A recently published ERS core outcome set recommends that all trials of COPD exacerbation management should assess the treatment success (or “cure” of the exacerbation), defined as a dichotomous measure of the overall outcome of an exacerbation. This methodological systematic review describes and compares the instruments that were used to assess treatment success or failure in 54 such RCTs, published between 2006–2020. Twenty-three RCTs used composite measures consisting of several undesirable outcomes of an exacerbation, together defining an overall unfavourable outcome, to define treatment failure. Thirty-four RCTs used descriptive instruments that used qualitative or semi-quantitative descriptions to define cure, marked improvement, improvement of the exacerbation, or treatment failure. Treatment success and failure rates among patients receiving guidelines-directed treatments at different settings and timepoints are described and could be used to inform power calculations in future trials. Descriptive instruments appeared more sensitive to treatment effects compared to composite instruments. Further methodological studies are needed to optimise the evaluation of treatment success/failure. In the meantime, based on the findings of this systematic review, the ERS core outcome set recommends that cure should be defined as sufficient improvement of the signs and symptoms of the exacerbation such that no additional systemic treatments are required.

Background: Surges in COVID-19 disease cases can rapidly overwhelm healthcare resources; triaging to appropriate levels of care can assist in resource planning. At the beginning of the pandemic, we developed a simple triage tool, the Temple COVID-19 Pneumonia Triage Tool (TemCOV) based on a combination of clinical and radiographic features that are readily available on presentation to categorize and predict illness severity. Methods: We prospectively examined 579 sequential cases admitted to Temple University Hospital who were assigned severity categories on admission. Our primary outcome was to compare the performance of TemCOV in predicting patients who have the highest likely of admission to the ICU at 24 and at 72 hours to other standard triage tools: the National Early Warning System (NEWS), the Modified Early Warning System (MEWS) and the CURB65 score. Additional endpoints included need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 72 hours, total hospital admission charges, and mortality. Results: 26% of patients fell within our highest risk Category 4 and were more likely to require ICU admission at 24 hours (OR 11.51) and 72 hours (OR 8.6). Additionally they had the highest likelihood of needing IMV (OR 29.47) and in-hospital mortality (OR 2.37). , TemCOV performed similar to MEWS in predicting ICU admission at 24 hours (receive operator characteristic (ROC) curve area under the curve (AUC) 0.77 vs. 0.74, p=0.21) but better than NEWS2 and CURB65 (ROC AUC 0.77 vs. 0.69 and 0.77 vs. 0.64, respectively, p<0.01). While all severity scores had a weak correlation to hospital charges, the TemCOV performed the best among all severity scores measured (r=0.18); median hospital charges for Category 4 patients was $170,468 ($96,972-$487,556). Conclusion: TemCOV is a simple triage score that can be used upon hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 that predicts the need for hospital resources such as ICU bed capacity, invasive mechanical ventilation and personnel staffing.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are prone to developing arterial hypertension, and many patients are treated with the calcium channel blocker amlodipine. However, it remains unclear whether using this drug potentially affects the risk of acute severe exacerbations (AECOPD) and all-cause mortality in these patients. The data were collected from Danish national registries, containing complete information on health, prescriptions, hospital admissions, and outpatient clinic visits. The COPD patients (n = 48,488) were matched via propensity score on known predictors of the primary outcome in an active comparator design. One group was exposed to amlodipine treatment, and the other was exposed to bendroflumethiazide, since both of these drugs are considered to be the first choice for the treatment of arterial hypertension according to Danish guidelines. The use of amlodipine was associated with a reduced risk of death from all causes at the 1-year follow-up (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.62–0.76) compared with the use of bendroflumethiazide in the matched patients. No difference in the risk of severe AECOPD was found. In the COPD patients, amlodipine use was associated with a lower risk of death from all causes compared with the use of bendroflumethiazide. Amlodipine seems to be a safe first choice for the treatment of arterial hypertension in COPD patients.