COPD patients with chronic bronchitis and higher sputum eosinophil counts show increased type-2 and PDE4 gene expression in sputum.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with higher eosinophil counts are associated with increased clinical response to phosphodiesterase-4-inhibitors (PDE4i). However, the underlying inflammatory mechanisms associated with this increased response is not yet elucidated. This post hoc analysis focused on sputum gene expression in patients with chronic bronchitis who underwent 32-day treatment with two doses of the inhaled PDE4i CHF6001 (tanimilast) or placebo on top of triple therapy. Biological characterization and treatment effects were assessed between patients with different sputum eosinophil levels (eosinophilhigh  ≥ 3%; eosinophillow  < 3%) at baseline (primary samples) or at the end of the treatment of the placebo arm (validation samples). Forty-one genes were differentially expressed in primary samples (p-adjusted for false discovery rate < 0.05); all up-regulated in eosinophilhigh patients and functionally enriched for type-2 and PDE4 inflammatory processes. Eleven out of nineteen genes having immune system biological processes annotations including IL5RA, ALOX15, IL1RL1, CLC, GATA1 and PDE4D were replicated using validation samples. The expression of a number of these inflammatory mediators was reduced by tanimilast treatment, with greater effects observed in eosinophilhigh patients. These findings suggest that type-2 and PDE4 overexpression in COPD patients with higher sputum eosinophil counts contribute to the differential clinical response to PDE4i observed in previous clinical trials.

Sputum and blood transcriptomics characterisation of the inhaled PDE4 inhibitor CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in patients with chronic bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Although phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitors have been shown to reduce COPD exacerbation rate, their biological mechanism of action is not completely elucidated at the molecular level. We aimed to characterise the whole genome gene expression profile of the inhaled PDE4-inhibitor CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in sputum cells and whole blood of patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis. METHODS: Whole genome gene expression analysis was carried out by microarray in 54 patients before and after 32 days treatment with CHF6001 800 and 1600 µg and placebo twice daily (BID) in a randomised crossover study. RESULTS: CHF6001 had a strong effect in sputum, with 1471 and 2598 significantly differentially-expressed probe-sets relative to placebo (p-adjusted for False Discovery Rate < 0.05) with 800 and 1600 µg BID, respectively. Functional enrichment analysis showed significant modulation of key inflammatory pathways involved in cytokine activity, pathogen-associated-pattern-recognition activity, oxidative stress and vitamin D with associated inhibition of downstream inflammatory effectors. A large number of pro-inflammatory genes coding for cytokines and matrix-metalloproteinases were significantly differentially expressed for both doses; the majority (> 87%) were downregulated, including macrophage inflammatory protein-1-alpha and 1-beta, interleukin-27-beta, interleukin-12-beta, interleukin-32, tumour necrosis factor-alpha-induced-protein-8, ligand-superfamily-member-15, and matrix-metalloproteinases-7,12 and 14. The effect in blood was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled PDE4 inhibition by CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis significantly modulated key inflammatory targets and pathways in the lung but not in blood. Mechanistically these findings support a targeted effect in the lung while minimising unwanted systemic class-effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, EudraCT, 2015-005550-35. Registered 15 July 2016.

Uptake of the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: a survey of older adults with joint pain.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability. NICE OA guidelines (2008) recommend that patients with OA should be offered core treatments in primary care. Assessments of OA management have identified a need to improve primary care of people with OA, as recorded use of interventions concordant with the NICE guidelines is suboptimal in primary care. The aim of this study was to i) describe the patient-reported uptake of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and ii) determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey mailed to adults aged ≥45 years (n = 28,443) from eight general practices in the UK as part of the MOSAICS study. Respondents who reported the presence of joint pain, a consultation in the previous 12 months for joint pain, and gave consent to medical record review formed the sample for this study. RESULTS: Four thousand fifty-nine respondents were included in the analysis (mean age 65.6 years (SD 11.2), 2300 (56.7%) females). 502 (12.4%) received an OA diagnosis in the previous 12 months. More participants reported using pharmacological treatments (e.g. paracetamol (31.3%), opioids (40.4%)) than non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. exercise (3.8%)). Those with an OA diagnosis were more likely to use written information (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.26,1.96), paracetamol (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05,1.62) and topical NSAIDs (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04,1.62) than those with a joint pain code. People aged ≥75 years were less likely to use written information (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40,0.79) and exercise (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25,0.55) and more likely to use paracetamol (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.38,2.65) than those aged < 75 years. CONCLUSION: The cross-sectional population survey was conducted to examine the uptake of the treatments that are recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and to determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. Non-pharmacological treatment was suboptimal compared to pharmacological treatment. Implementation of NICE guidelines needs to examine why non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, remain under-used especially among older people.

Relationship of anxiety with joint pain and its management: A population survey.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study was to examine the associations between the severity of pain and anxiety in a community population reporting joint pain, and to investigate the management of joint pain in the presence of comorbid anxiety. METHODS: A population survey was carried out of people aged ≥45 years, registered with eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, UK. Respondents were asked to report pain intensity in their hands, hips, knees and feet (on a numerical rating scale), anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven-item [GAD-7] scale) and guideline-recommended treatments used to manage pain. Clinical anxiety was defined by a GAD-7 score of 10 or more. RESULTS: A total of 11,222 respondents with joint pain were included in the analysis, with 1,802 (16.1%) reporting clinical anxiety. Respondents reporting more severe pain were more likely to report clinical anxiety (severe versus mild pain, odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.56 to 6.31). The number of pain sites was also positively associated with clinical anxiety (four versus one site; OR 3.64, 95% CI 3.09 to 4.30). Those with clinical anxiety were less likely to undertake general fitness exercises (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.70), but more likely to diet (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.69), use walking aids (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.77) and assistive devices (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.49), and more likely to use opioids (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety is common among patients presenting to primary care with joint pain. Patients with anxiety are likely to manage their joint pain differently to those without. Case-finding to identify and treat anxiety would be appropriate in this population, with caution about opioid prescribing and consideration of exercise as an intervention.

Management of shoulder pain by UK general practitioners (GPs): a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: Studies in Canada, the USA and Australia suggested low confidence among general practitioners (GPs) in diagnosing and managing shoulder pain, with frequent use of investigations. There are no comparable studies in the UK; our objective was to describe the diagnosis and management of shoulder pain by GPs in the UK. METHODS: A national survey of a random sample of 5000 UK GPs collected data on shoulder pain diagnosis and management using two clinical vignettes that described primary care presentations with rotator cuff tendinopathy (RCT) and adhesive capsulitis (AdhC). RESULTS: Seven hundred and fourteen (14.7%) responses were received. 56% and 83% of GPs were confident in their diagnosis of RCT and AdhC, respectively, and a wide range of investigations and management options were reported. For the RCT presentation, plain radiographs of the shoulder were most common (60%), followed by blood tests (42%) and ultrasound scans (USS) (38%). 19% of those who recommended a radiograph and 76% of those who recommended a USS did so 'to confirm the diagnosis'. For the AdhC presentation, the most common investigations were blood tests (60%), plain shoulder radiographs (58%) and USS (31%). More than two-thirds of those recommending a USS did so 'to confirm the diagnosis'. The most commonly recommended treatment for both presentations was physiotherapy (RCT 77%, AdhC 71%) followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (RCT 58%, AdhC 74%). 17% opted to refer the RCT to secondary care (most often musculoskeletal interface service), compared with 31% for the AdhC. CONCLUSIONS: This survey of GPs in the UK highlights reliance on radiographs and blood tests in the management of common shoulder pain presentations. GPs report referring more than 7 out of 10 patients with RCT and AdhC to physiotherapists. These findings need to be viewed in the context of low response to the survey and, therefore, potential non-response bias.

Keele Aches and Pains Study protocol: validity, acceptability, and feasibility of the Keele STarT MSK tool for subgrouping musculoskeletal patients in primary care.

Musculoskeletal conditions represent a considerable burden worldwide, and are predominantly managed in primary care. Evidence suggests that many musculoskeletal conditions share similar prognostic factors. Systematically assessing patient's prognosis and matching treatments based on prognostic subgroups (stratified care) has been shown to be both clinically effective and cost-effective. This study (Keele Aches and Pains Study) aims to refine and examine the validity of a brief questionnaire (Keele STarT MSK tool) designed to enable risk stratification of primary care patients with the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations. We also describe the subgroups of patients, and explore the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool and how the tool is best implemented in clinical practice. The study design is mixed methods: a prospective, quantitative observational cohort study with a linked qualitative focus group and interview study. Patients who have consulted their GP or health care practitioner about a relevant musculoskeletal condition will be recruited from general practice. Participating patients will complete a baseline questionnaire (shortly after consultation), plus questionnaires 2 and 6 months later. A subsample of patients, along with participating GPs and health care practitioners, will be invited to take part in qualitative focus groups and interviews. The Keele STarT MSK tool will be refined based on face, discriminant, construct, and predictive validity at baseline and 2 months, and validated using data from 6-month follow-up. Patient and clinician perspectives about using the tool will be explored. This study will provide a validated prognostic tool (Keele STarT MSK) with established cutoff points to stratify patients with the five most common musculoskeletal presentations into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups. The qualitative analysis of patient and health care perspectives will inform practitioners on how to embed the tool into clinical practice using established general practice IT systems and clinician-support packages.