Exacerbations as an outcome in clinical research of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract

Background: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a minimally reversible, inflammatory condition of the lower airways. Addressing exacerbations – acute episodes of symptom worsening - has emerged as a priority in the development of COPD management strategies and shapes the ethos behind trial design and concepts of efficacy in this field. Currently, there is poor consensus as to how the different aspects of exacerbations should be integrated into clinical trial outcomes. Furthermore, as COPD exacerbations are a relatively newly defined clinical entity there is a need to re-examine previous assumptions regarding the clinical efficacy of established interventions, incorporating updated knowledge and research methods. Aims: The aim of this thesis was to investigate how COPD exacerbations are represented and used as a measured outcome of efficacy and safety in past and current clinical trials of exacerbation prevention and management. The secondary aim was to develop a range of skills needed to conduct original research in this area. Methods: Five studies were conducted. These were a systematic literature review of exacerbation-based outcomes in published clinical trials, qualitative analysis of original interview data to assess COPD patient priorities in exacerbation treatment and future research, and a case series of an app-based exacerbation identification system. Quantitative analyses of the TASCS (Theophylline and Steroids in COPD Study) and PACE (Preventing Adverse Cardiac Events in COPD) trial datasets were performed to advance our understanding of how pharmacological agents modulate exacerbation properties in different COPD patient phenotypes. Results & Conclusions: The heterogeneity and evolving understanding of the pathophysiology of COPD is new knowledge which should be incorporated into clinical trial design and conduct. This was shown in the analyses of the TASCS and PACE trial data, where established understandings of exacerbations and different patient phenotypes were challenged by the findings. The results of the remaining three studies suggest that: (i) trial outcomes pertaining to exacerbations should be standardised and validated, and (ii) how these outcomes are defined, valued by patients, and measured should be clearly communicated and accurately cited. This will improve data quality, enhance representation of patient values in future research and minimise ambiguity in communicating research results.