5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring disease activity in COPD: is clinically important deterioration the answer?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

          Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other disorders, associated with reduced lung function, are strong risk factors for cardiovascular events, independent of smoking. Overall, when the lowest quintile of lung function, as measured by FEV1 is compared with the highest quintile, the risk of cardiovascular mortality increases by approximately 75% in both men and women. Having symptoms of chronic bronchitis alone increases the risk of coronary deaths by 50%. Reduced ratio of FEV1 to FVC by itself is a modest independent risk factor for coronary events, increasing the risk by 30%. However, if patients have ventricular arrhythmias, the risk of coronary events is increased twofold, suggesting that the cardiotoxic effects of obstructive airways disease are amplified in those who have underlying cardiac rhythm disturbances. In general, for every 10% decrease in FEV1, all-cause mortality increases by 14%, cardiovascular mortality increases by 28%, and nonfatal coronary event increases by almost 20%. These data indicate that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a powerful, independent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials.

            Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimal clinically important differences in COPD lung function.

              The FEV1 is widely used by physicians in the diagnosis, staging, treatment, monitoring, and establishing prognosis for patients with COPD. The MCID is the smallest difference which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate a change in patient management. A precise MCID for FEV1 has not been established. In attempt to establish a MCID for predose or trough FEV1, several limitations need to be addressed. There are issues such as reproducibility, repeatability, acceptability, variability, placebo effect, and equipment effects. Patient factors, such as baseline level of FEV1, albuterol reversibility, diurnal variation, influence the results. Nonetheless, using anchoring techniques, a change in pre dose FEV1 of about 100 mL can be perceived by patients, correlates with fewer relapses following exacerbations and is in the range usually achieved with bronchodilators approved for COPD. In the future, consistent reporting of spirometric variables, such as a predose FEV1 and other outcomes, can be incorporated into a more quantitative effort to establish the MCID. Also distributional/statistical methods may be useful in determining the MCID FEV1.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                DSingh@meu.org.uk
                Journal
                Respir Res
                Respir. Res
                Respiratory Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1465-9921
                1465-993X
                2 June 2020
                2 June 2020
                2020
                : 21
                : 134
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.498924.a, University of Manchester, Medicines Evaluation Unit, , Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, ; Manchester, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.264727.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2248 3398, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, , Temple University, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.418236.a, ISNI 0000 0001 2162 0389, GSK, Respiratory Medicines Development Centre, , Stockley Park, ; Middlesex, UK
                [4 ]RAMAX Ltd, Bramhall, Cheshire, UK
                [5 ]Precise Approach Ltd, London, UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.418019.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0393 4335, GSK, Respiratory Clinical Sciences, ; Collegeville, PA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.25879.31, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.412590.b, ISNI 0000 0000 9081 2336, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, , University of Michigan Health System, ; Ann Arbor, MI USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8918-7075
                Article
                1387
                10.1186/s12931-020-01387-z
                7265253
                32487202
                c2a0dee2-9897-4b38-b601-83468c1fba0b
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 26 November 2019
                : 5 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: GSK
                Award ID: Not Applicable
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Respiratory medicine
                cid,clinically important deterioration,copd,deterioration,health status,long-term outcome,lung function

                Comments

                Comment on this article