Search

Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a significantly under-diagnosed genetic condition caused by reduced levels and/or functionality of alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT), predisposing individuals to lung, liver or other systemic diseases. The management of individuals with the PI*MZ genotype, characterized by mild or moderate AAT deficiency, is less clear than of those with the most common severe deficiency genotype (PI*ZZ). Recent genetic data suggest that the PI*MZ genotype may be significantly more prevalent than currently thought. The only specific treatment for lung disease associated with severe AATD is the intravenous infusion of AAT augmentation therapy, which has been shown to slow disease progression in PI*ZZ individuals. There is no specific evidence for the clinical benefit of AAT therapy in PI*MZ individuals, and the risk of emphysema development in this group remains controversial. As such, current guidelines do not support the use of AAT augmentation in PI*MZ individuals. Here, we discuss the limited data on the PI*MZ genotype and offer pro and con perspectives on pursuing an AAT-specific therapeutic strategy in PI*MZ individuals with lung disease. Ultimately, further research to demonstrate the safety, risk/benefit balance and efficacy of AAT therapy in PI*MZ individuals is needed.

BackgroundUse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) increases the risk of pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but the magnitude of risk with different ICS remains unclear.MethodsA post hoc analysis of the 4-year UPLIFT® trial to assess whether pneumonia risk differed by type of ICS (fluticasone propionate [FP], other ICS, or no ICS) in permanent users (defined by use until end of study) or in users at baseline (sensitivity analysis).ResultsFor the permanent-users analysis, 825 patients receiving FP throughout the trial, 825 patients receiving other ICS and 825 patients not receiving ICS were matched on relevant baseline features 1:1:1. A significantly greater risk of pneumonia was observed for FP versus no ICS: the hazard ratio (HR) for risk of pneumonia was 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00, 1.75; p = 0.046) and the rate ratio (RR) was 1.58 (95% CI 1.05, 2.37; p = 0.028). A greater risk was also found for FP versus other ICS: HR 1.28 (95% CI 0.97, 1.68; p = 0.078) and RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.00, 2.19; p = 0.049). A higher proportion of patients on FP were hospitalized with pneumonia (7.9%) versus other ICS (6.7%) or no ICS (5.9%). Whilst other ICS use was associated with the highest number of fatal pneumonia events, the total number of fatal pneumonia incidents was low. A similar pattern was observed in the sensitivity analyses, which included 4002 patients on different treatments at baseline (FP, other ICS, and no ICS) and considered potential switches during the study.ConclusionThe results support existing evidence of an increased pneumonia risk with FP use compared with other ICS and no ICS use in patients with COPD. Healthcare professionals should evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of using ICS when making treatment decisions with their patients.Trial registrationPost hoc analysis of UPLIFT®. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00144339 . Retrospectively registered September 2, 2005.

Self-reported occupational exposure was previously associated with COPD in the Spanish population. This study aimed to analyse the relationship between occupational exposure to various chemical and biological agents, COPD, emphysema, and the bronchial wall area, which was determined by lung computed tomography (CT) in 226 individuals with COPD and 300 individuals without COPD. Lifetime occupational exposures were assessed using the ALOHA(+) job exposure matrix, and CT and spirometry were also performed. COPD was associated with high exposure to vapours, gases, dust and fumes (VGDF) (OR 2.25 95% CI 1.19–4.22), biological dust (OR 3.01 95% CI 1.22–7.45), gases/fumes (OR 2.49 95% CI 1.20–5.17) and with exposure to various types of solvents. High exposure to gases/fumes, chlorinated solvents and metals (coefficient 8.65 95% CI 1.21–16.09, 11.91 95%CI 0.46- 23.36, 14.45 95% CI 4.42–24.49, respectively) and low exposure to aromatic solvents (coefficient 8.43 95% CI 1.16–15.70) were associated with a low 15th percentile of lung density indicating emphysema. We conclude that occupational exposure to several specific agents is associated with COPD and emphysema in the Spanish population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Alpha‐1 antitrypsin deficiency is an inherited disorder caused by alpha‐1 antitrypsin (AAT) mutations. We analysed the association between alcohol intake and liver‐related parameters in individuals with the heterozygous/homozygous Pi*Z AAT variant (Pi*MZ/Pi*ZZ genotype) found in the United Kingdom Biobank and the European Alpha1 liver consortium. Methods: Reported alcohol consumption was evaluated in two cohorts: (i) the community‐based United Kingdom Biobank (17 145 Pi*MZ, 141 Pi*ZZ subjects, and 425 002 non‐carriers [Pi*MM]); and (ii) the European Alpha1 liver consortium (561 Pi*ZZ individuals). Cohort (ii) included measurements of carbohydrate‐deficient transferrin (CDT). Results: In both cohorts, no/low alcohol intake was reported by >80% of individuals, while harmful consumption was rare (~1%). Among Pi*MM and Pi*MZ individuals from cohort (i), moderate alcohol consumption resulted in a <30% increased rate of elevated transaminases and ~50% increase in elevated gamma‐glutamyl transferase values, while harmful alcohol intake led to an at least twofold increase in the abnormal levels. In Pi*ZZ individuals from both cohorts, moderate alcohol consumption had no marked impact on serum transaminase levels. Among Pi*ZZ subjects from cohort (ii) who reported no/low alcohol consumption, those with increased CDT levels more often had signs of advanced liver disease. Conclusions: Pi*MZ/Pi*ZZ genotype does not seem to markedly aggravate the hepatic toxicity of moderate alcohol consumption. CDT values might be helpful to detect alcohol consumption in those with advanced fibrosis. More data are needed to evaluate the impact of harmful alcohol consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Faster lung function impairment occurs earlier in the disease, particularly in mild-to-moderate COPD, highlighting the need for early and effective targeted interventions. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2024 report recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination in group B (0 or 1 moderate exacerbation not leading to hospitalization, modified Medical Research Council score of ⩾2, and COPD Assessment Test™ score of ⩾10) and E (⩾2 moderate exacerbations or ⩾1 exacerbation leading to hospitalization and blood eosinophil count <300 cells/µL) patients. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and reduced the use of rescue medications, exacerbation risk, and risk of first clinically important deterioration (CID), compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy. However, there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy in maintenance therapy–naïve patients. This review discusses the rationale for the early initiation of LAMA/LABA combination therapy in maintenance therapy–naïve patients with COPD. In post hoc analyses of pooled data from RCTs, compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy, LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function and quality of life and reduced COPD symptoms, risk of first moderate/severe exacerbation, risk of first CID, and use of rescue medication, with no new safety signals. In a real-world study, patients initiating LAMA/LABA had significantly reduced risk of COPD-related inpatient admissions and rate of on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admissions over 12 months than those initiating LAMA. Consequently, LAMA/LABA combination therapy could be considered the treatment of choice in maintenance therapy–naïve patients with COPD, as recommended by the GOLD 2024 report. Plain language summary: Long-acting bronchodilator combination therapy for the treatment of maintenance therapy–naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common lung disease that makes it hard to breathe and is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. This disease tends to worsen lung function from an early stage, especially in people who only have mild or moderate symptoms. To help stop the loss of lung function and maintain the quality of life for patients with COPD, two main types of long-lasting inhaler medications are used: one type focuses on relaxing the muscles around the airways, and the other type helps open the airways making it easier to breathe. Some medications combine these two types of action and are approved for long-term management of COPD. However, there is not much information on the effectiveness and safety of these combination medications in patients who have never taken long-lasting COPD medication before. Current health guidelines suggest starting these combination medications in patients who are likely to see their symptoms get worse quickly, and who do not have a high level of a specific type of white blood cell. In this review, we discuss the evidence for starting these combination treatments early in patients who have never used long-lasting COPD medications before. There is no strong evidence yet that shows starting treatment early benefits patients with newly diagnosed COPD. However, about 30% of patients in clinical trials designed to study the effectiveness of these combination medications, had never received any long-lasting treatment before. After-the-fact analyses of these patients showed that these combination medications could reduce symptoms such as breathlessness, improve lung function, enhance quality of life, lessen the need for emergency medications, and decrease the risk of severe symptom flare-ups. Overall, the evidence supports using these combination inhaler medications as the first choice of treatment for patients with moderate COPD symptoms who have not previously been treated with long-lasting inhalers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma can be treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) delivered by low climate impact inhalers (dry powder inhalers) or high climate impact inhalers (pressurized metered-dose inhalers containing potent greenhouse gasses). ICS delivered with greenhouse gasses is prescribed ubiquitously and frequent despite limited evidence of superior effect. Our aim was to examine the beneficial and harmful events of ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers in patients with asthma and COPD. Methods: Nationwide retrospective cohort study of Danish outpatients with asthma and COPD treated with ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers. Patients were propensity score matched by the following variables; age, gender, tobacco exposure, exacerbations, dyspnoea, body mass index, pulmonary function, ICS dose and entry year. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation with exacerbations and all-cause mortality analysed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of the 10,947 patients with asthma and COPD who collected ICS by low or high climate impact inhalers, 2,535 + 2,535 patients were propensity score matched to form the population for the primary analysis. We found no association between high climate impact inhalers and risk of exacerbations requiring hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR 1.02, CI 0.92–1.12, p = 0.77), nor on pneumonia, exacerbations requiring hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or all-cause admissions. Delivery with high climate impact inhalers was associated with a slightly increased risk of exacerbations not requiring hospitalization (HR 1.10, CI 1.01–1.21, p = 0.03). Even with low lung function there was no sign of a superior effect of high climate impact inhalers. Conclusion: Low climate impact inhalers were not inferior to high climate impact inhalers for any risk analysed in patients with asthma and COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]