The well-recognized individual heterogeneity within COPD patients has led to a growing interest in greater personalization in the approach of these patients. Thus, the treatable traits strategy has been proposed as a further step towards precision medicine in the management of chronic airway disease, both in stable phase and acute exacerbations. The aim of this paper is to perform a critical review on the treatable traits strategy and propose a guide to approach COPD patients in the light of this new concept. An innovative stepwise approach is proposed – a multidisciplinary model based on two distinct phases, with the potential to be implemented in both primary care and hospital settings. The first phase is the initial and focused assessment of a selected subset of treatable traits, which should be addressed in all COPD patients in both settings (primary care and hospital). As some patients may present with advanced disease at diagnosis or may progress despite this initial treatment requiring a more specialized assessment, they should progress to a second phase, in which a broader approach is recommended. Beyond stable COPD, we explore how the treatable traits strategy may be applied to reduce the risk of future exacerbations and improve the management of COPD exacerbations. Since many treatable traits have already been related to exacerbation risk, the strategy proposed here represents an opportunity to be proactive. Although it still lacks prospective validation, we believe this is the way forward for the future of the COPD approach.

Background/Objectives: A comprehensive and up-to-date review on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with COPD is needed. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the risk of a range of CVD in patients with COPD. Methods: We searched three databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, SCOPUS) from inception to September 2023 using terms related to COPD and CVD. Observational studies were included if they (1) were conducted in adults with a diagnosis of COPD based on the GOLD criteria, spirometry, physician diagnosis, or review of electronic health records; (2) reported the risk of CVD, namely of myocardial infarction (MI), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease, compared with a control population using a measure of risk. A narrative synthesis was used. Results: Twenty-four studies from 2015 to 2023, mainly from Europe (n = 17), were included. A total of 3,485,392 patients with COPD (43.5–76.0% male; 63.9–73.5 yrs) and 31,480,333 (40.0–55.4% male, 49.3–70.0 yrs) controls were included. A higher risk of CVD in patients with COPD was evident regarding overall CVD, MI, IHD, heart failure, and angina. Higher risks of arrhythmia and AF, stroke, sudden cardiac death/arrest, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease were also found, although based on a small amount of evidence. Conclusions: Patients with COPD have a higher risk of CVD than the general population or matched controls. This review underscores the need for vigilant and close monitoring of cardiovascular risk in individuals with COPD to inform more precise preventive strategies and targeted interventions to enhance their overall management.

Background and aim: The kinetics of antibody production in response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is not well-defined yet. This study aimed to evaluate the antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and its dynamics during 9-months in a cohort of patients infected during the first phase of the pandemic. As a secondary aim, it was intended to evaluate the factors associated with different concentrations of IgG antibodies.Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted from June 2020 to January 2021. This study recruited a convenience sample of adult individuals who where recently diagnosed with COVID-19 and were living in mainland Portugal. A total of 1,695 blood samples were collected from 585 recovered COVID-19 patients up to 9 months after SARS-CoV-2 acute infection. A blood sample was collected at baseline and three, 6 and 9 months after SARS-CoV-2 acute infection to assess the concentration of IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2.Results: The positivity rate of IgG reached 77.7% in the first 3 months after symptom onset. The IgG persists at all subsequent follow-up time-points, which was 87.7 and 89.2% in the 6th and 9th months after symptom onset, respectively. Three distinct kinetics of antibody response were found within the 9 months after infection. Kinetic 1 (K1) was characterized by a constant low IgG antibody concentration kinetic (group size: 65.2%); kinetic 2 (K2), composed by constant moderate IgG kinetic (group size: 27.5%) and kinetic 3 (K3) characterized by higher IgG kinetic (group size: 7.3%). People with ≥56 years old (OR: 3.33; CI 95%: [1.64; 6.67]; p-value: 0.001) and symptomatic COVID-19 (OR: 2.08; CI 95%: [1.08; 4.00]; p-value: 0.031) had higher odds of a “Moderate IgG kinetic.” No significant association were found regarding the “Higher IgG kinetic.”Conclusion: Our results demonstrate a lasting anti-spike (anti-S) IgG antibody response at least 9 months after infection in the majority of patients with COVID-19. Younger participants with asymptomatic disease have lower IgG antibody positivity and possibly more susceptible to reinfection. This information contributes to expanding knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 immune response and has direct implications in the adoption of preventive strategies and public health policies.

There are currently no reliable instruments for assessing the onset and progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or predicting its prognosis. Currently, a comprehensive assessment of COPD including several objective and subjective parameters is recommended. However, the lack of biomarkers precludes a correct assessment of COPD severity, which consequently hampers adequate therapeutic approaches and COPD control. In the absence of a definition of "well-controlled disease", a consensus regarding COPD control will be difficult to reach. However, COPD patient assessment should be multidimensional, and anchored in five points: control of symptoms, decline of pulmonary function, levels of physical activity, exacerbations, and Quality of Life. Several non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures are currently available to achieve disease control. Smoking cessation, vaccination, exercise training programs and pulmonary rehabilitation are recognized as important non-pharmacological measures but bronchodilators are the pivotal therapy in the control of COPD. This paper discusses several objective and subjective parameters that may bridge the gap between disease assessment and disease control. The authors conclude that, at present, it is not possible to reach a consensus regarding COPD control, essentially due to the lack of objective instruments to measure it. Some recommendations are set forth, but true COPD control awaits further objective assessments.

Background: Pulse oximetry has become an essential tool in clinical practice. With patient self-management becoming more prevalent, pulse oximetry self-monitoring has the potential to become common practice in the near future. This study sought to compare the accuracy of two pulse oximeters, a high-quality standard pulse oximeter and an inexpensive pocket pulse oximeter, and to compare both devices with arterial blood co-oximetry oxygen saturation. Methods: A total of 95 patients (35.8% women; mean [±SD] age 63.1 ± 13.9 years; mean arterial pressure was 92 ± 12.0 mmHg; mean axillar temperature 36.3 ± 0.4°C) presenting to our hospital for blood gas analysis was evaluated. The Bland-Altman technique was performed to calculate bias and precision, as well as agreement limits. Student's t test was performed. Results: Standard oximeter presented 1.84% bias and a precision error of 1.80%. Pocket oximeter presented a bias of 1.85% and a precision error of 2.21%. Agreement limits were −1.69% to 5.37% (sta...