Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Pharmacological treatment optimisation for stable COPD: an endless story?

Maeva Zysman, François Chabot, Bruno Housset, Capucine Morelot Panzini, Philippe Devillier, Nicolas Roche for the Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française
European Respiratory Journal 2017 50: 1701250; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01250-2017
Maeva Zysman
1Département de Pneumologie, Université de Lorraine, CHU de Nancy, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
2Inserm U955, Team 04, Créteil, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
François Chabot
1Département de Pneumologie, Université de Lorraine, CHU de Nancy, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno Housset
3Service de Pneumologie, UPEC, Université Paris-Est, UMR S955, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, Créteil, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Capucine Morelot Panzini
4Service de Pneumologie et Réanimation Médicale, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière Charles-Foix, Inserm, Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, UMRS 1158, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philippe Devillier
5UPRES EA 220, Département des Maladies des Voies Respiratoires, Hôpital Foch, Université Versailles-Saint-Quentin, Suresnes, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Roche
6Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP, EA2511, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nicolas.roche@aphp.fr
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Local adaptations of global recommendations on COPD may be necessary to facilitate appropriation and implementation http://ow.ly/wgNE30eONaG

In recent years, several global and local guidelines, recommendations and proposals on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management have been published [1–14]. They illustrate the great interest in this disease that, although no cure exists, is no longer considered untreatable. They also reflect its major and growing burden from both public health and individual perspectives. Finally, they parallel the increasing knowledge of its pathophysiology, clinical characteristics and natural history, as well as of treatment effects, with the goal of personalising care as much as possible. Here, we aim to present recent proposals of the French-Language Respiratory Society (Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française (SPLF)) and put them in perspective with the similarly recent Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) document, which represents a major revision of GOLD proposals. It is also crucial to take this opportunity to emphasise here that the story of a guideline does not end with its production: the implementation phase is even more important and truly never ends until the next guideline, resulting in an endless cycle.

Background

In 2011, the GOLD document introduced a major change in the proposed way to assess and treat patients with COPD: the new paradigm was based on a combined assessment scheme in which patients were allocated to one of four quadrants (A, B, C and D) depending on their level of symptoms and clinical impact, their risk of exacerbations determined by their exacerbation history and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)-defined grade of airflow limitation. Symptoms and clinical impact were to be assessed by the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale and/or the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), to which the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) was subsequently added [15]. This represented an advance through the formal introduction of clinical parameters in the recommended assessment process. However, several aspects of this proposition were challenged, including the lack of firm evidence linking this classification to treatment effects, the unclear concordance between mMRC and CAT cut-offs to distinguish patients with low versus high impact or symptom burden, and the heterogeneity of the magnitude of increase in exacerbation risk depending on the considered criteria (low lung function, exacerbation history or both). As a consequence, several scientific societies and groups developed alternative classifications or kept following their previous therapeutic recommendations. This applied to SPLF, which continued advocating the use of its 2009–2010 COPD guidelines, which were actually very close to the previous GOLD document [13, 16, 17]. During the five following years, a considerable body of evidence on the relevance and drawbacks of the GOLD ABCD categorisation scheme accumulated, ultimately leading to the major 2017 revision in which FEV1 disappeared as a criterion to define exacerbation risk, due to the marked preponderance of exacerbation history as a predictor of future exacerbation risk [18] and the strong will towards simplification. In parallel, all guidelines kept reinforcing the key role of nonpharmacological interventions (especially help towards smoking cessation and physical activity) in COPD management and increasingly recognised the importance of integrating the treatment of comorbid conditions in COPD care. In 2014, GOLD and the Global Initiative for Asthma released a common document formalising the concept of asthma–COPD overlap (ACO) syndrome, defined as an entity featuring characteristics of both asthma and COPD in a roughly equivalent proportion. Other, more precise definitions were proposed subsequently, and again, significant amounts of data on the topic have accumulated since the first appearance of the term ACO syndrome in the medical literature [19].

The SPLF, considering the evolution of COPD treatment paradigms and the constantly increasing amount of results from studies on new medications, decided in 2014 to develop an update of its position on how to optimise pharmacological therapy in patients with COPD. This update was released at the end of 2016 [13], roughly at the same time as the 2017 GOLD update [12].

The development of these proposals was based on expert opinions informed by an extensive literature review. A working group composed of the authors of this editorial reviewed the literature published between January 2009 (date of the previous recommendations from the SPLF) and May 2016, with an appraisal of all the abstracts published in Medline or in the Cochrane library. The search terms used were “COPD [MeSH]” in association with “therapeutics [MeSH]”, “therapy”, “drug therapy [MeSH]” or “treatment outcome [MeSH]”. Randomised trials and meta-analyses published in English and French were selected. Only the medications available in France at the end of December 2016 were discussed. The proposal was reviewed by a panel of pulmonologists and general practitioners, and finally, by the scientific committee of the SPLF. Since the process did not rely on a formal Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-like methodology, it was decided to qualify the result as proposals rather than guidelines. The mission assigned to the working group was to follow certain basic principles and goals, which are listed below.

1) To aim to format the proposals as a single algorithm covering the most frequent situations and based on patients' characteristics easily accessible to all practitioners caring for patients with COPD, including respiratory specialists and general practitioners with more limited access to repeated spirometry; the purpose here was to present the progression of treatments as a function of the progression of the disease-related clinical burden, given that COPD medications mainly target symptoms with limited impact on the natural history.

2) To develop an alternative presentation of treatments' indications with a tabular format, to adapt to the preferences and functioning of target physicians.

3) To weight the benefit–risk balance to inform proposed therapeutic choices; specifically, to avoid proposing treatment initiation with multiple pharmacological agents in the absence of firm evidence of general superiority over treatment initiation with a single agent.

4) To focus on “pure” COPD, i.e. to exclude patients with features of asthma from the target population, in order to avoid confusion. The goal here was to favour a systematic, thorough differential diagnosis process between asthma and COPD. Patients with evidence of asthma features were to be treated following asthma guidelines.

5) As a correlate, to request that the diagnosis is confirmed by spirometry before or soon after treatment initiation.

6) To mention clearly the measures that need to be implemented together with prescription of medications, even if the literature appraisal was restricted to pharmacological treatments.

Proposals

The literature review allowed the identification of several key features of available therapeutic options, which were subsequently used to build the proposals and are summarised here. Several areas of uncertainty were also identified on the following topics, including: 1) respective effects of long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and LABA plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on exacerbations in patients with few symptoms and high risk of exacerbations (GOLD C category); 2) added value of ICS on top of LABA+LAMA; 3) effects of antioxidant mucolytics in patients from non-Asian populations receiving standard inhaled therapy; and 4) optimal duration of preventive macrolide therapy.

Figure 1 presents the resulting proposition of decision-tree, while figure 2 shows corresponding treatment indications. Crucial accompanying measures are summarised in table 1.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Proposed algorithm for the pharmacological therapeutic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For patients with exacerbations despite a long-acting bronchodilator but low levels of dyspnoea (modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) score <2), the choice can be either a long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) or an inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus LABA combination. For patients with dyspnoea on two long-acting bronchodilators, applicable components of the lowest box are theophylline and additional rehabilitation (since at this point, these patients should have already undergone rehabilitation as part of the “nonpharmacological treatment components” mentioned at the top of the figure). BD: bronchodilator; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FVC: forced vital capacity; PDE4i: phosphodiestase-4 inhibitors. #: β2-agonist or anticholinergic.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Pharmacological treatment indications corresponding to the algorithm proposed in figure 1. Steps refer to maintenance therapy, as-needed short-acting bronchodilators being indicated in all patients. SABA: short-acting β2-agonists; SAMA: short-acting muscarinic antagonists; LABA: long-acting β2-agonists; LAMA: long-acting muscarinic antagonists; ICS: inhaled corticosteroids; mMRC: modified Medical Research Council.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Measures that should accompany the implementation of pharmacological treatment recommendations

Narrative summary

Any COPD diagnosis based on pulmonary function tests (presence of airflow limitation as defined by FEV1/FVC <70%) should lead to smoking cessation counselling, influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations, encouragement of physical activity, pulmonary rehabilitation in the case of activity limitation, and as-needed short-acting bronchodilators for symptomatic relief. The level of symptoms and exacerbation frequency should guide therapeutic choices. In the case of dyspnoea during daily activities (mMRC ≥1) and/or frequent exacerbations (i.e. at least two in a year or one leading to hospitalisation), the recommendation is to start with a single inhaled long-acting bronchodilator (β2-agonist (LABA) or anticholinergics (LAMA)) rather than with a combination of bronchodilators. In the case of frequent exacerbations, LAMA should be preferred [20]. When symptoms or exacerbations persist, other causes of insufficient therapeutic efficacy need to be investigated (differential diagnosis, comorbidity, poor compliance, incorrect use of inhalation devices or persistent smoking) and lung function needs to be checked to ensure the lack of marked discordance with clinical features that would trigger the search for concomitant conditions (table 1). Then, a dual therapy can be suggested, the combination of two long-acting bronchodilators (LABA+LAMA) being preferred in the presence of more significant dyspnoea (mMRC ≥2) with or without exacerbations [21, 22]. When the patient has exacerbations but low levels of dyspnoea (mMRC <2), the choice can be either LABA+LAMA or ICS+LABA, since there is no evidence suggesting that data from randomised controlled trials in patients with mMRC ≥2 can be extrapolated to this population. In addition, the mechanisms by which bronchodilators prevent exacerbations could include decreased baseline airway resistance, stabilisation of bronchial tone or resetting of dyspnoea perception, which could be more prominent in patients with more impaired lung mechanics. Current evidence was not considered sufficient to recommend guiding treatment based on blood eosinophil levels at present, since only post hoc analyses suggested that these (with various thresholds) could predict better response to ICS-containing than to bronchodilator-only regimen [23]. The occurrence of pneumonia or other ICS-associated side-effects should cause reconsideration of the need for ICS [24].

Fixed-dose combinations could facilitate better adherence than free combinations (whether LABA+LAMA or ICS+LABA), although this potential benefit still needs to be formally demonstrated. When exacerbations persist despite one of these combinations or when dyspnoea persists on ICS+LABA, a triple combination (LABA+LAMA+ICS) should be tested [25]. Notably, an absence of response to any increase in treatment intensity may lead to a step back or (when possible) switch for another option because of potential side-effects. Other pharmacological treatment options include theophylline for dyspnoea, and macrolides or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors (not available in France) for exacerbations [26]. For patients with refractory dyspnoea, defined as persistent chronic dyspnoea occurring at rest or from minimal exertion despite optimal treatment of the disease, low-dose opioids (in the form of sustained-release morphine) can be initiated under close monitoring [27]).

A clinical and lung function re-evaluation, as described earlier, is suggested 1–3 months after any treatment modification and every 3–12 months according to the severity of the disease, and in the case of clinical worsening, leading to the exclusion of other causes of insufficient therapeutic efficacy and differential diagnosis.

From global to local guidelines: adopt or adapt?

As detailed above, SPLF proposals are presented using a single algorithm with no reference to any formal categorisation scheme, which differs from the GOLD document that uses the ABCD quadrants to propose four separate decision trees. Despite these differences, the content is very similar overall, although with two significant differences. Firstly, for patients at risk of exacerbations but mildly symptomatic (GOLD C), SPLF proposes ICS+LABA or LABA+LAMA treatment while GOLD prefers LABA+LAMA (except in patients with features of asthma). It must be emphasised that there has been no direct head-to-head comparison between these two options in this specific group of patients. The GOLD choice is based on the increased risk of pneumonia with ICS in COPD patients, while SPLF refers to trials showing the beneficial effect of ICS+LABA on exacerbations occurrence in patients who are not all symptomatic (since these trials did not require any minimal level of symptoms). Secondly, SPLF proposes to systematically consider a step-by-step approach, rather than initiating the treatment with multiple medication classes as recommended by GOLD for category D patients. This is based on a conceptual belief rather than on firm evidence since there has been no “strategy trial” in naïve patients, comparing various ways of initiating and escalating treatment. Overall, the differences reflect variations in preferences rather than disagreements over evidence interpretation. The same observation could be made when comparing the global GOLD document to various local (national) recommendations all over the world, which all move towards personalised medicine, i.e. tailoring treatment to individual patients' characteristics [1–11]. This raises an important question: should local bodies put effort, energy and funds in the development of guidelines when well-documented global proposals already exist, and could be adopted as they are? The proliferation of local initiatives with sometimes subtle, but always real, differences suggests that there is still a need to account for national specificities in terms of presentation preferences, evidence interpretation and clinical practice implications [28]. In other words, to ensure proper implementation of evidence-based guidelines, recommendations or propositions, adaptation may be more effective than pure adoption, since it could improve the way they are perceived, leading to increased adherence of physicians and other stakeholders.

Conclusion

Local adaptions of global guidelines may favour their implementation as compared to pure adoption. All guides to the management of COPD agree on the first measures to implement, i.e. smoking cessation and encouraging regular physical activity. They also agree on pulmonary rehabilitation, which is indicated as soon as disability persists in daily life despite a bronchodilator treatment. Based on benefit–risk considerations, SPLF proposes a monotherapy with a long-acting bronchodilator as the first-step treatment for all patients, irrespective of their level of symptoms, exacerbations and lung function impairment. Then, if symptoms or and/or exacerbations persist, a second step is recommended with LABA+LAMA or LABA+ICS. A triple combination should be prescribed only as third-step treatment. This choice is based on the relatively limited magnitude of difference between mono-, double and triple therapy in terms of percentages of responders for the main outcome measures. Most importantly, clinical and lung function assessments are recommended on a regular basis and 1–3 months after any therapeutic modification or in case of worsening. Before considering any treatment step-up, possible reasons for treatment failure should be considered including poor adherence, inhaler misuse, persistent smoking and comorbidities. As in the GOLD document, FEV1 is not present among the criteria considered to decide pharmacological treatment modulation. However, also as in the GOLD document, this does not mean that spirometry is not useful in patients with COPD: it is still required to diagnose the disease, assess its evolution (including the identification of rapid decliners warranting special attention), understand symptoms and treatment effects, and trigger supplemental investigations when there is a discordance with the patient's clinical status.

With respect to future research, effectiveness and safety data from well-conducted “real-world” studies are needed to complement the efficacy data from registration trials with strategies testing. Hopefully, ongoing research might lead to real precision medicine, based on biomarkers reflecting underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and predicting response to current and future treatments. Indeed, future studies should explore whether different maintenance treatments prevent different types of exacerbations (especially eosinophilic versus bacterial types) [29]. It is likely that the next generation of recommendations will introduce phenotyping earlier in the therapeutic management of COPD [30].

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

F. Chabot ERJ-01250-2017_Chabot

P. Devillier ERJ-01250-2017_Devillier

B. Housset ERJ-01250-2017_Housset

C. Morelot Panzini ERJ-01250-2017_Morelot-Panzini

N. Roche ERJ-01250-2017_Roche

M. Zysman ERJ-01250-2017_Zysman

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received June 23, 2017.
  • Accepted August 2, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2017

References

  1. ↵
    1. Koblizek V,
    2. Chlumsky J,
    3. Zindr V
    , et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: official diagnosis and treatment guidelines of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society; a novel phenotypic approach to COPD with patient-oriented care. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2013; 157: 189–201.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in over 16s: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/CG101. Date last accessed: September 21, 2017. Date last updated: June 2010.
    1. Kankaanranta H,
    2. Harju T,
    3. Kilpeläinen M
    , et al. Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the Finnish guidelines. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2015; 116: 291–307.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bettoncelli G,
    2. Blasi F,
    3. Brusasco V
    , et al. The clinical and integrated management of COPD. An official document of AIMAR (Interdisciplinary Association for Research in Lung Disease), AIPO (Italian Association of Hospital Pulmonologists), SIMER (Italian Society of Respiratory Medicine), SIMG (Italian Society of General Medicine). Multidiscip Respir Med 2014; 9: 25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sliwiński P,
    2. Górecka D,
    3. Jassem E
    , et al. Zalecenia Polskiego Towarzystwa Chorób Płuc dotyczące rozpoznawania i leczenia przewlekłej obturacyjnej choroby płuc [Polish Respiratory Society guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol 2014; 82: 227–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chuchalin AG,
    2. Khaltaev N,
    3. Antonov NS
    , et al. Chronic respiratory diseases and risk factors in 12 regions of the Russian Federation. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2014; 9: 963–974.
    OpenUrl
    1. Harju T,
    2. Kankaanranta H,
    3. Katajisto M
    , et al. Keuhkoahtaumatauti [Update on current care guideline: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. Duodecim 2014; 130: 1774–1776.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Vogelmeier C,
    2. Buhl R,
    3. Criee CP
    , et al. Leitlinie der Deutschen Atemwegsliga und der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin zur Diagnostik und Therapie von Patienten mit chronisch obstruktiver Bronchitis und Lungenemphysem (COPD) [Guidelines for the diagnosis and therapy of COPD issued by Deutsche Atemwegsliga and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin]. Pneumologie 2007; 61: e1–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Russi EW,
    2. Karrer W,
    3. Brutsche M
    , et al. Diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the Swiss guidelines. Official guidelines of the Swiss Respiratory Society. Respiration 2013; 85: 160–174.
    OpenUrl
    1. Khan JH,
    2. Lababidi HM,
    3. Al-Moamary MS
    , et al. The Saudi guidelines for the diagnosis and management of COPD. Ann Thorac Med 2014; 9: 55–76.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Miravitlles M,
    2. Soler-Cataluna JJ,
    3. Calle M
    , et al. Spanish Guidelines for Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GesEPOC) 2017. Pharmacological treatment of stable phase. Arch Bronconeumol 2017; 53: 324–335.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
    . Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Updated in 2016. http://goldcopd.org/download/120/
  5. ↵
    1. Zysman M,
    2. Chabot F,
    3. Devillier P
    , et al. Pharmacological treatment optimization for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proposals from the Societe de Pneumologie de Langue Francaise. Rev Mal Respir 2016; 33: 911–936.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Vogelmeier CF,
    2. Criner GJ,
    3. Martinez FJ
    , et al. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2017 Report: GOLD Executive Summary. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1700214.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
    . Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Updated in 2011. http://goldcopd.org
  8. ↵
    1. Roche N
    . Position de la Société de pneumologie de langue française vis-à-vis de la version 2011 des recommandations GOLD [Position of the French Language Society of Pulmonology regarding the 2011 version of the GOLD document]. Rev Mal Respir 2012; 29: 637–639.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Zysman M,
    2. Patout M,
    3. Miravitlles M
    , et al. La BPCO et la perception du nouveau document GOLD en Europe. Workshop de la Société de pneumologie de langue française (SPLF). [COPD and perception of the new GOLD document in Europe. Workshop from the Société de pneumologie de langue française (SPLF).] Rev Mal Respir 2014; 31: 499–510.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Han MK,
    2. Muellerova H,
    3. Curran-Everett D
    , et al. GOLD 2011 disease severity classification in COPDGene: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1: 43–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Sin DD,
    2. Miravitlles M,
    3. Mannino DM
    , et al. What is asthma–COPD overlap syndrome? Towards a consensus definition from a round table discussion. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 664–673.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Vogelmeier C,
    2. Hederer B,
    3. Glaab T
    , et al. Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1093–1103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Fabbri LM
    . Inhaled steroids in COPD: when should they be used? Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 869–871.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Wedzicha JA,
    2. Banerji D,
    3. Chapman KR
    , et al. Indacaterol-glycopyrronium versus salmeterol-fluticasone for COPD. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 2222–2234.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Calverley PM,
    2. Anderson JA,
    3. Celli B
    , et al. Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 775–789.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Singh D,
    2. Papi A,
    3. Corradi M
    , et al. Single inhaler triple therapy versus inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β2-agonist therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRILOGY): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 963–973.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Brusselle GG,
    2. Bracke K,
    3. Lahousse L
    . Targeted therapy with inhaled corticosteroids in COPD according to blood eosinophil counts. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3: 416–417.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Uzun S,
    2. Djamin RS,
    3. Kluytmans JA
    , et al. Azithromycin maintenance treatment in patients with frequent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COLUMBUS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 361–368.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Jennings AL,
    2. Davies AN,
    3. Higgins JP
    , et al. A systematic review of the use of opioids in the management of dyspnoea. Thorax 2002; 57: 939–944.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Miravitlles M,
    2. Vogelmeier C,
    3. Roche N
    , et al. A review of national guidelines for management of COPD in Europe. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 625–637.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Bafadhel M,
    2. McKenna S,
    3. Terry S
    , et al. Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: identification of biologic clusters and their biomarkers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184: 662–671.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Miravitlles M,
    2. Anzueto A
    . A new two-step algorithm for the treatment of COPD. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1602200.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 50 Issue 4 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 50 (4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Pharmacological treatment optimisation for stable COPD: an endless story?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Pharmacological treatment optimisation for stable COPD: an endless story?
Maeva Zysman, François Chabot, Bruno Housset, Capucine Morelot Panzini, Philippe Devillier, Nicolas Roche
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2017, 50 (4) 1701250; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01250-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Pharmacological treatment optimisation for stable COPD: an endless story?
Maeva Zysman, François Chabot, Bruno Housset, Capucine Morelot Panzini, Philippe Devillier, Nicolas Roche
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2017, 50 (4) 1701250; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01250-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Background
    • Proposals
    • Narrative summary
    • From global to local guidelines: adopt or adapt?
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Biomarkers in lung cancer screening
  • Household air pollution and adult respiratory health
  • Tobacco control and the ERS
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society