€¦ · web viewsystemic corticosteroid exposure in patients with acute exacerbation of copd...
TRANSCRIPT
Eosinophil-guided corticosteroid therapy in hospitalised patients with COPD exacerbation
(CORTICOsteroid Reduction in COPD (CORTICO-COP)):A randomised controlled multicentre investigator-initiated trial
1
1
1
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
2
3
Summary
Background: Systemic corticosteroid exposure in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD
(AECOPD) is associated with debilitating adverse effects. Therefore, systemic corticosteroids
reducing strategies are urgently needed and may be offered by a personalised medicine biomarker-
guided approach. The aim of the study was to determine whether an algorithm based on blood
eosinophils could safely reduce systemic corticosteroid exposure in hospitalised patients with
AECOPD.
Methods: We did a prospective multicentre, investigator-initiated, randomised, controlled open-
label trial in respiratory departments in three different University-affiliated Hospitals in Denmark.
AECOPD patients aged at least 40 years, with known airflow limitation (defined as
postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≤ 0·70) and a specialist verified diagnosis of COPD, and who was
decided to start on systemic corticosteroids by the respiratory medicine physician on duty, were
assigned (1:1), using a computer-generated sequence stratified according to the site and age (> 70
years vs. ≤ 70 years) to either the eosinophil-guided group or the control-group within 24-h of
admission. Both investigators and patients were aware of group assignment. All patients received
80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on the first day. The eosinophil-guided group were from
the second day given 37·5 mg of prednisolone tablet daily (maximum of 4 days in all) on days when
the blood eosinophil count was ≥ 0·3 x 109 cells/l. On days with eosinophil count < 0·3 x 109 cells/l,
systemic corticosteroid treatment was not administered. If a patient was discharged during the
treatment period, a treatment based on the last measured eosinophil count was prescribed for the
remaining days within the 5-day period (last observation carried forward). The control group
received 37·5 mg of prednisolone tablet daily from the second day and on a daily basis for 4 days.
The primary outcome was days alive and out of hospital within 14 days after recruitment. All
analyses were done by intention to treat. This non-inferiority trial was registered at
ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02857842, and was completed in January 2019.
2
4
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
5
6
Findings: Between August 3, 2016, and September 30, 2018, 159 patients in the eosinophil-guided
group and 159 patients in the control-group were included in the analyses. For days alive and out of
hospital within 14 days after recruitment, no significant difference was recorded: mean 8·9 days
[95% CI 8·3–9·6] in the eosinophil-guided group vs. 9·3 days [95% CI 8·7–9·9] in the control-
group (between-group absolute difference -0·4 [95% CI -1·3–0·5], p=0·34) according to the
intention-to-treat analysis, and mean 9·1 [95% CI 8·4 to 9·8] in the eosinophil-guided group vs. 9·4
[95% CI 8·8 to 10·0] in the control group; between-group absolute difference -0·3 [95% CI -1·2 to
0·7]; p = 0·49) in the per-protocol analysis. Treatment failure at 30 days was seen in 42 (26·4%)
and 41 patients (25·8%) (p=0·90) and number of deaths at 30 days were 9 (5·7%) and 6 (3·8%)
(p=0·43) in the two groups, respectively. Median duration of the systemic corticosteroid therapy
was 2 days [IQR 1·0 to 3·0] in the eosinophil-guided group and 5 days [IQR 5·0 to 5·0] in the
control-group, p<0·0001.
Interpretation: Eosinophil-guided therapy substantially reduced the duration of systemic
corticosteroid exposure in hospitalised patients with AECOPD with a similar treatment response.
Eosinophil-guided therapy seems to be an promising treatment option in hospitalised patients with
AECOPD.
Funding: The Danish Regions Medical Fund and The Danish Council for Independent Research.
Keywords: systemic corticosteroids, COPD, exacerbations, eosinophil count, eosinophil-guided
corticosteroid therapy, randomised controlled trial, biomarker.
Word count:
3
7
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
8
9
Introduction
Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) contribute substantially
to high morbidity and mortality and poor quality of life worldwide.1,2 Orally administered systemic
corticosteroids are frequently given to treat AECOPDs to improve recovery from symptoms and
prevent treatment failure. However, systemic corticosteroids have no effect on long-term decline in
lung function, re-exacerbation of COPD after the first month, the length of hospital stay at the
intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality.3 Evidence regarding the optimal dosage and treatment
duration is inadequate, and physicians may be reluctant to shorten the length of the treatment.3-5
Systemic corticosteroid over-use should be avoided as this may cause serious harm to the patient,
including osteoporotic fractures, adrenal insufficiency, sepsis and venous thromboembolism.6-8 The
increasing knowledge of these side effects along with the recognition of COPD as a heterogeneous
disease and the knowledge that systemic corticosteroids are largely ineffective in reducing
neutrophil-associated inflammation has led to increasing interest in a more targeted approach to
systemic corticosteroid treatment.9,10
Eosinophilic inflammation has been demonstrated in 20–40% of AECOPD patients.11-13 There is
now evidence to support the use of peripheral blood eosinophil counts as a diagnostic biomarker to
define an eosinophilic COPD phenotype.13,14 An eosinophilic phenotype based on a peripheral blood
eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/μl is associated with an increased risk of AECOPD15,16, and patients
with higher peripheral blood eosinophil count are more likely to benefit from the treatment with
inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and systemic corticosteroids.17-19 Therefore, this biomarker has been
proposed as a useful tool to guide the systemic corticosteroid treatment in AECOPD.14,17,20 To date,
only one randomised eosinophil-guided trial used blood eosinophils to direct systemic
corticosteroids in moderate exacerbations of COPD and reached non-inferiority in treatment failure
rates in biomarker-directed treatment (blood eosinophil count ≥ 2%).17 Additionally, increased harm
in patients with a low blood eosinophil count (< 2%) who received systemic corticosteroid
treatment was observed.17 Also, a number of studies demonstrated that in-hospital outcomes 4
10
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
8411
12
including hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and ICU mortality following severe
AECOPD have more favorable response to systemic corticosteroids in patients with higher blood
eosinophil count.18,21,22 In daily clinical practice, administration of systemic corticosteroids seems to
lead to a drop in blood eosinophils, and the clinical improvement hereafter indicates that systemic
corticosteroids may be able to reduce eosinophilic inflammation. However, it is not known whether
day to day adjustments of systemic corticosteroids based on eosinophil counts can sufficiently
reduce eosinophil inflammation in patients admitted to hospital with AECOPD.
The hypothesis of this trial is that an eosinophil-guided reduction of the dose of systemic
corticosteroids for hospitalised patients with AECOPD, compared to” standard care” does not lead
to inferior treatment effect in regard to “days alive and out of hospital within 14 days” after
recruitment.
Methods
Study design
The CORTICOsteroid reduction in COPD (CORTICO-COP) study was a multicentre investigator-
initiated randomised controlled open-label non-inferiority trial involving respiratory departments at
three University Hospitals in Denmark. Patients were recruited and followed up between August
2016 and January 2019 (last patient was recruited on September 30, 2018, and followed up to
January 8, 2019).
The trial was carried out in accordance with the published trial protocol,23 the ICH-GCP guideline24,
applicable government requirements, the Helsinki Declaration25 and the requirements of the
CONSORT guideline and check list.26 The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov using the
identifier NCT02857842, and the full protocol is included in the appendix23; both the protocol and
the statistical analysis plan were made available on our website (www.coptrin.dk) before the
recruitment stopped. This study has been approved by the Ethics Committees of all participating
sides (H-15012207), the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT no: 2015-003441-26) and the Danish
5
13
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
9697
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
14
15
Data Protection Agency (HGH-2015-038 and I-Suite number 04014). It was monitored according to
Good Clinical Practice (GCP) by the GCP unit of the Capital Region of Denmark. No financial
incentive was provided to the investigators or participants.
Participants
All consecutive patients admitted to the participating sites were eligible if included within 24 h of
admission; were aged ≥ 40 years; had spirometry-verified airflow limitation (defined as
postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≤ 0·70) and a specialist verified diagnosis of COPD based on data
from stable disease state. In accordance with our National guidelines, all AECOPD patients had
systemic corticosteroids administered, upon decision of the respiratory medicine physician on duty,
shortly after admission, and thus the patients who were recruited for the trial had all received the
first dose. Thus eosinophil-guided strategy was solely applied on days 2 through 5. Exacerbations
were defined according to the consensus definition, stated by the Global Initiative for Chronic
Obstructive Lung Disease committee: An acute worsening of respiratory symptoms that results in
additional therapy.27 Patients for whom the primary reason for admittance was not AECOPD,
including cardiovascular disease, were not included in the study. The baseline date which is also
the calendar date of recruitment in the trial was named “day 1”.
Patients who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the trial. Exclusion criteria
included the following: (1) Self-reported or physician-diagnosed asthma, (2) Life expectancy of less
than 30 days, (3) Severe COPD exacerbation requiring invasive ventilation or admission to the ICU,
(4) Allergy to systemic corticosteroids, (5) Severe mental illness that cannot be controlled by
medication, (6) People detained under the act on the use of coercion in psychiatry, (7) Severe
language difficulties or the inability to provide a written informed consent, (8) Pregnancy and
lactation, (9) Systemic fungal infections, or (10) Patients receiving above 10 mg of chronic systemic
corticosteroids daily. The written informed consent was obtained from patients prior to
randomisation. Patients could only participate in the trial once.
6
16
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
17
18
Randomisation
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment according to eosinophil
guidance based on the daily peripheral blood eosinophil count (intervention group) or the standard
of care (control group). The random sequence was generated using the Sealed Envelop sequence
generator stratified according to the site (respiratory departments in three different University-
affiliated Hospitals) and age (> 70 years vs. ≤ 70 years). Online inclusion of patients according to
the concealed sequence was performed with an independent, centralised 24h-available, web-based
system at https://www.sealedenvelope.com. The block sizes varied, and nobody has access to the
sequence. Both the investigators and patients were aware of the treatment allocation. After
randomisation, the principal investigator was informed by a system generated email about the
treatment assignment. Then, the investigator informed the research nurses when, and with whom,
they had to do follow-up.
Procedures
Patients were randomised to one of the two treatment arms: a) Intervention group: 80 mg of
intravenous methylprednisolone on the first day followed by 37·5 mg of prednisolone tablet daily
(maximum of 4 days in all) on days when the blood eosinophil count was ≥ 0·3 x 109 cells/l. On
days with eosinophil count < 0·3 x 109 cells/l, systemic corticosteroid treatment was not
administered. If a patient was discharged during the treatment period, a treatment based on the last
measured eosinophil count was prescribed for the remaining days within the 5-day period (last
observation carried forward) OR b) Control group: 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on the
first day followed by 37·5 mg of prednisolone tablets on a daily basis for 4 days.
The study did not interfere with the decision of the physician to commence systemic corticosteroids,
since this decision was made before the patients could be recruited for the trial. Treating physicians
were told always to contact the investigator if she or he wished to deviate from the protocol
algorithm. This approach was used in order to reduce non-adherence to the protocol. The decision 7
19
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
20
21
to discharge was made by the treating physician and sites were encouraged to not involve
investigators in the decision to discharge a patient included in the trial. Baseline measurements were
obtained on the calendar date of recruitment. For patients randomly assigned to the eosinophil-
guided group, measurements of blood eosinophil count were carried out once a day and made
available to the attending physicians. Blood eosinophil count was only measured in the control
group on the day of inclusion in order to avoid spill-over treatment switching.
Increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume, increased sputum purulence and cough were
registered at recruitment. Blood glucose measurements were done in a standardised manner, every
day for five days, at the first blood sampling round in the morning, and was thus not influenced by
the investigator.
The COPD Assesment Test (CAT) score, spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1),
forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/ FVC), Body Mass Index (BMI) and the level of dyspnoea
using the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale were assessed at baseline (also day 3
for spirometry), and on 30 and 90 days after discharge.
Outcomes and follow-up
The primary efficacy outcome was DAOH within 14 days after recruitment (non-inferiority
approach). The primary outcome measure was chosen to summarize “good outcome” (alive and out
of hospital) during the first 14 days in opposition to “bad outcomes” (dead or still admitted to
hospital).28 Among other advantages, lead-time bias due to death will be avoided using this outcome
measure (i.e. patients who die early will not be counted as short length of stay).
The secondary endpoints were accounting from baseline: i) Treatment failure at day 30 (recurrence
of AECOPD resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalisation or need to intensify
pharmacological treatment), ii) Readmission with AECOPD or death within 30 days, iii) Time to
readmission with AECOPD or death within 30 days, iv) Cumulative corticosteroid dose during
hospitalisation, on day 30 and 90, v) Mortality rate at day 30, vi) Hyperglycaemia during index 8
22
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
23
24
admission (≥ 7·0 mmol/l), and vii) A new onset of diabetes mellitus at day 30 (HbA1c ≥ 48
mmol/mol), viii) Worsening of diabetes mellitus at day 30 (any increase in HbA1c). The following
endpoints were assessed at day 90 after recruitment : i) all infections requiring antibiotic treatment,
ii) changes in PTH and vitamin D status (appendix p 39) and iii) dyspepsia, ulcer complication or
initiation of new proton-pump inhibitor treatment. Following endpoints were assessed on day 30
and 90 from baseline: Spirometric changes (also at day 3) and change in BMI, CAT and MRC
score. All patients were planned for outpatient visits at day 30 and day 90. If the patients did not
attend the follow-up visits (if they found it too strenuous), our project nurses visited them at home.
If patients were discharged before day 5, we made a phone call on day 5 to record real-time use and
adherence of systemic corticosteroids.
Statistical analysis
The aim of this trial was to establish whether the eosinophil-guided corticosteroid therapy was non-
inferior in terms of clinical outcome assessed as DAOH within 14 days in comparison to the
standard guideline-based systemic corticosteroid therapy and at the same time could reduce the use
of systemic corticosteroids in hospitalised patients with AECOPD.
We estimated that 318 patients would be required for the trial to have 80% power (1-β) and a one-
sided significance level (α) of 0·025.
The maximum decrease of the primary outcome was set at 1·2 days and the standard deviation
based on other reports, was set at 3·8 days (appendix p 38).3,29 This non-inferiority margin was
based on the most recent Cochrane meta-analysis on administration of systemic corticosteroids as
compared to placebo, offered 1·2 days shorter admission.3 We included no loss to follow-up in the
sample size estimate due to a complete follow-up of the primary outcome in central registries. Thus,
we did not accept any loss to follow-up in the case report form. This sample size calculation was
based on a group sequential design based on the approach of O’Brien & Fleming30, normal
distribution of the means, one-sided non-inferiority and two interim analyses on 1/3 and 2/3 patients 9
25
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
26
27
recruited. The primary outcome was presented as mean (95% CI), according to the protocol,
statistical analysis plan and assessment of the distributions.
We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes with a t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for
continuous outcomes and χ² test for nominal outcomes. We calculated a cumulative event estimate
using a hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Mixed linear models were used
to test differences between the eosinophil-guided group and the control group for FEV 1 %predicted,
CAT score, MRC score and BMI after controlling for baseline value. Posthoc a multiple regression
model for the primary outcome measure was performed in order to adjust for pre-existing disability
(activity of daily living, previous exacerbation history and comorbidities). Activity of daily living
was divided into the following categories 1) living in a nursing home or own home with nurse help
several times a day or 2) living at home on own conditions or with help maximally once daily.
(supplement). Due to risk of multiple comparisons, Bonferroni correction was conducted for the
five secondary endpoints (supplement). Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS
statistical software 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and the statistical software R (version
3.4.3). The sample size calculation was done using StudySize 3.0, Frölunda, Sweden.
Interim and final analysis
An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviewed the trial’s progress and
evaluated the safety, efficacy and data completeness during the trial. The board consisted of an
intensivist, an anaesthesiologist and a pulmonologist (appendix p. 4). The interim analyses were
conducted as planned after the recruitment of 1/3 and 2/3 of the target sample size, and the
statistician was blinded to the trial-group assignments. Investigators had no access to data from the
interim analyses. For both the interim analyses, we used the following terms regarding efficacy and
harm: if the z value for mortality analysis was larger than the upper boundary value at the specified
interim analysis, the trial could possibly be prematurely stopped (final decision not based on the Z-
value alone).10
28
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231232233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
29
30
The DSMB recommended at both the interim analyses that the trial should be continued. These
analyses consisted of data on recruitment rates, baseline characteristics, follow-up data and the
primary and the following secondary outcomes: i) Mortality rate within 30 days from recruitment,
ii) Readmission with COPD exacerbation or death within 30 days from recruitment, and iii) Time to
readmission with COPD exacerbation or death within 30 days from recruitment. Dr. Eklöf
performed all interim analyses in strict confidentiality, provided the DSMB with these data and was
available for the board.
The study group, including the steering committee, was blinded to the data until they had been
entered into the database for the scheduled primary analyses. When the processes of recruitment
and follow-up were completed, the database was locked, and all data that could not unblind the
principal investigator were made accessible for analysis. Data were analysed as ‘group A’ vs.
‘group B’. The statistical analysis was performed in accordance with the statistical analysis plan,
and the analysis, with the exception below, was performed by the principal investigator (PS) who
was unaware of the trial-group assignments. Analyses of blood eosinophils and corticosteroid use
were conducted in strict confidentiality by Dr. Eklöf (not to unblind the principal investigator (PS)
and the analysis supervisor (JUJ)). The latter data were presented separately at the unblinding
meeting on January 25, 2019, where all investigators were unblinded to the study results. This trial
was registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial with ClinicalTrials.gov,
number NCT02857842.
Role of the funding source
Funding was provided by the Danish Regions Medical Fund and the Danish Council for
Independent Research. The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection,
data analysis, data interpretation, or in the writing of the report. The principal investigator had full
access to all of the data after the unblinding meeting and the final responsibility of the decision to
submit for publication.11
31
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
32
33
Results
Between August 3, 2016, and September 30, 2018, we screened 1363 patients admitted with COPD
exacerbations in three respiratory medicine departments in Denmark. A total of 318 patients (23%)
of 1363 were randomly assigned to either the eosinophil-guided group (n=159) or the control group
(n=159) within 24 h of admission (figure 1). Thirty patients, after being randomly assigned to a
group, were not fully adherent to treatment algorithm (appendix p 37), resulting in the per-protocol
population of 288 patients, 140 in the eosinophil-guided group and 148 in the control group (figure
1), and thus an adherence to the eosinophil-guided algorithm of the 88·1% and 93·1% in the control
group (supplement). In the eosinophil-guided group, 137 (86%) of 159 patients were discharged
without involving the investigator. In the control group, this number was 143 (90%) of 159
patients. Median time was xx minutes [interquartile range (IQR) xx to yy ] from administration of
systemic corticosteroids until blood samplings for eosinophils was taken on day 1. All 318
randomised patients entered the intention-to-treat analysis. The treatment groups were well
balanced at baseline with respect to demographic and disease characteristics (table 1).
The follow-up for the primary endpoint, re-exacerbation, death, infections requiring antibiotic
treatment and corticosteroid use during admission was complete (100%) for all patients.
Primary endpoint
For the primary outcome (intention-to-treat analysis), DAOH within 14 days after recruitment, no
difference was recorded (mean DAOH of 8·9 [95% CI 8·3 to 9.6] in the eosinophil-guided group
vs. 9·3 [95% CI 8·7 to 9·9] in the control group; between-group absolute difference -0·4 [95% CI -
1·3 to 0·5]; p=0·34).
Results for the per-protocol population were similar (mean DAOH of 9·1 [95% CI 8·4 to 9·8] in the
eosinophil-guided group vs. 9·4 [95% CI 8·8 to 10·0] in the control group; between-group absolute
difference -0·3 [95% CI -1·2 to 0·7]; p = 0·49). 12
34
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
35
36
Secondary endpoints
Within the first 30 days, there was no increase in treatment failure (recurrence of AECOPD
resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalisation or the need to intensify pharmacological
treatment): 42 (26·4%) of 159 patients in the eosinophil-guided group compared to 41 (25·8%) of
159 patients in the control group (difference -0·6% [95% CI -10·0% to 9·0%]; p = 0·90).
Readmission with AECOPD or death at 30 days was found to be 39 (24·5%) of 159 patients and 27
(17·0%) of 159 patients, respectively, in the two groups (figure 2) (difference of 7·5% [95% CI -
1·3% to 16·4%]; p=0·10). After 30 days, 9 (5·7%) of 159 patients died in the eosinophil-guided
group compared to 6 (3·8%) of 159 patients in the control group (difference 1·9% [95% CI -2·8%
to 6·5%]; p = 0·43). The daily usage and the median duration of the systemic corticosteroid therapy
was substantially lower in the eosinophil-guided group compared to the control group (2 days [ IQR
1·0 to 3·0] corresponding to 117·5 mg and 5 days [IQR 5·0 to 5·0] corresponding to 230 mg,
respectively, p < 0·0001 (figure 3). The difference in the mean cumulative corticosteroid dose
continued throughout days 30 and 90 (figure 3, table 2).
During the 90-day follow-up, there was no difference in infections requiring antibiotic treatment in
the eosinophil-guided group compared to the control group (55 (34·6%) of 159 patients vs. 68
(42·8%) of 159 patients; difference of -8·2% [95% CI -18·8% to 2·5%]; p = 0·13, figure 2).
Furthermore, we did not observe differences in dyspepsia, ulcer complication or initiation of new
proton-pump inhibitor treatment at 90 days in the two groups, respectively (table 2). During the 30-
day follow-up, there was no difference in new onset of diabetes mellitus according to HbA1c
definition for patients without pre-existing diabetes (table 2). However, worsening of diabetes
(defined as increasing HbA1c from baseline to day 30) in patients with pre-existing diabetes was
significantly higher in the control group (table 2). Blood glucose levels during admission were
either equal or lower in the eosinophil-guided group from days 3 to 5, but only significantly
different between the groups on day 5 (table 2). At all the time points measured, the mean change 13
37
294
295296297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
38
39
from baseline in FEV1, CAT score, BMI and MRC did not differ between the two groups (table 2
and figure 4). Furthermore, there was no difference in the change in mean of PTH and D-vitamin at
90 days (appendix p. 39) in the groups.
Sensitivity analysis
As post hoc analyses we repeated the analyses for the primary outcome while adjusting for i)
activity of daily living, ii) number of severe AECOPD in the previous year and iii) for all baseline
comorbidities (table 1). This did not affect the signal (supplement). In another post hoc analyse, we
stratified the primary outcome analysis for baseline evidence of pneumonia (table 2). This did not
alter the signal. Additional exploratory analyses were performed as described in the supplement.
Discussion
In this multicentre randomised trial, we assessed patients with severe acute exacerbation in chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease requiring hospital admission. An eosinophil-guided algorithm where
systemic corticosteroids were withheld whenever the daily eosinophil count was below 0·3 109/l did
not result in fewer days alive or out of hospital within 14 days than standard guideline based
treatment. This strategy, however, reduced the duration of systemic corticosteroids to less than half.
Although small numerial differences were observed, in term favouring the control group or the
eosinophil-guided group, no stastistical differences were noted on any secondary endpoints, except
regarding worsening in diabetes mellitus, which was more frequent in the control group. Although
we did not find statistical difference, real differences could happen, but not be identified, especially
for infrequent endpoints, i.e. power issues.
In the Steering Committee, we wanted to make sure, when investigating our hypothesis in the
current trial, that the tested interventional strategy of eosinophil-guided systemic corticosteroids in
AECOPD, would not result in worse outcome regarding length of stay, than not at all using
systemic corticosteroids. Thus, we chose a maximum worsening in the primary outcome measure
equal to the effect of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo, as the non-inferiority boundary.3
14
40
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
41
42
We decided to include the component of all-cause mortality in the primary endpoint in order not to
introduce lead-time bias. Although the tested strategy was successfull in reducing systemic
corticosteroids, we cannot exclude the possibility that a more aggressive algorithm, i.e. one single
dose, may have been more effective.
To the best of our knowledge, only one randomised controlled trial (n = 109) assessed the use of
eosinophil-guided treatment for AECOPD; however, mostly in moderate non-hospitalised
exacerbations.17 In that trial, patients were randomised to either standard oral prednisolone for 14
days to treat AECOPD, while patients in the biomarker-directed arm received prednisolone or
placebo according to a single exacerbation eosinophil count (≥ 2 % vs. < 2%). The investigators
did not not observe any differences in any outcome measures, but they did find a pronounced
reduction of systemic corticosteroids for AECOPD in the biomarker arm. 17 However, unlike our
trial , only ten patients were hospitalised and suffered from a severe exacerbation, and thus the
study population differed markedly from ours where all were hospitalised.17 In line with this,
another randomised controlled trial showed non-inferiority in clinical outcome and reduction of
systemic corticosteroid therapy from 14 to 5-day treatment for AECOPD.5 That study, like ours, had
a spectrum of patients with severe COPD, used a large sample size (n=314) and was a multicentre
trial. Since that trial was published, more knowledge has been acquired on eosinophilic
inflammation in COPD and additionally, the utmost importance of reduction in exposure to
corticosteroids has been increasingly acknowledged.6 Regarding corticosteroid side effects, we only
noted differences regarding worsening of diabetes after one month, which was more frequent in
control patients than in eosinophil-guided patients. The lack of apparent differences regarding other
side-effect measures may, however, also have been caused by insufficient power for these
endpoints, and a relatively short follow-up, which may not capture side-effects that take long time
to develop; e.g. osteoporotic fractures. Specifically, we did not observe any reduction in the number
of infections requiring antibiotic treatment in the eosinophil-guided group. In this context, a recent
study from our group with a large cohort of COPD patients showed that systemic corticosteroids 15
43
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
44
45
increased the risk of infections up to 12 months after exposure.31 The blood glucose levels on day 5
was slightly higher (not hyperglycemia) among patients in the control group than in the eosinophil-
guided group. Although, these results could be interesting from a physiological point of view, the
clinical relevance of this is disputed.
In spite of some strengths of our trial, a number of limitations deserve to be mentioned: First,
although our trial was multicentre and randomised, the design was open-label. The investigators
were blinded to the database, and the authors performing the interim analyses and final analyses
were unaware of the trial-group assignments. However, the physicians, nurses and patients were
aware of the study group assignments and this may have resulted in some non-protocolized co-
interventions. However, the investigators were instructed not to manage the treatment of the
patients in the trial. In some cases, this was not possible for logistic reasons and may have had some
influence. Second, our study did not have sufficient power to detect differences in mortality rate;
this would have demanded several thousands of patients. However, the 30-day mortality in the
current trial was relatively low in both treatment arms (5·7% vs. 3·8%) compared to U.S. data from
>150,000 admissions at 4,500 U.S. hospitals32 in which 30-day mortality was 8·6%, ranging from
5·9% to 13·5%. Additionally, a recent Cochrane meta-analysis of RCT´s (n=1,319) exploring
systemic corticosteroids against placebo, did not find any altered 30-day mortality [OR 1·0, 95% CI
0·6 to 1·7] and thus we consider it unlikely that our algorithm could cause a worse outcome
regarding mortality than placebo.3 Nevertheless, we do acknowledge that our trial is not powered to
detect small differences in mortality. Third, the adherence to our eosinophil-guided algorithm was
not complete for all intervention days (day 2 through 5): only in 88·1% the adherence was
complete. The main reasons for non-adherence was that the treating physician refused (n=10).
However, this fraction was reasonable compared to other trials using biomarker-guided
algorithms.33 For the standard group, the adherence was higher, 93·1%, but still not complete for all
days. It is a limitation that this decision could be made by the treating physician. In this context, in
a few cases, the investigator was involved in conference decisions to discharge patients, which 16
46
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
47
48
could potentially have influenced some of the endpoints. Fourth, it was not possible to measure the
eosinophil count after discharging the patients of the intervention group from hospital. Optimally,
we could have visited the discharged patients at home and made blood samples and continued real-
time eosinophil guidance of systemic corticosteroids. We decided not to do this, since we wanted to
test an intervention that could be implemented directly; this would not be the case, if the
intervention included post-hospitalisation home visits in all patients. We do, however, acknowledge
that these measurements may have been informative. Fifth, we did not have long-term follow-up on
our patients. For some endpoints like infections, adrenal insufficiency, venous thromboembolisms
and osteoporotic fratures34,35, this may be very important, but awaiting these events to happen,
would have delayed the reporting of the trial for several years, and we prioritized to report the
primary, protocolized results immediately. Sixth, only about one in four of the screened patients
were recruited and we cannot be sure that our strategy can be implemented with the same result
among patients more similar to those screened but not eventually recruited. Seven, systemic
corticosteroid administration before blood sampling for esoinophil on day 1 could potentially
influence the blood eosinophil count. However, systemic corticosteorid effect on eosinophils
normally take hours after administration36. Therefore, this effect is probably not so pronounced,
since blood sampling was taken shortly after administration. Eight, all patients received initially
high dose of methylprednisolone according to national guidelines, and we can not exclude that this
could have influenced the outcome. Finally, approximately 2% of the patients were never-smokers.
Although this is a low frequency, and smoking history is not a formal criterion for COPD
diagnosis27, we acknowledge that this is disputed.
In conclusion, our eosinophil-guided strategy resulted in a substantial reduction in systemic
corticosteroid duration in patients suffering from hospitalisation-demanding acute exacerbation of
COPD and was non-inferior regarding days spent alive out of the hospital. Potentially inappropriate
systemic corticosteroid use was stopped in the hospital setting in this highly vulnerable group of
COPD patients with severe COPD without apparent increased risk of death and readmission. 17
49
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
50
51
However, larger studies would help in evaluating the full safety profile of the treatment and control
group, including assesing more accurately which clinical events may be prevented with the new
treatment. Despite several limitations including the open-label design of the trial, eosinophil-guided
corticosteroid treatment is a promising option in hospitalised patients with AECOPD.
Contributors
The study director JUJ and the principal investigator PS of the CORTICO-COP trial take
responsibility for the integrity and the accuracy of their analysis. JUJ, JV, NS, TW and PS
generated the hypothesis for the study. All authors designed the study, collected and interpreted
data, and critically revised the manuscript. PS and JUJ wrote the first protocol, obtained funding for
the study, and initiated the study. PS, TL, RRL, FSH, CS, PSI, KA, CM, JE, JJ, MM, TP, EB and
AKM recruited and followed up patients. PS, JE and JUJ performed the statistical analyses. PS, TL,
RL and JUJ coordinated the trial and were responsible for monitoring. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The CORTICO-COP study is an
investigator-initiated and driven study. No commercial sponsor had or will have any involvement in
the design and conduct of the studies. The participating investigators in the Steering Committee
have the right to the results.
Data sharing
No further data are available.
Acknowledgment
18
52
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
53
54
We wish to thank patients, relatives, clinical staff and research staff at all trial sites. Without their
support the CORTICO-COP trial would never have been completed. JV is supported by the NIHR
Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.
List of abbreviations
AECOPD: Acute Exacerbation of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COPD: CAT: COPD
Assessment Test; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; CRF: Case Report Form; DSMB: Data
and Safety Monitoring Board; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC: forced vital
capacity; FEV1/FVC ratio, also called Tiffeneau-index; GCP: Good Clinical Practice; GOLD:
Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease; ICS: Inhaled corticosteroids; MRC:
Medical Research Council; QoL:Quality-of-life.
References
1.Wedzicha JA, Singh R, Mackay AJ. Acute COPD exacerbations. Clin Chest Med 2014; 35(1): 157-63.2.Seemungal TA, Donaldson GC, Paul EA, Bestall JC, Jeffries DJ, Wedzicha JA. Effect of exacerbation on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 157(5 Pt 1): 1418-22.3.Walters JA, Tan DJ, White CJ, Gibson PG, Wood-Baker R, Walters EH. Systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (9): CD001288.4.Laue J, Reierth E, Melbye H. When should acute exacerbations of COPD be treated with systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics in primary care: a systematic review of current COPD guidelines. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2015; 25: 15002.5.Leuppi JD, Schuetz P, Bingisser R, et al. Short-term vs conventional glucocorticoid therapy in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the REDUCE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2013; 309(21): 2223-31.6.Waljee AK, Rogers MA, Lin P, et al. Short term use of oral corticosteroids and related harms among adults in the United States: population based cohort study. Bmj 2017; 357: j1415.7.Broersen LH, Pereira AM, Jorgensen JO, Dekkers OM. Adrenal Insufficiency in Corticosteroids Use: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100(6): 2171-80.8.Walsh LJ, Wong CA, Oborne J, et al. Adverse effects of oral corticosteroids in relation to dose in patients with lung disease. Thorax 2001; 56(4): 279-84.9.Agusti A, Bel E, Thomas M, et al. Treatable traits: toward precision medicine of chronic airway diseases. Eur Respir J 2016; 47(2): 410-9.10.Brusselle G, Pavord ID, Landis S, et al. Blood eosinophil levels as a biomarker in COPD. Respir Med 2018; 138: 21-31.
19
55
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483
56
57
11.Bafadhel M, McKenna S, 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(6): 662-71.12.Brightling CE, Monteiro W, Ward R, et al. Sputum eosinophilia and short-term response to prednisolone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 356(9240): 1480-5.13.Singh D, Kolsum U, Brightling CE, et al. Eosinophilic inflammation in COPD: prevalence and clinical characteristics. Eur Respir J 2014; 44(6): 1697-700.14.Bafadhel M, Pavord ID, Russell REK. Eosinophils in COPD: just another biomarker? Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5(9): 747-59.15.Vedel-Krogh S, Nielsen SF, Lange P, Vestbo J, Nordestgaard BG. Blood Eosinophils and Exacerbations in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The Copenhagen General Population Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193(9): 965-74.16.Yun JH, Lamb A, Chase R, et al. Blood eosinophil count thresholds and exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2018; 141(6): 2037-47 e10.17.Bafadhel M, McKenna S, Terry S, et al. Blood eosinophils to direct corticosteroid treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186(1): 48-55.18.Serafino-Agrusa L, Scichilone N, Spatafora M, Battaglia S. Blood eosinophils and treatment response in hospitalized exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A case-control study. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2016; 37: 89-94.19.Bafadhel M, Davies L, Calverley PM, Aaron SD, Brightling CE, Pavord ID. Blood eosinophil guided prednisolone therapy for exacerbations of COPD: a further analysis. Eur Respir J 2014; 44(3): 789-91.20.Camp J, Cane JL, Bafadhel M. Shall We Focus on the Eosinophil to Guide Treatment with Systemic Corticosteroids during Acute Exacerbations of COPD?: PRO. Med Sci (Basel) 2018; 6(3).21.Duman D, Aksoy E, Agca MC, et al. The utility of inflammatory markers to predict readmissions and mortality in COPD cases with or without eosinophilia. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2015; 10: 2469-78.22.Bafadhel M, Greening NJ, Harvey-Dunstan TC, et al. Blood Eosinophils and Outcomes in Severe Hospitalized Exacerbations of COPD. Chest 2016; 150(2): 320-8.23.Sivapalan P, Moberg M, Eklof J, et al. A multi-center randomized, controlled, open-label trial evaluating the effects of eosinophil-guided corticosteroid-sparing therapy in hospitalised patients with COPD exacerbations - The CORTICO steroid reduction in COPD (CORTICO-COP) study protocol. BMC Pulm Med 2017; 17(1): 114.24.ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. J Postgrad Med 2001; 47(1): 45-50.25.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama 2013; 310(20): 2191-4.26.Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869.27.Singh D, Agusti A, Anzueto A, et al. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: The GOLD Science Committee Report 2019. Eur Respir J 2019.28.Ariti CA, Cleland JG, Pocock SJ, et al. Days alive and out of hospital and the patient journey in patients with heart failure: Insights from the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. Am Heart J 2011; 162(5): 900-6.29.Walters JA, Tan DJ, White CJ, Wood-Baker R. Different durations of corticosteroid therapy for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (12): CD006897.
20
58
484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534
59
60
30.O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35(3): 549-56.31.Sivapalan PI, T; Rasmussen,DB, et al. COPD exacerbations: The impact of long versus short courses of oral corticosteroids on mortality and pneumonia: nationwide data on 67 000 patients with COPD followed for 12 months. BMJ Open Resp Res 2019; 6(e000407).32.Lindenauer PK, Grosso LM, Wang C, et al. Development, validation, and results of a risk-standardized measure of hospital 30-day mortality for patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Hosp Med 2013; 8(8): 428-35.33.de Jong E, van Oers JA, Beishuizen A, et al. Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomised, controlled, open-label trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16(7): 819-27.34.Walters JA, Tan DJ, White CJ, Wood-Baker R. Different durations of corticosteroid therapy for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 3: CD006897.35.Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Fracture risk in patients with chronic lung diseases treated with bronchodilator drugs and inhaled and oral corticosteroids. Chest 2007; 132(5): 1599-607.36.Thorn GW, Renold AE, Wilson DL, et al. Clinical studies on the activity of orally administered cortisone. N Engl J Med 1951; 245(15): 549-55.
21
61
535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556
62
63
Research in context
Blood eosinophil counts have been suggested as a biomarker to guide systemic corticosteroid
treatment in patients with exacerbation of COPD. It has been shown that higher blood eosinophil
counts are associated with a better response to oral corticosteroids in patients with an acute
exacerbation of COPD. We searched PubMed for papers using the following seach item: “COPD”
AND “eosinophil count” AND “corticosteroids” with no language or date limitations. We limited
the search to studies in human being. We excluded studies in children and studies in which the
association with inhaled corticosteroids and eosinophil count was assessed. Most of the papers
were stpost hoc analyses of clinical trials and observational studies. Only one randomised controlled
trial was identified. This study concluded that eosinophil-guided corticosteroid treatment could be
used safely in moderate COPD exacerbations. In that trial, patients treated with prednisolone for 2
weeks were compared with a biomarker-guided group (receiving prednisolone or placebo based on
a single exacerbation blood eosinophil count). The results of this study showed no difference in
health status or treatment failure rates between the groups.
22
64
557558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
65
66
Added value of this study
To our knowledge, CORTICO-COP is the first randomised trial to show non-inferiority in treating
hospitalised patients with severe COPD exacerbation through biomarker-guided corticosteroid
therapy and simultaneously reducing the overall exposure to systemic corticosteroids by
approximately half. Implementation of this strategy is most likely to reduce, both on individual and
societal levels, the burden of corticosteroid adverse effects substantially in a large and vulnerable
patient group. Additionally, since the differential count of white blood cells is inexpensive and
readily available in most hospital settings, this strategy can easily be implemented, without
establishing new hospital infrastructure, even in resource-constrained environments.
Implications of all available evidence
Our findings may improve patient care and clinical practice in patients with COPD exacerbations.
Reducing ineffective systemic corticosteroid treatment is important due to the well-known longterm
adverse effects of this treatment.
23
67
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
68
69
Eosinophil-guided group Control group (n=159) (n=159) Demographics
Age (years) 75 (69-81) 75 (68-82)Male 73 (45·9) 70 (44·0)BMI (kg/m2) 24·2 (20·8-26·6) 23·6 (20·3-27·9)MRC 4 (3-5) 4 (3-5)FEV1 (L) 0·7 (0·5-0·9) 0·7 (0·5-0·9)FEV1 %predicted 32 (23-38·5) 30 (23-40·5)FVC (L) 1·6 (1·2-2·1) 1·6 (1·2-2·1)FVC %predicted 56 (42-72) 56·5 (44-70)FEV1/FVC ratio % 0·44 (0·35-0·54) 0·45 (0·37 - 0·55)
SmokingCurrent 54 (34·0%) 50 (31·4%) Past 103 (64·8%) 105 (66·0%)Pack-years smoked, y 45 (30-57) 48 (35-56)CAT score 21 (17-26) 21 (15-26)NIV 4 (2·5%) 5 (3·1%)
SymptomsIncreased dyspnea 146 (91·8%) 151 (95·0%)Increased sputum volume 33 (20·8%) 34 (21·4%)Increased sputum purulence and cough 45 (28·3%) 47 (29·6%)
Comorbidities Diabetes mellitus 24 (15·1%) 15 (9·4%)Ischemic heart disease 22 (13·8%) 15 (9·4%)Essential hypertension 64 (40·3%) 61 (38.4%)Hypercholesterolemia 19 (11·9%) 19 (11·9%)Chronic renal failure 12 (7·5%) 10 (6·3%)Heart failure 17 (10·7%) 13 (8·2%)Osteoporosis 33 (20·8%) 26 (16·4%)
Clinical findings Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 130 (117-142) 127 (116 - 139) Diastoic blood pressure (mm Hg) 70 (62-78) 70 (62-80)Heart rate, beats/min 89 (79 - 99) 89 (81 - 99)Oxygen saturation with nasal oxygen 95 (93 - 96) 95 (93-96)Oxygen supply, l/min 2 (1-2) 2 (1-2)Respiratory rate – breaths/min 20 (18-22) 20 (18-22)Temperature (°C) 36·6 (36·3 -36·9) 36·6 (36·4 – 36·9)
Laboratory findings Infiltrate on Chest X-ray 45 (28·3%) 56 (35·2%)Leukocytes (109 cells per liter) 9·8 (7·5-13·5) 9·9 (7·9-13·1)Eosinophils (109 cells per liter) 0·10 (0·01-0·30) 0·06 (0·01-0·20)pH 7·42 (7·38-7·46) 7·42 (7·39 – 7·45)PaCO2 (kPa) 5·4 (4·7 – 6·2) 5·3 (4·7-6·4)PaO2 (kPa) 9·1 (8·2-10·2) 8·8 (7·9-10·1)Ion-Ca (mmol/l) 1·18 (1·15-1·22) 1.19 (1·15-1·22)
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Study ParticipantsData are number (%) or median (IQR), unless otherwise specified. BMI = Body Mass Index. FEV1 = forced expiratory volume in 1 second. CAT = COPD Asessment Test. NIV = Non invasiv ventilation.
24
70
587
588
71
72
Primary endpoint Eosinophil-guided group Control groupBetween-group
absolute difference p valueIntention-to-treat (n = 318):Days alive and out of hospital within 14 days after recruitment, mean (95% CI)
8·9 (8·3 to 9·6) 9·3 (8·7 to 9·9) 0·4 (-0·5 to 1·3) 0·34
Per-protocol (n =296):Days alive and out of hospital within 14 days after recruitment, mean (95% CI)
9·1 (8·5 to 9·8) 9·4 (8·8 to 10·0) 0·3 (-0·7 to 1·2) 0·59
Secondary endpointsTreatment failure 30-day 42 (26·4%) 41 (25·8%) 0·6% (-0·09 to 0·10) 0·90
AECOPD readmission or death 30-day 39 (24·5%) 27 (17·0%) 7·5% (-0·01 to 0·16) 0·10
Mortality 30-day 9 (5·7%) 6 (3·8%) 1·9% (-0·03 to 0·07) 0·43Time to readmission with AECOPD or death within 30 days - HR (95% CI)
1·5 (0·9 to 2·5) 1·0 0·09
Cumulative corticosteroid dosageDay 5 2·0 (1·0-3·0) 5·0 (5·0 - 5·0) 3·0 <0·0001Day 30 (mg) mean (95% CI) 173·8 (151·1 to 196·6) 292·7 (272·7 to 312·7) 118·9 (88·8 to 148·9) <0·0001Day 90 (mg) mean (95% CI) 260·8 (216·1 to 305·5) 420·7 (353·1 to 488·3) 159·9 (77·3 to 242·5) 0·0002
FEV1 (ml, change from baseline) Day 3 17·6 (-16·4 to 51·7) 11·0 (-23·2 to 45·2) 6·6 (-41·5 to 54·8) 0·79Day 30 188·3 (130·0 to 246·7) 170·0 (115·1 to 224·9) 18·3 (-61·9 to 98·5) 0·65Day 90 183·9 (122·5 to 245·4) 184·4 (126·4 to 242·3) -0·5 (-85·1 to 84.2) 0·99
CAT Score (change from baseline) Day 30 -2·2 (-3·4 to -1·0) -1·9 (-3·0 to -0·7) -0·3 (-2·0 to 1·3) 0·67Day 90 -3·6 (-4·9 to -2·3) -3·3 (-4·5 to -2·1) -0·3 (-1·9 to 1·4) 0·76
BMI (change from baseline)Day 30 0·006 (-0·3 to 0·3) -0·1 (-0·4 to 0·1) 0·1 (-0·2 to 0·5) 0·48Day 90 -0·06 (-0·3 to 0.2) -0·1 (-0·4 to 0.1) 0·08 (-0·3 to 0·5) 0·71
MRC (change from baseline)Day 30 0·1 (-0·1 to 0·3) -0·1 (-0·3 to 0·1) 0·2 (-0·1 to 0·4) 0·15Day 90 -0·1 (-0·3 to 0·1) -0·2 (-0·4 to -0·1) 0·1 (-0·1 to 0·4) 0·37Adverse events at 90 daysInfection requiring antibiotic treatment 54 (39·6%) 68 (42·8%) 8·8% (-0·2 to 0·0) 0·11Dyspepsia, ulcer complication or new PPI treatment
11 (6·9%) 12 (7·5%) 0·6% (-0·05 to 0·06) 0·83
New onset or worsening of diabetes mellitus at 30 days
12 (7·5%) 10 (6·3%) 1·3% (-0·07 to 0·04) 0·66
Blood glucose - mean (95% CI) Day 1 8·1 (7·6 to 8·6) 8·0 (7·6 to 8·4) 0·1 (-0·7 to 0·5) 0·68 Day 2 6·9 (6·5 to 7·2) 6·9 (6·5 to 7·2) 0·0 (-0·5 to 0·5) 0·97 Day 3 6·1 (5·8 to 6·4) 6·6 (6·1 to 7·1) 0·5 (-0·1 to 1·0) 0·13 Day 4 6·2 (5·9 to 6·6) 6·2 (5·9 to 6·5) 0·0 (-0·5 to 0·5) 0·93 Day 5 6·1 (5·8 to 6·5) 6·7 (6·2 to 7·3) 0·6 (0·0 to 1·2) 0.04
Table 2: Primary and secondary outcome measuresData are number(%), difference (95% CI), or median (IQR), unless otherwise specified. AECOPD = Acute exacerbation of COPD. HR = Hazard Ratio. CI = Confidens Interval.
25
73
589
590
591
74
75
Figure 1: Trial profile
Figure 2: Systemic corticosteroid (SC) use. (A) Proportions of patients on SC. (B) Median duration of SC use during the first 5 days.
26
76
592
593594595596597
77
78
Figure 3: Mean cumulative systemic corticosteroid (SC) dose (mg) during follow-up at: (A) day 30 and (B) day 90.
27
79
598
599
600601602603
80
81
Figure 4: (A) AECOPD readmission during follow-up. (B) infections requiring antibiotic treatment during follow-up
28
82
604605
606
607
608
609610
83
84
Figure 5a: FEV1 change from randomisation to end of follow-up Figure 5b: CAT score change from randomisation to end of follow-up Figure 5c: BMI change from randomisation to end of follow-up Figure 5d: MRC score change from randomisation to end of follow-up
29
85
611
612613614615616617618619620
86
87
30
88
621
622
89
90