reduction surgery improves survival in selected patients with emphysema, and has generated interest in bronchoscopic approaches that might achieve the same effect with less morbidity and mortality. Previous trials with endobronchial valves have yielded modest group benefits because when collateral ventilation is present it prevents lobar atelectasis. We did a single-centre, double-blind sham-controlled trial in patients with both heterogeneous emphysema and a target lobe with intact interlobar fissures on CT of the thorax. We enrolled stable outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of less than 50% predicted, significant hyperinflation (total lung capacity >100% and residual volume >150%), a restricted exercise capacity (6 min walking distance <450 m), and substantial breathlessness (MRC dyspnoea score ≥3). Participants were randomised (1:1) by computer-generated sequence to receive either valves placed to achieve unilateral lobar occlusion (bronchoscopic lung volume reduction) or a bronchoscopy with sham valve placement (control). Patients and researchers were masked to treatment allocation. The study was powered to detect a 15% improvement in the primary endpoint, the FEV1 3 months after the procedure. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN04761234. 50 patients (62% male, FEV1 [% predicted] mean 31·7% [SD 10·2]) were enrolled to receive valves (n=25) or sham valve placement (control, n=25) between March 1, 2012, and Sept 30, 2013. In the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction group, FEV1 increased by a median 8·77% (IQR 2·27–35·85) versus 2·88% (0–8·51) in the control group (Mann-Whitney p=0·0326). There were two deaths in the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction group and one control patient was unable to attend for follow-up assessment because of a prolonged pneumothorax. Unilateral lobar occlusion with endobronchial valves in patients with heterogeneous emphysema and intact interlobar fissures produces significant improvements in lung function. There is a risk of significant complications and further trials are needed that compare valve placement with lung volume reduction surgery. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

ObjectiveThe association between exposure to ambient particles with a median aerodynamic diameter less than 10/2.5 µm (particulate matter, PM10/2.5) and COPD remains unclear. Our study objective was to examine the association between ambient PM10/2.5 concentrations and lung functions in adults.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in southern China. Seven clusters were randomly selected from four cities across Guangdong province. Residents aged ≥20 years in the participating clusters were randomly recruited; all eligible participants were examined with a standardised questionnaire and spirometry. COPD was defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC less than 70%. Atmosphere PM sampling was conducted across the clusters along with our survey.ResultsOf the subjects initially recruited, 84.4% (n=5993) were included for analysis. COPD prevalence and atmosphere PM concentration varied significantly among the seven clusters. COPD prevalence was significantly associated with elevated PM concentration levels: adjusted OR 2.416 (95% CI 1.417 to 4.118) for >35 and ≤75 µg/m3 and 2.530 (1.280 to 5.001) for >75 µg/m3 compared with the level of ≤35 µg/m3 for PM2.5; adjusted OR 2.442 (95% CI 1.449 to 4.117) for >50 and ≤150 µg/m3 compared with the level of ≤50 µg/m3 for PM1. A 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentrations was associated with a 26 mL (95% CI −43 to −9) decrease in FEV1, a 28 mL (−49 to −8) decrease in FVC and a 0.09% decrease (−0.170 to −0.010) in FEV1/FVC ratio. The associations of COPD with PM10 were consistent with PM2.5 but slightly weaker.ConclusionsExposure to higher PM concentrations was strongly associated with increased COPD prevalence and declined respiratory function.Trial registration number ChiCTR-OO-14004264; Post-results.

Abstract Rationale Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience frequent acute pulmonary exacerbations, which lead to decreased lung function and reduced quality of life. Objectives The goal of this study was to determine if an intervention directed toward early detection of pulmonary exacerbations using home spirometry and symptom monitoring would result in slower decline in lung function than in control subjects. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial at 14 CF centers with subjects at least 14 years old. The early intervention arm subjects measured home spirometry and symptoms electronically twice per week. Sites were notified if a participant met criteria for an exacerbation and contacted participants to determine if treatment for acute exacerbation was required. Participants in the usual care arm were seen every 3 months and were asked to contact the site if they were concerned about worsening pulmonary symptoms. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was the 52-week change in FEV1. Secondary outcomes included time to first exacerbation and subsequent exacerbation, quality of life, and change in weight. A total of 267 patients were randomized, and the study arms were well matched at baseline. There was no significant difference between study arms in 52-week mean change in FEV1 slope (mean slope difference, 0.00 L, 95% confidence interval, −0.07 to 0.07; P = 0.99). The early intervention arm subjects detected exacerbations more frequently than usual care arm subjects (time to first exacerbation hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.93; P = 0.01). Adverse events were not significantly different between treatment arms. Conclusions An intervention of home monitoring among patients with CF was able to detect more exacerbations than usual care, but this did not result in slower decline in lung function. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01104402).

ObjectiveWe performed a review of studies of fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) (combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)) in patients with COPD, which measured baseline (pretreatment) blood eosinophil levels, to test whether blood eosinophil levels ≥2% were associated with a greater reduction in exacerbation rates with ICS therapy.MethodsThree studies of ≥1-year duration met the inclusion criteria. Moderate and severe exacerbation rates were analysed according to baseline blood eosinophil levels (<2% vs ≥2%). At baseline, 57–75% of patients had ≥2% blood eosinophils. Changes in FEV1 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores were compared by eosinophil level.ResultsFor patients with ≥2% eosinophils, FP/SAL was associated with significant reductions in exacerbation rates versus tiotropium (INSPIRE: n=719, rate ratio (RR)=0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92, p=0.006) and versus placebo (TRISTAN: n=1049, RR=0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.79, p<0.001). No significant difference was seen in the <2% eosinophil subgroup in either study (INSPIRE: n=550, RR=1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.51, p=0.186; TRISTAN: n=354, RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.47, p=0.957, respectively). In SCO30002 (n=373), no significant effects were observed (FP or FP/SAL vs placebo). No relationship was observed in any study between eosinophil subgroup and treatment effect on FEV1 and SGRQ.DiscussionBaseline blood eosinophil levels may represent an informative marker for exacerbation reduction with ICS/LABA in patients with COPD and a history of moderate/severe exacerbations.

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.

Background The burden of asthma and COPD among patients is high and people affected are frequently hospitalized due to exacerbations. There are numerous reasons for the lack of disease control in asthma and COPD patients. It is associated with non-adherence to guidelines on the part of the health care provider and with poor inhalation technique and/or non-adherence to the prescribed treatment plan by the patient. This study aims to present data on inhaler technique and its impact on quality of life (QoL) and symptom control in a typical population of patients with chronic lung disease from a randomized controlled trial on medication adherence. Methods For this cross-sectional analysis, 165 asthma and COPD patients were analyzed. Correct application of inhaler devices was tested using pre-defined checklists for each inhaler type. QoL and symptom control were investigated using COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Asthma Control Test (ACT). Spirometry was used to measure forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 ). Results Overall, incorrect inhalation technique ranged from 0 to 53% depending on the type of inhaler. COPD patients with incorrect device application had a higher CAT sum score compared to those with a correct device application ( P  = .02). Moreover, COPD patients with incorrect device application were more likely to suffer from cough ( P  = .03) and were more breathless while walking uphill or a flight of stairs ( P  = .02). While there was no significance found in asthma patients, COPD patients who used their devices correctly had a significantly better mean FEV 1 % predicted at baseline compared to those who applied their devices incorrectly ( P  = .04). Conclusions Correct inhalation of prescribed medication is associated with improved health status and lung function. These findings should encourage health professionals to provide instructions on correct inhalation technique and to regularly re-evaluate the patients’ inhalation technique. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0238672 , Registered 14 February 2014.

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an effective form of treatment in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) who have concomitant severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, there is a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of NIV in patients with OHS without severe OSA. We performed a multicentre randomised clinical trial to determine the comparative efficacy of NIV versus lifestyle modification (control group) using daytime arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) as the main outcome measure. Between May 2009 and December 2014 we sequentially screened patients with OHS without severe OSA. Participants were randomised to NIV versus lifestyle modification and were followed for 2 months. Arterial blood gas parameters, clinical symptoms, health-related quality of life assessments, polysomnography, spirometry, 6-min walk distance test, blood pressure measurements and healthcare resource utilisation were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 365 patients were screened of whom 58 were excluded. Severe OSA was present in 221 and the remaining 86 patients without severe OSA were randomised. NIV led to a significantly larger improvement in PaCO2 of -6 (95% CI -7.7 to -4.2) mm Hg versus -2.8 (95% CI -4.3 to -1.3) mm Hg, (p<0.001) and serum bicarbonate of -3.4 (95% CI -4.5 to -2.3) versus -1 (95% CI -1.7 to -0.2 95% CI)  mmol/L (p<0.001). PaCO2 change adjusted for NIV compliance did not further improve the inter-group statistical significance. Sleepiness, some health-related quality of life assessments and polysomnographic parameters improved significantly more with NIV than with lifestyle modification. Additionally, there was a tendency towards lower healthcare resource utilisation in the NIV group. NIV is more effective than lifestyle modification in improving daytime PaCO2, sleepiness and polysomnographic parameters. Long-term prospective studies are necessary to determine whether NIV reduces healthcare resource utilisation, cardiovascular events and mortality. NCT01405976; results.