Karin Klooster

Endobronchial Valves for Emphysema without Interlobar Collateral Ventilation

BACKGROUND Bronchoscopic lung-volume reduction with the use of one-way endobronchial valves is a potential treatment for patients with severe emphysema. To date, the benefits have been modest but have been hypothesized to be much larger in patients without interlobar collateral ventilation than in those with collateral ventilation. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with severe emphysema and a confirmed absence of collateral ventilation to bronchoscopic endobronchial-valve treatment (EBV group) or to continued standard medical care (control group). Primary outcomes were changes from baseline to 6 months in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and 6-minute walk distance. RESULTS Eighty-four patients were recruited, of whom 16 were excluded because they had collateral ventilation (13 patients) or because lobar segments were inaccessible to the endobronchial valves (3 patients). The remaining 68 patients (mean [±SD] age, 59±9 years; 46 were women) were randomly assigned to the EBV group (34 patients) or the control group (34). At baseline, the FEV1 and FVC were 29±7% and 77±18% of the predicted values, respectively, and the 6-minute walk distance was 374±86 m. Intention-to-treat analyses showed significantly greater improvements in the EBV group than in the control group from baseline to 6 months: the increase in FEV1 was greater in the EBV group than in the control group by 140 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 55 to 225), the increase in FVC was greater by 347 ml (95% CI, 107 to 588), and the increase in the 6-minute walk distance was greater by 74 m (95% CI, 47 to 100) (P<0.01 for all comparisons). By 6 months, 23 serious adverse events had been reported in the EBV group, as compared with 5 in the control group (P<0.001). One patient in the EBV group died. Serious treatment-related adverse events in this group included pneumothorax (18% of patients) and events requiring valve replacement (12%) or removal (15%). CONCLUSIONS Endobronchial-valve treatment significantly improved pulmonary function and exercise capacity in patients with severe emphysema characterized by an absence of interlobar collateral ventilation. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and the University Medical Center Groningen; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR2876.).

Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment of Patients With Severe Heterogeneous Emphysema

BACKGROUND The lung volume reduction coil (LVR-coil), a new experimental device to achieve lung volume reduction by bronchoscopy in patients with severe emphysema, works in a manner unaffected by collateral airflow. We investigated the safety and efficacy of LVR-coil treatment in patients with heterogeneous emphysema. METHODS In this prospective cohort pilot study, patients were treated bronchoscopically with Nitinol LVR-coils under fluoroscopic guidance in either one procedure or two sequential procedures. Follow-up tests included the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), pulmonary function testing, and the 6-min walk test (6MWT). RESULTS Twenty-eight LVR-coil procedures were performed in 16 patients (baseline FEV₁, 28% [± 7.6%] predicted). Four patients were treated in one lung, and 12 patients were treated in both lungs. A median of 10 (5-12) coils was placed per lung in 36.5 (20-60) min. Adverse events (AEs) rated as possibly related to either the device or the procedure < 30 days after treatment were pneumothorax (n ± 1), pneumonia (n ± 2), COPD exacerbation (n ± 6), chest pain (n ± 4), and mild (< 5 mL) hemoptysis (n ± 21). From 30 days to 6 months, the AEs that occurred were pneumonia (n ± 3) and COPD exacerbation (n ± 14). All events resolved with standard care. Six months after LVR-coil treatment, there were significant improvements in SGRQ (-14.9 points [± 12.1 points, with 11 patients improving by > 4 points]), FEV₁ (+14.9% ± 17.0%), FVC (+13.4% ± 12.9%), residual volume (-11.4% ± 9.0%), and 6MWT (+84.4 ± 73.4 m), all P < .005. CONCLUSIONS LVR-coil treatment is a promising technique for the treatment of patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema. The treatment is technically feasible and results in significant improvements in pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life, with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRY ClinicalTrials.gov; No.:NCT01220908; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Lung volume reduction coil treatment for patients with severe emphysema: a European multicentre trial

Background The lung volume reduction (LVR) coil is a minimally invasive bronchoscopic nitinol device designed to reduce hyperinflation and improve elastic recoil in severe emphysema. We investigated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of LVR coil treatment in a prospective multicentre cohort trial in patients with severe emphysema. Methods Patients were treated in 11 centres. Safety was evaluated by recording all adverse events, efficacy by the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) as primary endpoint, and pulmonary function testing, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score (mMRC) and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) up to 12 months after the final treatment. Results Sixty patients (60.9 ± 7.5 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 30.2 ± 6.3% pred) were bronchoscopically treated with coils (55 bilateral, 5 unilateral), with a median of 10 (range 5–15) coils per lobe. Within 30 days post-treatment, seven chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (6.1%), six pneumonias (5.2%), four pneumothoraces (3.5%) and one haemoptysis (0.9%) occurred as serious adverse events. At 6 and 12 months, respectively, ΔSGRQ was −12.1±12.9 and −11.1±13.3 points, Δ6MWD was +29.7±74.1 m and +51.4±76 m, ΔFEV1 was +0.11±0.20 L and +0.11±0.30 L, and ΔRV (residual volume) was −0.65±0.90 L and −0.71±0.81 L (all p<0.01). Post hoc analyses showed significant responses for SGRQ, 6MWD and RV in patients with both heterogeneous and homogeneous emphysema. Conclusions LVR coil treatment results in significant clinical improvements in patients with severe emphysema, with a good safety profile and sustained results for up to 1 year. Trial registration number: NCT01328899.

Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients with Homogeneous Emphysema: A Prospective Feasibility Trial

Background: In patients with heterogeneous emphysema, surgical and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) treatments are available. However, for patients with homogeneous emphysema these treatments are hardly investigated and seem less effective. Bronchoscopic LVR coil treatment has been shown to be effective in patients with heterogeneous emphysema, but this treatment has not been exclusively investigated in homogeneous emphysema. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LVR coil treatment in patients with homogeneous emphysema. Methods: In this single-arm, open-label study, patients received a maximum of 12 LVR coils (PneumRx Inc., Mountain View, Calif., USA) in each upper lobe in two sequential procedures. Tests were performed at baseline and at 6 months. The primary endpoint was the improvement from baseline in 6-min walking distance (6MWD) after treatment. Results: Ten patients with severe airway obstruction and hyperinflation were treated. A median of 11 (range 10-12) coils were placed in each lung. Two chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and one small pneumothorax were recorded as serious adverse events. At 6 months, 6MWD had improved from 289 to 350 m (p = 0.005); forced vital capacity from 2.17 to 2.55 liters (p = 0.047); residual volume from 5.04 to 4.44 liters (p = 0.007) and St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire from 63 to 48 points (p = 0.028). Conclusion: LVR coil treatment in homogeneous patients improves hyperinflation, airway resistance, exercise capacity and quality of life with an acceptable safety profile. The benefit of LVR coil treatment is not limited to patients with heterogeneous emphysema, and patients with homogenous emphysema can benefit as well.

Long-term follow-up after bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment with coils in patients with severe emphysema.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction coil (LVR‐coil) treatment has been shown to be safe and clinically effective in patients with severe emphysema in the short term; however, long‐term safety and effectiveness has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate the long‐term safety and effectiveness of LVR‐coil treatment in patients with severe emphysema.

Targeted lung denervation for moderate to severe COPD: a pilot study

Background Parasympathetic pulmonary nerves release acetylcholine that induces smooth muscle constriction. Disruption of parasympathetic pulmonary nerves improves lung function and COPD symptoms. Aims To evaluate ‘targeted lung denervation’ (TLD), a novel bronchoscopic therapy based on ablation of parasympathetic pulmonary nerves surrounding the main bronchi, as a potential therapy for COPD. Methods This 1-year, prospective, multicentre study evaluated TLD in patients with COPD forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV1/FVC <0.70; FEV1 30%–60% predicted). Patients underwent staged TLD at 20 watts (W) or 15 W following baseline assessment off bronchodilators. Assessments were repeated on tiotropium before treatment and off bronchodilators at 30, 90, 180, 270 and 365 days after TLD. The primary endpoint was freedom from documented and sustained worsening of COPD directly attributable to TLD to 1 year. Secondary endpoints included technical feasibility, change in pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. Results Twenty-two patients were included (n=12 at 20 W, n=10 at 15 W). The procedures were technically feasible 93% of the time. Primary safety endpoint was achieved in 95%. Asymptomatic bronchial wall effects were observed in 3 patients at 20 W. The clinical safety profiles were similar between the two energy doses. At 1 year, changes from baseline in the 20 W dose compared to the 15 W dose were: FEV1 (+11.6%±32.3 vs +0.02%±15.1, p=0.324), submaximal cycle endurance (+6.8 min±12.8 vs 2.6 min±8.7, p=0.277), and St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (−11.1 points ±9.1 vs −0.9 points ±8.6, p=0.044). Conclusions Bronchoscopic TLD, based on the concept of ablating parasympathetic pulmonary nerves, was feasible, safe, and well tolerated. Further investigation of this novel therapy is warranted. Trial registration number NCT01483534.

The minimal important difference for residual volume in patients with severe emphysema

Residual volume (RV) measured by body plethysmography is a routine measurement in clinical pulmonary practice and is often an important outcome variable in clinical trials. However, it is not known what size of improvement can be regarded as being important in severe emphysema patients. Therefore, the aim of the study is to establish the minimal important difference (MID) for RV in severe emphysema patients undergoing bronchoscopic lung volume reduction. 91 severe emphysema patients were included. RV and total lung capacity (TLC) were measured by body plethysmography. MID estimates were calculated by anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s, 6-min walk distance and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score were used as anchors and Cohen’s effect size was used as distribution-based method. The calculated MID estimates according to the different anchors and methods ranged between -0.31 and -0.43 L for RV, -6.1 and -8.6% for percentage change in RV (RV%) from baseline, and -2.8 and -4.0% for RV/TLC. These MID estimates are useful for sample size determination in new studies on interventions aimed at reducing RV and for interpreting the results from clinical trials in severe emphysema patients.

Oxidant-induced corticosteroid unresponsiveness in human bronchial epithelial cells

Background We hypothesised that increased oxidative stress, as present in the airways of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, induces epithelial damage and reduces epithelial responsiveness to suppressive effects of corticosteroids on proinflammatory cytokine production and barrier function. Methods We induced oxidative stress by H2O2 and/or cigarette smoke extract (CSE) in human bronchial epithelial 16HBE cells and primary bronchial epithelial cells (PBEC) derived by brushings from asthma patients, COPD patients, and smoking and non-smoking control individuals. We investigated effects of budesonide on barrier function (electrical resistance) and TNF-α-induced proinflammatory cytokine production (IL-8/CXCL8, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF)). Results We observed that H2O2 and CSE reduce epithelial resistance. Budesonide significantly counteracted this effect, likely by protection against epidermal growth factor receptor-dependent cell-cell contact disruption. Furthermore, budesonide suppressed proinflammatory cytokine production. H2O2 pretreatment reduced this effect of budesonide on cytokine production in both 16HBE cells and PBECs. Importantly, PBECs from asthma and COPD patients were less sensitive to budesonide with respect to cytokine production and barrier function than PBECs from control subjects. Conclusions Together, our data indicate that budesonide suppresses epithelial proinflammatory responses and barrier dysfunction and that oxidative stress reduces these effects in airway epithelium from asthma and COPD patients. Therefore, restoration of corticosteroid responsiveness in asthma and COPD may act to improve the airway epithelial barrier.

Bronchoscopic Coil Treatment for Patients with Severe Emphysema: A Meta-Analysis.

Background: Bronchoscopic coil treatment has been shown to improve pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with severe emphysema. Objectives: To perform a meta-analysis of the results of four independent European clinical trials investigating this coil therapy for emphysema. Methods: Data on all patients included in the four European clinical trials were analyzed for efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: A total of 2,536 coils were placed during 259 procedures in 140 patients. A total of 37 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and 27 pneumonias were recorded as serious adverse events up to 1 year after treatment. The pneumothorax rate was 6.4%. Both 6 and 12 months after treatment, significant (all p < 0.001) improvements were observed for: forced expiratory volume in 1 s [+0.08 liters (±0.19) and +0.08 liters (±0.21)], residual volume [RV; -510 ml (±850) and -430 ml (±720)], 6-min walking distance [6MWD; +44.1 m (±69.8) and +38.1 m (±71.9)], and St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire score [SGRQ; -9.5 points (±14.3) and -7.7 points (±14.2)]. No differences in any outcome measures were observed between heterogeneous and homogeneous emphysema patients. Only a high baseline RV was found to be an independent predictor of successful treatment. Conclusions: Bronchoscopic coil treatment improves pulmonary function, 6MWD, and quality of life in patients with severe emphysema up to 1 year after treatment, independent of the distribution of the disease.

Relapse in FEV1 Decline After Steroid Withdrawal in COPD

BACKGROUND We previously observed that 30 months of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment can attenuate FEV1 decline in COPD, but it is unclear whether withdrawal induces a relapse. We hypothesized that FEV1 decline, airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), and quality of life (QOL) deteriorate after ICS cessation even after prolonged use. METHODS One hundred fourteen patients with moderate to severe COPD finished randomized 6-month or 30-month treatment with fluticasone (500 μg bid), 30-month treatment with fluticasone and salmeterol (500/50 μg bid), or placebo (first part of the Groningen and Leiden Universities Corticosteroids in Obstructive Lung Disease [GLUCOLD] study [GL1]). The subsequent 5 years, patients were prospectively followed annually, treated by their physician (GLUCOLD follow-up study [GL2]). Postbronchodilator FEV1, AHR, and QOL were initially recorded at baseline, at 30 months (GL1), and annually during GL2. Analysis was performed by linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS Among 101 adherent patients during GL1, 79 patients started and 58 completed GL2. Patients using ICSs during GL1, but only using ICSs 0% to 50% of the time during GL2 (n = 56 of 79), had significantly accelerated annual FEV1 decline compared with GL1 (difference GL2-GL1 [95% CI]: 30-month treatment with fluticasone and salmeterol, -68 mL/y [-112 to -25], P = .002; 30-month treatment with fluticasone, -73 mL/y [-119 to -26], P = .002), accompanied by deterioration in AHR and QOL. CONCLUSIONS ICS discontinuation after 30 months in COPD can worsen lung function decline, AHR, and QOL during 5-year follow-up. This suggests that ICS treatment lacks sustained disease-modifying effect after treatment cessation. TRIAL REGISTRY ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00158847; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.