Criner, Gerard J.

Importance People who smoked cigarettes may experience respiratory symptoms without spirometric airflow obstruction. These individuals are typically excluded from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials and lack evidence-based therapies. Objective To define the natural history of persons with tobacco exposure and preserved spirometry (TEPS) and symptoms (symptomatic TEPS). Design, Setting, and Participants SPIROMICS II was an extension of SPIROMICS I, a multicenter study of persons aged 40 to 80 years who smoked cigarettes (>20 pack-years) with or without COPD and controls without tobacco exposure or airflow obstruction. Participants were enrolled in SPIROMICS I and II from November 10, 2010, through July 31, 2015, and followed up through July 31, 2021. Exposures Participants in SPIROMICS I underwent spirometry, 6-minute walk distance testing, assessment of respiratory symptoms, and computed tomography of the chest at yearly visits for 3 to 4 years. Participants in SPIROMICS II had 1 additional in-person visit 5 to 7 years after enrollment in SPIROMICS I. Respiratory symptoms were assessed with the COPD Assessment Test (range, 0 to 40; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry (postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV 1 ] to forced vital capacity >0.70) and COPD Assessment Test scores of 10 or greater. Participants with asymptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry and COPD Assessment Test scores of less than 10. Patient-reported respiratory symptoms and exacerbations were assessed every 4 months via phone calls. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was assessment for accelerated decline in lung function (FEV 1 ) in participants with symptomatic TEPS vs asymptomatic TEPS. Secondary outcomes included development of COPD defined by spirometry, respiratory symptoms, rates of respiratory exacerbations, and progression of computed tomographic–defined airway wall thickening or emphysema. Results Of 1397 study participants, 226 had symptomatic TEPS (mean age, 60.1 [SD, 9.8] years; 134 were women [59%]) and 269 had asymptomatic TEPS (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 9.1] years; 134 were women [50%]). At a median follow-up of 5.76 years, the decline in FEV 1 was −31.3 mL/y for participants with symptomatic TEPS vs −38.8 mL/y for those with asymptomatic TEPS (between-group difference, −7.5 mL/y [95% CI, −16.6 to 1.6 mL/y]). The cumulative incidence of COPD was 33.0% among participants with symptomatic TEPS vs 31.6% among those with asymptomatic TEPS (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.46]). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had significantly more respiratory exacerbations than those with asymptomatic TEPS (0.23 vs 0.08 exacerbations per person-year, respectively; rate ratio, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.31], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Participants with symptomatic TEPS did not have accelerated rates of decline in FEV 1 or increased incidence of COPD vs those with asymptomatic TEPS, but participants with symptomatic TEPS did experience significantly more respiratory exacerbations over a median follow-up of 5.8 years.

Abstract Rationale Multiple studies have demonstrated an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in heterozygous carriers of the AAT (alpha-1 antitrypsin) Z allele. However, it is not known if MZ subjects with COPD are phenotypically different from noncarriers (MM genotype) with COPD. Objectives To assess if MZ subjects with COPD have different clinical features compared with MM subjects with COPD. Methods Genotypes of SERPINA1were ascertained by using whole-genome sequencing data in three independent studies. We compared outcomes between MM subjects with COPD and MZ subjects with COPD in each study and combined the results in a meta-analysis. We performed longitudinal and survival analyses to compare outcomes in MM and MZ subjects with COPD over time. Measurements and Main Results We included 290 MZ subjects with COPD and 6,184 MM subjects with COPD across the three studies. MZ subjects had a lower FEV1% predicted and greater quantitative emphysema on chest computed tomography scans compared with MM subjects. In a meta-analysis, the FEV1was 3.9% lower (95% confidence interval [CI], −6.55% to −1.26%) and emphysema (the percentage of lung attenuation areas <−950 HU) was 4.14% greater (95% CI, 1.44% to 6.84%) in MZ subjects. We found one gene, PGF(placental growth factor), to be differentially expressed in lung tissue from one study between MZ subjects and MM subjects. Conclusions Carriers of the AAT Z allele (those who were MZ heterozygous) with COPD had lower lung function and more emphysema than MM subjects with COPD. Taken with the subtle differences in gene expression between the two groups, our findings suggest that MZ subjects represent an endotype of COPD.

Abstract Rationale Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) is the defining morphology of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Guidelines for IPF diagnosis conditionally recommend surgical lung biopsy for histopathology diagnosis of UIP when radiology and clinical context are not definitive. A “molecular diagnosis of UIP” in transbronchial lung biopsy, the Envisia Genomic Classifier, accurately predicted histopathologic UIP. Objectives We evaluated the combined accuracy of the Envisia Genomic Classifier and local radiology in the detection of UIP pattern. Methods Ninety-six patients who had diagnostic lung pathology as well as a transbronchial lung biopsy for molecular testing with Envisia Genomic Classifier were included in this analysis. The classifier results were scored against reference pathology. UIP identified on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) as documented by features in local radiologists’ reports was compared with histopathology. Measurements and Main Results In 96 patients, the Envisia Classifier achieved a specificity of 92.1% (confidence interval [CI],78.6–98.3%) and a sensitivity of 60.3% (CI, 46.6–73.0%) for histology-proven UIP pattern. Local radiologists identified UIP in 18 of 53 patients with UIP histopathology, with a sensitivity of 34.0% (CI, 21.5–48.3%) and a specificity of 96.9% (CI, 83.8–100%). In conjunction with HRCT patterns of UIP, the Envisia Classifier results identified 24 additional patients with UIP (sensitivity 79.2%; specificity 90.6%). Conclusions In 96 patients with suspected interstitial lung disease, the Envisia Genomic Classifier identified UIP regardless of HRCT pattern. These results suggest that recognition of a UIP pattern by the Envisia Genomic Classifier combined with HRCT and clinical factors in a multidisciplinary discussion may assist clinicians in making an interstitial lung disease (especially IPF) diagnosis without the need for a surgical lung biopsy.

Abstract For over 150 years, bronchoscopy, especially flexible bronchoscopy, has been a mainstay for airway inspection, the diagnosis of airway lesions, therapeutic aspiration of airway secretions, and transbronchial biopsy to diagnose parenchymal lung disorders. Its utility for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary nodules and therapeutic treatments besides aspiration of airway secretions, however, has been limited. Challenges to the wider use of flexible bronchoscopy have included difficulty in navigating to the lung periphery, the avoidance of vasculature structures when performing diagnostic biopsies, and the ability to biopsy a lesion under direct visualization. The last 10–15 years have seen major advances in thoracic imaging, navigational platforms to direct the bronchoscopist to lung lesions, and the ability to visualize lesions during biopsy. Moreover, multiple new techniques have either become recently available or are currently being investigated to treat a broad range of airway and lung parenchymal diseases, such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis, or to alleviate recurrent exacerbations. New bronchoscopic therapies are also being investigated to not only diagnose, but possibly treat, malignant peripheral lung nodules. As a result, flexible bronchoscopy is now able to provide a new and expanding armamentarium of diagnostic and therapeutic tools to treat patients with a variety of lung diseases. This State-of-the-Art review succinctly reviews these techniques and provides clinicians an organized approach to their role in the diagnosis and treatment of a range of lung diseases.

Abstract Rationale Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management. Methods In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control). Measurements and Main Results The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups—between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060–0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048–0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax. Conclusions In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).