In this large US-based cohort, Eos > 2% was prevalent in participants with COPD and normal lung function. Among participants with COPD, Eos > 2% was associated with specific characteristics including lower rates of some co-morbidities; however, the clinical implications and relationships between Eos levels, COPD mechanisms, and risk of outcomes require further evaluation.

BackgroundDespite recognition of asthma as a growing global issue and development of global guidelines, asthma treatment practices vary between countries. Several studies have reported patients’ perspectives on asthma control. This study presents physicians’ perspectives and strategies for asthma management.MethodsPhysicians seeing ≥4 adult patients with asthma per month in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, and Japan were surveyed (N=1809; ≈300 per country). A standardised questionnaire was developed for this study and administered by telephone, online or face-to-face. Statistics were weighted to account for the sampling scheme.ResultsPhysicians estimated that 71% of their adult patients received maintenance medication, with adherence monitored by 76–97% of physicians. Perceived major barriers to patient adherence included: patients taking treatment as needed; acceptance of symptoms; and patients not perceiving treatment benefits. Written action plans (37%) and technology (15%) were seldom employed by physicians to aid patients’ asthma management. Physicians rarely (10%) used validated patient-reported questionnaires to monitor asthma control, instead monitoring selected symptoms, exacerbations, and/or lung function measurements. Awareness of single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART/MART) varied among countries (56–100%); although most physicians (72%) had prescribed SMART/MART, the majority (91%) co-prescribed a short-acting bronchodilator at least some of the time.ConclusionsThese results show that physicians generally do not employ standardised tools to monitor asthma control or to manage its treatment and that despite high awareness of SMART/MART, the strategy appears to be commonly misapplied. Better education for patients and physicians is required to improve asthma management and resulting patient outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-017-0492-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionObservational studies using case-control designs have showed an increased risk of pneumonia associated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing medications in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New-user observational cohort designs may minimize biases associated with previous case-control designs.ObjectiveTo estimate the association between ICS and pneumonia among new users of ICS relative to inhaled long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) monotherapy.MethodsPneumonia events in COPD patients ≥45 years old were compared among new users of ICS medications (n = 11,555; ICS, ICS/long-acting β2-agonist [LABA] combination) and inhaled LABD monotherapies (n = 6,492; LABA, long-acting muscarinic antagonists) using Cox proportional hazards models, with propensity scores to adjust for confounding. Setting: United Kingdom electronic medical records with linked hospitalization and mortality data (2002–2010). New users were censored at earliest of: pneumonia event, death, changing/discontinuing treatment, or end of follow-up. Outcomes: severe pneumonia (primary) and any pneumonia (secondary).ResultsFollowing adjustment, new use of ICS-containing medications was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia hospitalization (n = 322 events; HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.14, 2.10) and any pneumonia (n = 702 events; HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.83). Crude incidence rates of any pneumonia were 48.7 and 30.9 per 1000 person years among the ICS-containing and LABD cohorts, respectively. Excess risk of pneumonia with ICS was reduced when requiring ≥1 month or ≥ 6 months of new use. There was an apparent dose-related effect, with greater risk at higher daily doses of ICS. There was evidence of channeling bias, with more severe patients prescribed ICS, for which the analysis may not have completely adjusted.ConclusionsThe results of this new-user cohort study are consistent with published findings; ICS were associated with a 20–50% increased risk of pneumonia in COPD, which reduced with exposure time. This risk must be weighed against the benefits when prescribing ICS to patients with COPD.

ObjectivesTo identify clusters of patients who may benefit from treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) versus LABA alone, in terms of exacerbation reduction, and to validate previously identified clusters of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (based on diuretic use and reversibility).DesignPost hoc supervised cluster analysis using a modified recursive partitioning algorithm of two 1-year randomised, controlled trials of fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) versus VI alone, with the primary end points of the annual rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations.SettingGlobal.Participants3255 patients with COPD (intent-to-treat populations) with a history of exacerbations in the past year.InterventionsFF/VI 50/25 µg, 100/25 µg or 200/25 µg, or VI 25 µg; all one time per day.Outcome measuresMean annual COPD exacerbation rate to identify clusters of patients who benefit from adding an ICS (FF) to VI bronchodilator therapy.ResultsThree clusters were identified, including two groups that benefit from FF/VI versus VI: patients with blood eosinophils >2.4% (RR=0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79), or blood eosinophils ≤2.4% and smoking history ≤46 pack-years, experienced a reduced rate of exacerbations with FF/VI versus VI (RR=0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96), whereas those with blood eosinophils ≤2.4% and smoking history >46 pack-years were identified as non-responders (RR=1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58). Clusters of patients previously identified in the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (SAL) versus SAL trials of similar design were not validated; all clusters of patients tended to benefit from FF/VI versus VI alone irrespective of diuretic use and reversibility.ConclusionsIn patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations, those with greater blood eosinophils or a lower smoking history may benefit more from ICS/LABA versus LABA alone as measured by a reduced rate of exacerbations. In terms of eosinophils, this finding is consistent with findings from other studies; however, the validity of the 2.4% cut-off and the impact of smoking history require further investigation.Trial registration numbersNCT01009463; NCT01017952; Post-results.

Background: Although case–control studies conducted to date have largely affirmed the relationship between polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), occupational cohort studies of PCB-exposed workers have been generally interpreted as negative, thereby raising doubts about a potential causal association. A common theme of immune dysregulation unifies many of NHL’s strongest risk factors, and several authors have posited that subclinical immune dysregulation may increase NHL risk by decreasing host resistance, reducing control of cellular proliferation and differentiation, and diminishing tumor surveillance mechanisms.Objectives: The goals of this review were a) to evaluate the epidemiological research examining the association between PCB exposure and NHL and discuss the contribution to the weight of evidence of case–control studies and occupational cohort studies; and b) to summarize the evidence for immune dysregulation as a means by which PCBs may cause NHL.Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed and seven additional online biomedical and toxicological referencing libraries to identify literature published through August 2011.Discussion and Conclusions: Overall, we conclude that the weight of evidence supports a causal role of PCBs in lymphomagenesis. The strongest epidemiological evidence for the relationship between PCBs and NHL comes from case–control studies conducted among the general population. Epidemiological and toxicological data demonstrating immunosuppressive and inflammatory effects of PCBs further contribute to the weight of evidence by providing a plausible explanation for how PCBs can cause NHL through immune dysregulation.

Objective: To describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and healthcare utilization (HCU) of non-active users of maintenance asthma medications in the United Kingdom. Methods: Retrospective, cohort analysis of patients with asthma, aged ! 6 years who were non-active users of maintenance therapy (no prescription for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), combined ICS/long-acting beta agonists (ICS/LABA) or 'other' bronchodilatory therapies in last 12 months) were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2012-2015) and followed-up for 2 years after a new prescription for an asthma maintenance medication (index date). Patient characteristics, most common maintenance treatment sequences and HCU were described. Results: 55,293 patients were identified (ICS: 46,297, ICS/LABA: 8,367; Other: 629). Mean age was 37 years and 56% were female. During follow-up, the most common treatment sequences across groups implied intermittent use, comprising periods of maintenance therapy interspersed with maintenance-free periods. During year 1 and year 2 of follow-up, the proportion of patients prescribed OCS was 19% and 13%, prescribed ! 4 short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) was 24% and 19%, having ! 3 asthma-related primary care consultations/year was 59% and 36% and experiencing ! 1 exacerbation/year was 15% and 11%, respectively. Conclusions: In previously non-active users of asthma maintenance medication subsequently commenced on maintenance therapy, intermittent use was common during the 2-year followup despite the potential need for regular use as evidenced by patient HCU and SABD usage patterns. This highlights the need for regular patient assessment and education on medication adherence to ensure appropriateness of prescribing to maintain asthma control.

No abstract

No abstract