Search

Despite being a leading cause of death worldwide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is underdiagnosed and underprioritized within healthcare systems. Existing healthcare policies should be revisited to include COPD prevention and management as a global priority. Here, we propose and describe health system quality standard position statements that should be implemented as a consistent standard of care for patients with COPD.A multidisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in COPD management together with patient advocates from eight countries participated in a quality standards review meeting convened in April 2021. The principal objective was to achieve consensus on global health system priorities to ensure consistent standards of care for COPD. These quality standard position statements were either evidence-based or reflected the combined views of the panel.On the basis of discussions, the experts adopted five quality standard position statements, including the rationale for their inclusion, supporting clinical evidence, and essential criteria for quality metrics. These quality standard position statements emphasize the core elements of COPD care, including (1) diagnosis, (2) adequate patient and caregiver education, (3) access to medical and nonmedical treatments aligned with the latest evidence-based recommendations and appropriate management by a respiratory specialist when required, (4) appropriate management of acute COPD exacerbations, and (5) regular patient and caregiver follow-up for care plan reviews.These practical quality standards may be applicable to and implemented at both local and national levels. While universally applicable to the core elements of appropriate COPD care, they can be adapted to consider differences in healthcare resources and priorities, organizational structure, and care delivery capabilities of individual healthcare systems. We encourage the adoption of these global quality standards by policymakers and healthcare practitioners alike to inform national and regional health system policy revisions to improve the quality and consistency of COPD care worldwide.

BackgroundPatients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions.ResultsIn the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p ConclusionsIn real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use. Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

This position statement aims to provide rapid guidance for pulmonary rehabilitation in adults with COVID-19 illness. These recommendations are based on the consensus of the authors, who are members...

Background Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of severe adult asthma patients eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult severe asthma patients from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance and hospital admissions. Results In the matched analysis (n=350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects up to 10% of Canadians. Patients with COPD may present with secondary humoral immunodeficiency as a result of chronic disease, poor nutrition or frequent courses of oral corticosteroids; decreased humoral immunity may predispose these patients to mucosal infections. We hypothesized that decreased serum immunoglobulin (Ig) levels was associated with the severity of an acute COPD exacerbations (AECOPD). Methods A prospective study to examine cardiovascular risks in patients hospitalized for AECOPD, recruited patients on the day of hospital admission and collected data on length of hospital stay at index admission, subsequent emergency department visits and hospital readmissions. Immunoglobulin levels were measured in serum collected prospectively at recruitment. Results Among the 51 patients recruited during an admission for AECOPD, 14 (27.5%) had low IgG, 1 (2.0%) low IgA and 16 (31.4%) low IgM; in total, 24 (47.1%) had at least one immunoglobulin below the normal range. Patients with low IgM had longer hospital stay during the index admission compared to patients with normal IgM levels (6.0 vs. 3.0 days, p = 0.003), but no difference in other clinical outcomes. In the whole cohort, there was a negative correlation between serum IgM levels and length of hospital stay (R = − 0.317, p = 0.024). There was no difference in clinical outcomes between subjects with normal and low IgG levels. Conclusion In patients presenting with AECOPD, low IgM is associated with longer hospital stay and may indicate a patient phenotype that would benefit from efforts to prevent respiratory infections. Trial registration statement: Retrospectively registered.

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to study the prevalence and pattern of sleep disturbances in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for original studies describing sleep abnormalities in children and adolescents with or without pre-existing neurobehavioral disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pooled estimates for various sleep abnormalities were calculated using a random-effect model. Results Of 371 articles screened, 16 studies were included. Among these, five studies were in preschool children, two were in children with pre-existing neurobehavioral disorders and the remaining were in school going children and adolescents. The outcome measures used for sleep were markedly heterogeneous across the studies. The pooled prevalence of any sleep disturbance in children during the pandemic was 54%(95%CI:50–57%). Interestingly, the prevalence in pre-school children was lower than pre-pandemic times (RR = 0.87; 95% CI:0.58–1.30) but this was not statistically significant. The pooled prevalence of children not meeting sleep recommendation was 49% (95%CI: 39–58%). Conclusion The prevalence of sleep problems in children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic is alarming. Pre-school children had a trend towards relatively fewer sleep disturbances due to home confinement measures in comparison with pre-pandemic times. Sleep duration recommendations were not met in nearly half of healthy children. However, these conclusions need to be seen in light of limited literature on the topic, few included studies done in heterogenous populations, and dubious quality of inferences drawn from these studies which were predominantly online surveys. Prospero registration id CRD42020213788.

BackgroundIt remains unclear why some symptomatic individuals with asthma or COPD remain undiagnosed. Here, we compare patient and physician characteristics between symptomatic individuals with obstructive lung disease (OLD) who are undiagnosed and individuals with physician-diagnosed OLD.MethodsUsing random-digit dialling and population-based case finding, we recruited 451 participants with symptomatic undiagnosed OLD and 205 symptomatic control participants with physician-diagnosed OLD. Data on symptoms, quality of life and healthcare utilisation were analysed. We surveyed family physicians of participants in both groups to elucidate differences in physician practices that could contribute to undiagnosed OLD.ResultsParticipants with undiagnosed OLD had lower mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s percentage predicted compared with those who were diagnosed (75.2%versus80.8%; OR 0.975, 95% CI 0.963–0.987). They reported greater psychosocial impacts due to symptoms and worse energy and fatigue than those with diagnosed OLD. Undiagnosed OLD was more common in participants whose family physicians were practising for >15 years and in those whose physicians reported that they were likely to prescribe respiratory medications without doing spirometry. Undiagnosed OLD was more common among participants who had never undergone spirometry (OR 10.83, 95% CI 6.18–18.98) or who were never referred to a specialist (OR 5.92, 95% CI 3.58–9.77). Undiagnosed OLD was less common among participants who had required emergency department care (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.97).ConclusionsIndividuals with symptomatic undiagnosed OLD have worse pre-bronchodilator lung function and present with greater psychosocial impacts on quality of life compared with their diagnosed counterparts. They were less likely to have received appropriate investigations and specialist referral for their respiratory symptoms.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a profound impact on people living with the disease and has a high global economic and social burden. Often, people with COPD are undiagnosed, while those diagnosed are undertreated and undereducated on different aspects of COPD care. Although there are many published evidence-based treatment guidelines from different expert groups and societies, they are frequently not adhered to, which results in significant gaps in care. In particular, ‘flare-ups’ (known as exacerbations of COPD), which accelerate disease progression, are often under-reported, despite guidelines recommending an escalation of maintenance treatment to prevent subsequent flare-ups. Management of COPD should be proactive to prevent worsening of symptoms and to reduce the risk of future flare-ups and premature death, rather than a secondary reaction to a worsening health status. Key to this is patient access to accurate diagnosis, effective treatment and specialist care, which can vary widely due to socioeconomic differences, geographical locations and poor guideline implementation. In addition, the stigma associated with COPD can act as a barrier, which can result in people being reluctant to access treatment or clinicians being nihilistic. As global patient advocates, we have co-developed this patient charter to set a standard of care that people living with COPD should expect, raising awareness and understanding of the causes and consequences of COPD as well as the potential to improve patient care. Patients with COPD should be empowered to live the highest quality of life possible with the least number of flare-ups. We set out six principles in line with current COPD guideline recommendations, that should be implemented by governments, healthcare providers, policymakers, lung health industry partners and patients/caregivers to drive meaningful change in COPD care.

This position statement aims to provide guidance for resumption of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) services during the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (ie, period of low community prevalence...

With the rapid rise in cases of COVID-19 across the world, health systems face unprecedented challenges in the delivery of patient care. This includes constrained capacity for intensive care unit (...

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in high-income countries. In addition to the high costs of initial hospitalization, COPD patients frequently return to the emergency department (ED) and are readmitted to hospital within 30 days of discharge. A COPD acute care discharge care bundle focused on optimizing care for patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD has been shown to reduce ED revisits and hospital readmissions. The aim of this study was to explore and understand factors influencing implementation and uptake of COPD discharge care bundle items in acute care facilities from the perspective of health care providers and patients. Methods Qualitative methodology was adopted. Nine focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured guide: seven with acute and primary/community health care providers and two with patients/family members. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and coded and analyzed using a thematic approach. Results Forty-six health care providers and 14 patients/family members participated in the focus groups. Health care providers and patients identified four factors that can challenge the implementation of COPD discharge care bundles: process of care complexities, human capacity in care settings, communication and engagement, and attitudes and perceptions towards change. Both health care providers and patients recognized process of care complexity as the most important determinant of the COPD discharge bundle uptake. Processes of care complexity include patient activities in seeking and receiving care, as well as practitioner activities in making a diagnosis and recommending or implementing treatment. Important issues linked to human capacity in care settings included time constraints, high patient volume, and limited staffing. Communication during transitions in care across settings and patient engagement were also broadly discussed. Other important issues were linked to patients’, providers’, and system attitudes towards change and level of involvement in COPD discharge bundle implementation. Conclusions Complexities in the process of care were perceived as the most important determinant of COPD discharge bundle implementation. Early engagement of health providers and patients in the uptake of COPD discharge bundle items as well as clear communication between acute and post-acute settings can contribute positively to bundle uptake and implementation success.

The actual burden of COPD and asthma may be much higher than appreciated, since a large proportion of individuals are not diagnosed. Our study objective was to compare health care utilization, burden of symptoms and quality of life in subjects with self-reported respiratory symptoms who were subsequently found to have undiagnosed airflow obstruction compared to those having no airflow obstruction.This cross-sectional case-finding study used data from the Undiagnosed COPD and Asthma Population (UCAP) study. Adult subjects with respiratory symptoms who had no history of diagnosed lung disease were recruited in a two-step case-finding process using random digit-dialling of land lines and cell phones located within a 90-min radius of 16 Canadian study sites. Participants were assessed for COPD, asthma or no airflow obstruction using pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry based on American Thoracic Society diagnostic criteria.1660 participants were recruited, of these 1615 had adequate spirometry and 331 (20.5%) subjects met spirometry criteria for undiagnosed asthma or COPD. Subjects with undiagnosed asthma or COPD had increased respiratory symptoms as assessed by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and higher St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores indicating worse health-related quality of life, compared to subjects with no airflow obstruction. No between-group differences were found in health care utilization or work or school absenteeism.Undiagnosed asthma and COPD are common in Canadian adults experiencing breathing problems and are associated with a greater burden of symptoms and poorer health-related quality of life. These results suggest that patients may benefit from early identification and treatment of undiagnosed asthma and COPD.

Anne Meiwald,1 Rupert Gara-Adams,1 Aleix Rowlandson,1 Yixuan Ma,1 Henrik Watz,2 Masakazu Ichinose,3 Jane Scullion,4 Tom Wilkinson,5,6 Mohit Bhutani,7 Georgie Weston,1 Elisabeth J Adams1 1Aquarius Population Health, London, UK; 2Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Grosshansdorf, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany; 3Academic Center, Osaki Citizen Hospital, Miyagi, Japan; 4Bush & Co, Northamptonshire, UK; 5Faculty of Medicine, Southampton University, Southampton, Hampshire, UK; 6Respiratory and Allergy, NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton, Hampshire, UK; 7Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaCorrespondence: Elisabeth J Adams, Aquarius Population Health, Unit 29 Tileyard Studios, London, N7 9AH, UK, Tel +44 (0)207 993 2930, Email elisabeth.adams@aquariusph.comBackground: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A comprehensive and detailed understanding of COPD care pathways from pre-diagnosis to acute care is required to understand the common barriers to optimal COPD care across diverse health systems.Methods: Country-specific COPD care pathways were created for four high-income countries using international recommendations and country-specific guidelines, then populated with published epidemiological, clinical, and economic data. To refine and validate the pathways, semi-structured interviews using pre-prepared discussion guides and country-specific pathway maps were held with twenty-four primary and secondary care respiratory healthcare professionals. Thematic analysis was then performed on the interview transcripts.Results: The COPD care pathway showed broad consistency across the countries. Three key themes relating to barriers in optimal COPD management were identified across the countries: journey to diagnosis, treatment, and the impact of COVID-19. Common barriers included presentation to healthcare with advanced COPD, low COPD consideration, and sub-optimal acute and chronic disease management. COVID-19 has negatively impacted disease management across the pathway but presents opportunities to retain virtual consultations. Structural factors such as insurance and short duration of appointments also impacted the diagnosis and management of COPD.Conclusion: COPD is an important public health issue that needs urgent prioritization. The use of Evidenced Care Pathways with decision-makers can facilitate evidence-based decision making on interventions and policies to improve care and outcomes for patients and reduce unnecessary resource use and associated costs for the healthcare provider/payer.Keywords: health policy, COPD management, COPD diagnosis, exacerbations, qualitative, pathway mapping

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥ 4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/μL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p< 0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p< 0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics

Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are associated with high morbidity and mortality and frequent readmissions.What is the effectiveness of a COPD transition bundle, with and without a care coordinator, on rehospitalizations and ED revisits?Two patient cohorts were selected: (1) the group exposed to the transition bundle and (2) the group not exposed to the transition bundle (usual care group). Patients exposed subsequently were randomized to a care coordinator. An AECOPD transition bundle was implemented in the hospital; patients randomized to the care coordinator were contacted ≤ 72 h after discharge. Six hundred four patients (320 to the care coordinator and 284 to routine care) who met eligibility criteria from five hospitals across three cities in Alberta, Canada, were exposed to the transition bundle, whereas 3,106 patients discharged from the same hospitals received the usual care. Primary outcomes were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day readmissions, median length of stay (LOS), and 30-day ED revisits.The transition bundle cohort were 83% (relative risk [RR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.35) less likely to be readmitted within 7 days and 26% (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91) less likely to be readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Ninety-day readmissions were unchanged (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). The transition bundle was associated with a 7.3% (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.0-1.15) relative increase in LOS and a 76% (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.53-2.02) greater risk of a 30-day ED revisit. The care coordinator did not influence readmission or ED revisits.The COPD transition bundle reduced 7- and 30-day hospital readmissions while increasing LOS and ED revisits. The care coordinator did not improve outcomes.ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03358771; URL: www.gov.

In this guideline update, we highlight important and new findings related to pharmacological therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that should change clinical practice and improve...

RATIONALE: Delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) varies widely across Canada. There is a need for evidence-based quality indicators (QI) that can be used to identify variations in the quality o...