Severe exacerbations of COPD, ie, those leading to hospitalization, have profound clinical implications for patients and significant economic consequences for society. The prevalence and burden of severe COPD exacerbations remain high, despite recognition of the importance of exacerbation prevention and the availability of new treatment options. Severe COPD exacerbations are associated with high mortality, have negative impact on quality of life, are linked to cardiovascular complications, and are a significant burden on the health-care system. This review identified risk factors that contribute to the development of severe exacerbations, treatment options (bronchodilators, antibiotics, corticosteroids [CSs], oxygen therapy, and ventilator support) to manage severe exacerbations, and strategies to prevent readmission to hospital. Risk factors that are amenable to change have been highlighted. A number of bronchodilators have demonstrated successful reduction in risk of severe exacerbations, including long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β2-agonist mono- or combination therapies, in addition to vaccination, mucolytic and antibiotic therapy, and nonpharmacological interventions, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Recognition of the importance of severe exacerbations is an essential step in improving outcomes for patients with COPD. Evidence-based approaches to prevent and manage severe exacerbations should be implemented as part of targeted strategies for disease management.

Impact on clinical medicine: The evidence to date supports blood eosinophil counts (BEC) as a biomarker for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that can predict the effects of inhaled corticosteroids. BEC also have potential to be used as a biomarker in clinical

A single COPD exacerbation may result in significant increase in the rate of decline in lung function.

BackgroundThe 2013 GOLD classification system for COPD distinguishes four stages: A (low symptoms, low exacerbation risk), B (high symptoms, low risk), C (low symptoms, high risk) and D (high symptoms, high risk). Assessment of risk is based on exacerbation history and airflow obstruction, whatever results in a higher risk grouping. The previous system was solely based on airflow obstruction. Earlier studies compared the predictive performance of new and old classification systems with regards to mortality and exacerbations. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of both classifications to predict the number of future (total and severe) exacerbations and mortality in a different patient population, and to add an outcome measure to the comparison: lung function decline.MethodsPatient-level data from the UPLIFT trial were used to analyze 4-year survival in a Weibull model, with GOLD stages at baseline as covariates. A generalized linear model was used to compare the numbers of exacerbations (total and severe) per stage. Analyses were repeated with stages C and D divided into substages depending on lung function and exacerbation history. Lung function decline was analysed in a repeated measures model.ResultsMortality increased from A to D, but there was no difference between B and C. For the previous GOLD stages 2–4, survival curves were clearly separated. Yearly exacerbation rates were: 0.53, 0.72 and 0.80 for stages 2–4; and 0.35, 0.45, 0.58 and 0.74 for A-D. Annual rates of lung function decline were: 47, 38 and 26 ml for stages 2–4 and 44, 48, 38 and 39 for stages A-D. With regards to model fit, the new system performed worse at predicting mortality and lung function decline, and better at predicting exacerbations. Distinguishing between the sub-stages of high-risk led to substantial improvements.ConclusionsThe new classification system is a modest step towards a phenotype approach. It is probably an improvement for the prediction of exacerbations, but a deterioration for predicting mortality and lung function decline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00144339 (September 2, 2005).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2466-14-163) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundTiotropium is an anticholinergic bronchodilator for symptom relief and reducing exacerbations with an established safety profile in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using data from the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) study, we re-evaluated the safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients who experienced recent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure or unstable rhythm disorder during the study.MethodsA post-hoc analysis of all-cause mortality and serious cardiac adverse events (cardiac SAEs), including cardiac deaths and death unknown, was conducted in patients who had experienced cardiac arrhythmia, MI or cardiac failure during UPLIFT® and who completed the study. Descriptive analyses were performed.ResultsMost patients experiencing cardiac events, for which they would have been excluded at baseline, remained in the trial. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed a trend to later occurrence of cardiac SAEs with tiotropium HandiHaler® versus placebo. Patients who experienced a cardiac event and continued in UPLIFT® were not found to be at subsequently increased risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac SAEs with tiotropium treatment. Evaluation of deaths by major adverse cardiac events composite endpoints also showed that patients treated with tiotropium were not at increased risk of mortality or cardiac SAEs compared with placebo.ConclusionsRisk of cardiac events, mortality or SAEs was not increased by tiotropium in patients experiencing cardiac events for which they would have been excluded at study baseline. The findings support the cardiac safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with COPD.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0216-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.