Dataset Information

Blood eosinophil count-guided corticosteroid therapy and as a prognostic biomarker of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and dyspnea, as well as an increase in the number of leukocytes in the airways, lungs, and pulmonary vessels. A 'One size fits all' approach to COPD patients with different clinical features may be considered outdated. The following are the two major objectives of this meta-analysis: the first is to determine if blood eosinophil counts (BEC) can serve as a prognostic biomarker of COPD outcomes, and the second is to determine which level of BEC is effective for inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment.

Methods

We searched articles published before 15 May 2021 in the following four electronic databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed.

Results

A total of 42 studies, comprising a sampling of 188,710 subjects, were summarized and compared in this meta-analysis. The rate ratio (RR) of exacerbations of COPD (ECOPD) between ICS and non-ICS treatment was statistically significant for the COPD patients with a baseline BEC ⩾ 2% or ⩾ 200 cells/μl, RR = 0.82 (0.73, 0.93) or 0.79 (0.70, 0.89) respectively, while the RR of ECOPD between ICS and non-ICS treatment was statistically insignificant for the COPD patients with baseline BEC < 2% or <200 cells/μl, RR = 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) or 0.97 (0.86, 1.08), suggested that ICS therapy was beneficial to the improvement of ECOPD in patients with a baseline BEC ⩾ 2% or BEC ⩾ 200 cells/μl.

Conclusion

Our research shows that a BEC ⩾ 200 cells/μl or ⩾2% is likely to become the cutoff value of ICS treatment for ECOPD. Moreover, we believe that the baseline BEC can be used as a biomarker for predicting ECOPD. The stability of BEC requires special attention.

SUBMITTER: Liu T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8267047 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:RATIONALE:Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and responses to treatment are heterogeneous. OBJECTIVES:Investigate the usefulness of blood eosinophils to direct corticosteroid therapy during exacerbations. METHODS:Subjects with COPD exacerbations were entered into a randomized biomarker-directed double-blind corticosteroid versus standard therapy study. Subjects in the standard arm received prednisolone for 2 weeks, whereas in the biomarker-directed arm, prednisolone or matching placebo was given according to the blood eosinophil count biomarker. Both study groups received antibiotics. Blood eosinophils were measured in the biomarker-directed and standard therapy arms to define biomarker-positive and -negative exacerbations (blood eosinophil count > and ≤ 2%, respectively). The primary outcome was to determine noninferiority in health status using the chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ) and in the proportion of exacerbations associated with a treatment failure between subjects allocated to the biomarker-directed and standard therapy arms. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:There were 86 and 80 exacerbations in the biomarker-directed and standard treatment groups, respectively. In the biomarker-directed group, 49% of the exacerbations were not treated with prednisolone. CRQ improvement after treatment in the standard and biomarker-directed therapy groups was similar (0.8 vs. 1.1; mean difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.0-0.6; P = 0.05). There was a greater improvement in CRQ in biomarker-negative exacerbations given placebo compared with those given prednisolone (mean difference, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.90; P = 0.04). In biomarker-negative exacerbations, treatment failures occurred in 15% given prednisolone and 2% of those given placebo (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:The peripheral blood eosinophil count is a promising biomarker to direct corticosteroid therapy during COPD exacerbations, but larger studies are required.

Project description:BackgroundBlood eosinophil count has been proposed as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. An optimal threshold of blood eosinophil count for prescribing ICS has not been agreed. Doubt has been cast on the role by observational studies. The role of inhaled corticosteroids in this relationship, independent of long-acting bronchodilators, has not been examined.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of post-hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining three blood eosinophil thresholds and the independent role of ICS. Included studies were categorised by the form (relative or absolute count) and cut point of eosinophil threshold used. Thresholds assessed were relative eosinophil count of 2%, and absolute counts of 150 cells/μL and 300 cells/μL. Three meta-analyses of the effect of ICS use in post-hoc analyses of RCTs based on these counts were carried out. Initial analysis included all studies of ICS vs. any non-ICS regimen. Further analysis examined the effect of ICS, independent of the effect of long-acting bronchodilators.ResultsSixteen studies examined the association between blood eosinophil count and response of exacerbation risk to ICS, in COPD patients. Eleven studies (25,881 patients) were post-hoc analyses of RCTs. Five studies (109,704 patients) were retrospective observational studies. The independent effect of ICS on the reduction of exacerbation risk was 20% at ≥2% blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85), 35% at ≥150 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.65; 0.52-0.79), and 39% at ≥300 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.61; 0.44-0.78). No association was found in four out of five observational studies.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review to assess, in post-hoc analyses of RCTs, the independent effect of ICS in reducing the risk of COPD exacerbation across a range of blood eosinophil thresholds. Association between ICS prescription and reduced exacerbation risk at these thresholds was confirmed. The lack of association found in the observational studies questions the relevance of these observations to a "real world" COPD population. To clarify the clinical utility of this biomarker, the association should be tested in prospective effectiveness studies.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Presently, those outcomes that should be prioritised for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation studies remain unclear. In order to coordinate multicentre studies on eosinophilia-driven corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalised for acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), we aimed to find consensus among experts in the domain regarding the prioritisation of outcomes. DESIGN:A modified Delphi study was proposed to recognised COPD experts. Two brainstorming questionnaires were used to collect potential outcomes. Four subsequent rounds of questionnaires were used to rank items according to a six-point Likert scale for their importance in the protocol, as well as for being the primary outcome. Priority outcome criteria were predefined as those for which ?70% of experts indicated that the outcome was essential for interpreting study results. SETTING:COPD exacerbation management in France. PARTICIPANTS:34 experts recommended by the French Language Pulmonology Society were invited to participate. Of the latter, 21 experts participated in brainstorming, and 19 participated in all four ranking rounds. RESULTS:105 outcomes were ranked. Two achieved consensus as candidate primary outcomes: (1) treatment failure defined as death from any cause or the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation, readmission because of COPD or intensification of pharmacologic therapy, and (2) the time required to meet predefined discharge criteria. The 10 secondary priority outcomes included survival, time with no sign of improvement, episodes of hospitalisation, exacerbation, pneumonia, mechanical or non-invasive ventilation and oxygen use, as well as comorbidities during the initial hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS:This Delphi consensus project generated and prioritised a great many outcomes, documenting current expert views concerning a diversity of COPD endpoints. Among the latter, 12 reached consensus as priority outcomes for evaluating the efficacy of eosinophil-driven corticosteroid therapy in AECOPD inpatients. STUDY REGISTRATION:The eo-Delphi project/protocol was registered on 23 January 2018 at https://osf.io/4ahqw/.

Project description:IntroductionCorticosteroid is one of the most commonly used medications in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). The increasing understanding of these side-effects of systematic corticosteroids and their better response to treatment among patients with COPD with higher blood eosinophil counts has led to an interest in a more targeted approach to systematic corticosteroid treatment. However, there is a lack of evidence from high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies about whether initial systematic corticosteroids should be given to patients with AECOPD with elevated eosinophilia. The aim of the present research was to test this hypothesis.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, double-blind, superiority RCT in the respiratory departments of 12 general hospitals in China. It is anticipated that 456 patients with AECOPD with a blood eosinophil count >2% or >300 cells/µL at admission will be recruited. Eligible patients will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention group receiving 40 mg oral prednisone daily or identical-appearing placebo (control group) for five consecutive days. Follow-up visits are performed during hospitalisation, followed by clinic interviews on days 30, 60 and 90 after discharge. The primary outcome is treatment failure rates comprising requiring or receiving invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, requiring or transferring to intensive care unit during the index hospitalisation, length of index hospitalisation longer than 14 days, death during the index hospitalisation or within 30 days after discharge and readmission with acute exacerbations of COPD within 30 days after discharge. The results of this trial will provide insight into the value of using blood eosinophil counts as a biomarker of eosinophilic exacerbation and initiating systematic corticosteroid treatment for patients with AECOPD with higher eosinophil levels.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Institutional Review Board (approval number: 2020-KE-544) and the main results and secondary results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT05059873.

Project description:Purpose:In the Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids during Optimized Bronchodilator Management (WISDOM) trial, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving triple therapy (long-acting ?2-agonist+long-acting muscarinic antagonist+ICS) did not change moderate/severe exacerbation risk. However, many patients were not taking triple therapy before study participation. This analysis was conducted to eliminate the impact of non-ICS users on WISDOM results by re-analyzing the data using only the subset of patients who were taking triple therapy at screening. Patients and Methods:The effect of ICS withdrawal on moderate/severe exacerbation risk in the subgroup of WISDOM patients taking triple therapy before enrolling in the study was evaluated in this post hoc analysis. Additionally, the effect of ICS withdrawal in patients with a history of ?2 exacerbations in the previous year and various blood eosinophil counts was assessed. Results:Overall, 39.0% (n=970: ICS continuation, 479; ICS withdrawal, 491) of the WISDOM trial population were taking triple therapy at screening. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. Moderate/severe exacerbation risk between the ICS withdrawal and continuation groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.25) was not increased in patients taking triple therapy at screening versus the overall trial population (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.94-1.19]). However, in patients with a history of ?2 exacerbations, exacerbation risk (HR [95% CI]) increased nominally with blood eosinophil count from 1.07 [0.81-1.41] (?100 cells/?L) to 1.45 [0.58-3.60] (?400 cells/?L). Conclusion:Consistent with results from the overall WISDOM trial population, ICS withdrawal did not increase exacerbation risk in patients taking triple therapy at screening. Patients with a history of frequent exacerbations and higher blood eosinophil counts could benefit from continuation of ICS-based therapy.