Dataset Information

COPD in Germany: Use of Diagnostic Measures Including Blood Eosinophil Counts in Daily Practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Accumulating evidence on the role of blood eosinophils as a biomarker prompted the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) committee to refine the existing treatment algorithm by incorporating eosinophil counts into treatment recommendations. However, there is a lack of data on when, why and how frequently such blood tests and other measures are being performed by German private respiratory specialists.

Methods

A questionnaire evaluating doctors' opinions on the use of diagnostic measures at initial diagnosis and during follow-up, including blood eosinophil count in patients with COPD, was completed by 27 respiratory specialists. Medical records from the past 12 months of 251 patients treated by the same physicians were reviewed retrospectively to investigate the use of these measures.

Results

Body plethysmography (100 % of doctors) and chest X-ray (96.3 %) were the most commonly used measures according to the doctor's questionnaire; other measures were COPD assessment test (CAT; 85.2 %) and blood eosinophil count (81.5 %). The evaluation of patients' medical records revealed that body plethysmography was performed in 72.7 %, the CAT in 61.8 % and chest X-ray in 40.6 % of patients. Blood eosinophil count was measured in 7.2 %.

Conclusions

In line with the GOLD recommendations, these results confirm that lung function, imaging and patient-reported outcome questionnaires play a crucial role in managing COPD. Our analyses reveal that measurement of the blood eosinophil count gained importance due to physicians' increased awareness of these cells as a useful biomarker. However, this test seems to be performed mainly for initial diagnosis and not on a regular basis.

SUBMITTER: Greulich T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8093015 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeCurrent understanding of the relationship between COPD phenotype and health care resource utilization (HCRU) is limited. This real-world study evaluated disease burden and HCRU for COPD subgroups prone to exacerbation as defined by blood eosinophil (EOS) count and multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT) use.MethodsThis was a large-scale, retrospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study using data from the US IBM Watson Explorys real-world database (GSK Study HO-17-18395). The population of interest comprised patients with COPD ≥40 years of age with ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbations (prior year) while on inhaled maintenance therapy, with ≥1 blood EOS count. Data were analyzed during the year prior to index date (last COPD encounter between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016). Four subgroups were analyzed based on a combination of EOS counts (<150 and ≥150 cells/μL) and MITT use (receiving or not receiving). Among these groups, clinical characteristics, exacerbations, and HCRU were described. A sensitivity analysis that further stratified EOS into four categories (<150, ≥150-<300, ≥300-<500, and ≥500 cells/μL) was also performed.ResultsThe COPD population of interest comprised 34,268 patients. Subgroups with EOS ≥150 cells/μL vs <150 cells/μL had more comorbidities and experienced significantly higher mean numbers of moderate exacerbations (not receiving MITT, ≥150 cells/μL vs <150 cells/μL: 1.93 vs 1.82, P<0.0001; receiving MITT 2.26 vs 2.16, P=0.0062) and COPD-related emergency visits (not receiving MITT, ≥150 cells/μL vs <150 cells/μL: 3.0 vs 2.5, P<0.001; receiving MITT 3.4 vs 3.1, P=0.0011). Increasing EOS category was associated with higher HCRU.ConclusionBlood EOS ≥150/μL cells were associated with increased HCRU and higher exacerbation rates compared with EOS <150 cells/μL, irrespective of MITT use. COPD phenotyping using blood EOS could help identify candidates for additional therapies that target eosinophilic inflammatory pathways.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In COPD, the course of the disease including morbidity and mortality is strongly associated with severe exacerbations. The current GOLD recommendations emphasize blood eosinophil counts as a marker for responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Retrospective analyses from randomized clinical trials indicate a favorable response to systemic corticosteroids in exacerbated COPD patients with blood eosinophils >?2%, however data outside clinical trials are scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We retrospectively evaluated data from 1007 cases of patients who were admitted to the University Medical Center Marburg between 01/2013 and 12/2018. All patients had been diagnosed with an acute exacerbation of COPD (ICD-10?J44.0/J44.1). Our analysis was based on a subgroup of 417 patients in whom a full blood cell count was obtained at the day of admission. Patients were predominantly male (63.3%), had a median age of 74 years (IQR 65 years - 83 years) and a median FEV1 of 1.03 l (42.6% predicted). We compared the hospital length of stay and other outcome parameters using established thresholds for the eosinophil blood cell count (100 and 300 eosinophils/?l and 2%). RESULTS:Patients with low eosinophils (<?2%, <100 cells/?l) had a longer median time in hospital (length of hospital stay - LOS) as compared to patients with high eosinophils (<?2%: 9.31 vs. ?2%:7?days, and?<?100/?l: 10 vs. 100-300/?l: 8 vs. >?300/?l: 7?days). The median CRP was higher in patients with low eosinophils as compared to the other groups (<?2%: 22.7 vs. ?2%: 9?mg/dl and?<?100: 25 vs. 100-300: 13.5 vs. >?300: 7.1?mg/dl). Time to re-hospitalization or time to death did not differ between strata of eosinophils. Sensitivity analysis in a subgroup of patients in which pneumonia was excluded by chest x-ray did not significantly alter the results. CONCLUSION:The results support the hypothesis that patients with severe COPD exacerbations and elevated blood eosinophil counts respond better to systemic corticosteroid treatment than patients with a non-eosinophilic exacerbation.

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) considers blood eosinophil counts < 100 cells/μL (BEC≤100) in people with COPD to predict poor inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) responsiveness. However, the BEC≤100 phenotype is inadequately characterized, especially in advanced COPD.Research questionAre there differences between GOLD group D patients with high BEC and those with low BEC regarding baseline characteristics and longitudinal outcomes?Study design and methodsWe used multivariable mixed models and logistic regression to contrast clinical characteristics and outcomes of BEC≤100 vs BEC > 100 (BEC100+) in all subjects with COPD (n = 1,414) and GOLD group D subjects (n = 185) not receiving ICS.ResultsWe identified n = 485 with BEC≤100 (n = 61 GOLD group D) and n = 929 people with BEC100+ (n = 124 GOLD group D). BEC≤100 status was stable at 6 weeks and approximately 52 weeks (intraclass correlations of 0.78 and 0.71, respectively). Compared with BEC100+, BEC≤100 comprised more women, with greater current smoking, and less frequent childhood asthma. Among all analyzed participants, the two BEC-defined subsets showed similar rates of lung function decline (mean slope, BEC≤100 vs BEC100+, -50 vs -39 mL/y; P = .140), exacerbations (0.40 vs 0.36/y; P = .098), subsequent ICS initiation (2.5% vs 4.4%; P = .071), and mortality (7.8% vs 8.4%; P = .715). However, in GOLD group D, people with BEC≤100 showed higher exacerbation rates within 365 days of enrollment (0.62 vs 0.33/y; P = .002) and total follow-up (1.16 vs 0.83/y; P = .014). They also had greater lung function decline (mean slope of -68 mL/y vs -23 mL/y; P = .036) and had greater emphysema at baseline (voxels < 950 Hounsfield units at total lung capacity of 7.46% vs 4.61%; P = .029).InterpretationIn non-ICS-treated GOLD group D COPD, people with BEC≤100 had more baseline emphysema, prospective exacerbations, and lung function decline. Our analysis has identified a particularly vulnerable subpopulation of people with COPD, suggesting the need for studies focused specifically on their therapeutic treatment.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01969344; URL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov.