Alexander G Mathioudakis, Sebastian Bate, Pradeesh Sivapalan, Jens-Ulrik Stæhr Jensen, Dave Singh, Jørgen Vestbo
{"title":"Rethinking Blood Eosinophils for Assessing Inhaled Corticosteroids Response in COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis From the FLAME Trial.","authors":"Alexander G Mathioudakis, Sebastian Bate, Pradeesh Sivapalan, Jens-Ulrik Stæhr Jensen, Dave Singh, Jørgen Vestbo","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The varied treatment response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with COPD and the associated increased risk of pneumonia necessitate a personalized ICS therapeutic approach. This is informed by blood eosinophil count (BEC), which predicts ICS treatment response. However, BEC appears to change in response to ICS treatment.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Does (1) BEC measured on ICS treatment (2) BEC measured off ICS treatment, or (3) the change in BEC during ICS treatment best predict treatment response to ICS in COPD?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>The Fluticasone Salmeterol on COPD Exacerbations Trial (FLAME), a 52-week, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABAs)/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) with LABA/ICS. Corticosteroids were prohibited during a 4-week run-in period. We chose patients previously on ICS, thereby allowing BEC before and after the run-in period to represent BEC on and off ICS, respectively. In this post hoc analysis, we revisited outcome data, exploring how the three BEC biomarkers interacted with treatment response to the ICS-containing regimen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study showed that LABA/LAMA combination was superior, or at least noninferior, to LABA/ICS in curbing exacerbations for most FLAME participants. However, higher BEC off ICS, higher BEC on ICS, and significant BEC suppression during ICS treatment corresponded to superior response to LABA/ICS in terms of exacerbation rate, time to first exacerbation, and time to first pneumonia. In a subgroup, including 9% of participants, BEC changed significantly during ICS treatment (≥ 200 cells/μL), and higher BEC on ICS did not predict ICS treatment response. For these patients, BEC off ICS and BEC change proved more predictive. Excess pneumonia risk associated with ICS appeared to be confined to patients who do not benefit from this treatment. BEC was not predictive of treatment effects on lung function and health status.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>This exploratory analysis advocates preferentially using BEC off ICS or BEC change during ICS treatment for guiding ICS treatment decisions. BEC measured on ICS is less predictive of treatment response.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01782326; URL: www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":"987-997"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3790","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The varied treatment response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with COPD and the associated increased risk of pneumonia necessitate a personalized ICS therapeutic approach. This is informed by blood eosinophil count (BEC), which predicts ICS treatment response. However, BEC appears to change in response to ICS treatment.
Research question: Does (1) BEC measured on ICS treatment (2) BEC measured off ICS treatment, or (3) the change in BEC during ICS treatment best predict treatment response to ICS in COPD?
Study design and methods: The Fluticasone Salmeterol on COPD Exacerbations Trial (FLAME), a 52-week, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABAs)/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) with LABA/ICS. Corticosteroids were prohibited during a 4-week run-in period. We chose patients previously on ICS, thereby allowing BEC before and after the run-in period to represent BEC on and off ICS, respectively. In this post hoc analysis, we revisited outcome data, exploring how the three BEC biomarkers interacted with treatment response to the ICS-containing regimen.
Results: Our study showed that LABA/LAMA combination was superior, or at least noninferior, to LABA/ICS in curbing exacerbations for most FLAME participants. However, higher BEC off ICS, higher BEC on ICS, and significant BEC suppression during ICS treatment corresponded to superior response to LABA/ICS in terms of exacerbation rate, time to first exacerbation, and time to first pneumonia. In a subgroup, including 9% of participants, BEC changed significantly during ICS treatment (≥ 200 cells/μL), and higher BEC on ICS did not predict ICS treatment response. For these patients, BEC off ICS and BEC change proved more predictive. Excess pneumonia risk associated with ICS appeared to be confined to patients who do not benefit from this treatment. BEC was not predictive of treatment effects on lung function and health status.
Interpretation: This exploratory analysis advocates preferentially using BEC off ICS or BEC change during ICS treatment for guiding ICS treatment decisions. BEC measured on ICS is less predictive of treatment response.
期刊介绍：
At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
