Background: Over the last few decades, the efficacy of biological therapies for COPD has been evaluated by different randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Still, the evaluation of real-world data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been performed in this field before. In the current work, we present a systematic literature review of the real-world data and PROMs of biological treatments for COPD. Methods: Three large databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were utilized for the systematic literature review. Clinical studies (RCT, cohorts, case series/reports) assessing patients with COPD treated by any biological therapy were included. Results: The review resulted in twelve eligible studies (nine randomized controlled trials and three “real-world” case series/reports). The evaluation of PROMs in the included studies was mainly limited to the severity and burden of respiratory symptoms. Most biological therapies were associated with improved PROMs compared to the baseline, although not for the placebo. Dupilumab was the only biologic therapy with proven efficacy in RCT for both objective and subjective measures. One prior study reported patients’ self-perceived drug effects, and none evaluated patients’ perceived disease status. Only 25 patients were assessed in a real-world setting for all biologic therapies combined. Real-world data were retrospective in the form of case reports or series. Conclusions: There are limited data on patients’ experience with biological therapies for COPD. While real-world data and PROMs are missing, biases such as a placebo effect must be considered, requiring their incorporation with objective outcomes from prospective controlled trials.

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is a heterogeneous interstitial lung disease (ILD) that may be difficult to confidently diagnose. Recently, the 2020 ATS/JRS/ALAT HP diagnostic guidelines were published, yet data validating their performance in real-life settings are scarce. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of the HP guidelines compared to the gold-standard multidisciplinary discussion (MDD). For this purpose, we included consecutive ILD patients that underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy between 2017 and 2020 in three large medical centers. Four diagnostic factors (antigen exposure history, chest computed tomography pattern, bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocyte count, and histology results) were used to assign guidelines-based HP diagnostic confidence levels for each patient. A sensitivity analysis was performed, with MDD diagnosis as the reference standard. Overall, 213 ILD patients were included, 45 (21%) with an MDD diagnosis of HP. The guidelines’ moderate (≥70%) confidence threshold produced optimal performance with 73% sensitivity for HP, 89% specificity, and a J-index of 0.62. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for a correct guidelines-based diagnosis was 0.86. The guidelines had better performance for non-fibrotic than fibrotic HP (AUC 0.92 vs. 0.82). All diagnostic factors, except bronchoalveolar lavage lymphocyte count, were independent predictors for MDD diagnosis of HP in a multivariate analysis. In conclusion, the HP guidelines exhibited a good diagnostic performance compared to MDD diagnosis in real-life setting.