Lack of Evidence Regarding Markers Identifying Acute Heart Failure in Patients with COPD: An AI-Supported Systematic Review.

Background: Due to shared symptoms, acute heart failure (AHF) is difficult to differentiate from an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). This systematic review aimed to identify markers that can diagnose AHF underlying acute dyspnea in patients with COPD presenting at the hospital. Methods: All types of observational studies and clinical trials that investigated any marker's ability to diagnose AHF in acutely dyspneic COPD patients were considered eligible for inclusion. An AI tool (ASReview) supported the title and abstract screening of the articles obtained from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL until April 2023. Full text screening was independently performed by two reviewers. Twenty percent of the data extraction was checked by a second reviewer and the risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the QUADAS-2 tool. Markers' discriminative abilities were evaluated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the curve when available. Results: The search identified 10,366 articles. After deduplication, title and abstract screening was performed on 5,386 articles, leaving 153 relevant, of which 82 could be screened full text. Ten distinct studies (reported in 16 articles) were included, of which 9 had a high risk of bias. Overall, these studies evaluated 12 distinct laboratory and 7 non-laboratory markers. BNP, NT-proBNP, MR-proANP, and inspiratory inferior vena cava diameter showed the highest diagnostic discrimination. Conclusion: There is not much evidence for the use of markers to diagnose AHF in acutely dyspneic COPD patients in the hospital setting. BNPs seem most promising, but should be interpreted alongside imaging and clinical signs, as this may lead to improved diagnostic accuracy. Future validation studies are urgently needed before any AHF marker can be incorporated into treatment decision-making algorithms for patients with COPD. Protocol Registration: CRD42022283952.

Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Potential Preventability of Hospital Admission for Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic disease partly characterised by the occurrence of acute exacerbations (AECOPD). The need for hospital admissions for COPD exacerbations could theoretically be decreased through timely and appropriate outpatient care or self-management. The aim of this study is to explore and compare patients' and health care providers' (HCP) perspectives on the potential preventability of COPD hospitalisations and to identify strategies to prevent unnecessary hospitalisations. Patients and Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients admitted for an AECOPD (N = 11), HCPs on the respiratory ward (N = 11), and treating pulmonologists (N = 10). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic content analysis. Results: Patient and HCP perspectives on the potential preventability of hospital admissions for AECOPD often conflict. The kappa coefficients were -0.18 [95% CI: -0.46-0.11] for patients and pulmonologists and -0.28 [95% CI: -0.80-0.21] for patients and HCPs, which indicates poor agreement. The kappa coefficient for pulmonologists and HCPs was 0.14 [95% CI: -0.13-0.41], which indicates slight agreement. Patient and HCP factors that could potentially prevent hospitalisation for AECOPD were identified, including timely calling for help, recognizing and acting on symptoms, and receiving instruction about COPD, including treatment and action plans. Conclusion: Patients and their HCPs have different beliefs about the potential preventability of AECOPD hospitalisations. Most patients and HCPs mentioned factors that potentially could have led to a different outcome for the current AECOPD or that could impact the patient's health status and treatment of AECOPDs in the future. The factors identified in this study indicate that shared decision making is crucial to center the patient's perspective and individual needs and to provide timely treatment or prevention of AECOPD, thereby potentially decreasing hospital admission rates.

A randomized, open-label, single-visit, crossover study simulating triple-drug delivery with Ellipta compared with dual inhaler combinations in patients with COPD.

Background: Administering maintenance COPD therapy with a combination of multiple inhalers may increase inhaler errors. This study evaluated the potential benefits of using a single Ellipta dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with two combinations of DPIs commonly used to deliver triple maintenance therapy. Methods: Patients receiving inhaled COPD medication were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, placebo-device, crossover study with a 2×2 complete block design (NCT0298218), which comprised two substudies: Ellipta vs Diskus + HandiHaler (substudy 1) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (substudy 2). Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the relevant patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed user errors (critical errors [errors likely to result in no or significantly reduced medication being inhaled] and overall errors). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients making ≥1 critical error after reading the PIL. The secondary endpoints included error rates during ≤2 reassessments following investigator instruction (if required), instruction time, and patient preference. Results: After reading the PIL, significantly fewer patients made critical errors with Ellipta compared with Diskus + HandiHaler (9% [7/80] vs 75% [60/80], respectively; P<0.001) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (9% [7/79] vs 73% [58/79], respectively; P<0.001). The number of patients making overall errors was also lower with Ellipta vs tested inhaler combinations (P<0.001 for each substudy). The median instruction time needed for error-free use was shorter with Ellipta in substudies 1 and 2 (2.7 and 2.6 minutes, respectively) vs either combination (10.6 [Diskus + HandiHaler] and 11.3 minutes [Turbuhaler + HandiHaler], respectively). Significantly more patients preferred Ellipta over Diskus + HandiHaler or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler overall for taking their COPD medication (81% vs 9% and 84% vs 4%, respectively) and per the number of steps for taking their COPD medication (89% vs 8% and 91% vs 5%, respectively). Conclusion: Fewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.

Construct Validity of the Dutch Version of the 12-Item Partners in Health Scale: Measuring Patient Self-Management Behaviour and Knowledge in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The 12-item Partners in Health scale (PIH) was developed in Australia to measure self-management behaviour and knowledge in patients with chronic diseases, and has undergone several changes. Our aim was to assess the construct validity and reliability of the latest PIH version in Dutch COPD patients. METHODS: The 12 items of the PIH, scored on a self-rated 9-point Likert scale, are used to calculate total and subscale scores (knowledge; coping; recognition and management of symptoms; and adherence to treatment). We used forward-backward translation of the latest version of the Australian PIH to define a Dutch PIH (PIH(Du)). Mokken Scale Analysis and common Factor Analysis were performed on data from a Dutch COPD sample to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch PIH; and to determine whether the four-subscale solution previously found for the original Australian PIH could be replicated for the Dutch PIH. RESULTS: Two subscales were found for the Dutch PIH data (n = 118); 1) knowledge and coping; 2) recognition and management of symptoms, adherence to treatment. The correlation between the two Dutch subscales was 0.43. The lower-bound of the reliability of the total scale equalled 0.84. Factor analysis indicated that the first two factors explained a larger percentage of common variance (39.4% and 19.9%) than could be expected when using random data (17.5% and 15.1%). CONCLUSION: We recommend using two PIH subscale scores when assessing self-management in Dutch COPD patients. Our results did not support the four-subscale structure as previously reported for the original Australian PIH.

Quality of life and adherence to inhaled corticosteroids and tiotropium in COPD are related.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to inhaled medications in COPD patients seems to be associated with an increased risk of death and hospitalization. Knowing the determinants of nonadherence to inhaled medications is important for creating interventions to improve adherence. OBJECTIVES: To identify disease-specific and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) factors, associated with adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and tiotropium in COPD patients. METHODS: Adherence of 795 patients was recorded over 3 years and was deemed optimal at >75%-≤125%, suboptimal at ≥50%-<75%, and poor at <50% (underuse) or >125% (overuse). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire and the EuroQol-5D questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients with a higher forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/vital capacity (VC) (odds ratio [OR] =1.03) and ≥1 hospitalizations in the year prior to inclusion in this study (OR =2.67) had an increased risk of suboptimal adherence to ICS instead of optimal adherence. An increased risk of underuse was predicted by a higher FEV1/VC (OR =1.05). Predictors for the risk of overuse were a lower FEV1 (OR =0.49), higher scores on Clinical COPD Questionnaire-question 3 (anxiety for dyspnea) (OR =1.26), and current smoking (OR =1.73). Regarding tiotropium, predictors for suboptimal use were a higher FEV1/VC (OR =1.03) and the inability to perform usual activities as asked by the EuroQol-5D questionnaire (OR =3.09). A higher FEV1/VC also was a predictor for the risk of underuse compared to optimal adherence (OR =1.03). The risk of overuse increased again with higher scores on Clinical COPD Questionnaire-question 3 (OR =1.46). CONCLUSION: Several disease-specific and quality of life factors are related to ICS and tiotropium adherence, but a clear profile of a nonadherent patient cannot yet be outlined. Overusers of ICS and tiotropium experience more anxiety.

Fluorimetric analysis of hydrogen peroxide with automated measurement.

UNLABELLED: In the pathophysiology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) oxidative stress plays an important role, which can be determined by measuring hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide can be measured fluorimetrically in exhaled breath condensate (EBC), however, not standardized. The objective of this study was to investigate the sensitivity and reproducibility of measuring the hydrogen peroxide concentration in EBC of COPD patients using an automated flow injection device with varying flow rates and measurements. METHODS: 10 microl p-hydroxyphenylacetic acid (1.0 mmol/l) and 10 microl horseradish peroxidase (15 mU/l) were manually added to several hydrogen peroxide containing solutions and EBC of patients suffering from COPD. The fluorescence of the reaction product was measured with an automated sampler, flow injection and scanning fluorescence detector, excitation wave 295 nm, emission wave 405 nm, at different flow rates. The degree of fluorescence was expressed as either the area under the curve or the peak value. RESULTS: A flow rate of 1 ml/min gave the best results. There were no significant differences in calibration curves or detection limits using area under the curve or peak value (respectively 0.007 and 0.005 micromol/l) (flow rate 1.0 ml/min). The mean volume of EBC was 2.8 ml, the mean hydrogen peroxide concentration in the patient group was 0.2 micromol/l and the standard deviation of duplication 0.009 micromol/. CONCLUSIONS: The low detection limit may be explained by using flow injection, because it measures the fluorescence over a period of time. It is important to choose an appropriate flow rate. There is no difference in the detection limit between measuring the fluorescence as area under the curve or as peak value.