Introduction: A low body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased mortality and low health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. The Asia-Pacific classification of BMI has a lower cutoff for overweight and obese categories compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification. The present study assessed patients with COPD among different BMI categories according to two BMI classification systems: WHO and Asia-Pacific. Patients and methods: Patients with COPD aged 40 years or older from the Korean COPD Subtype Study cohort were selected for evaluation. We enrolled 1,462 patients. Medical history including age, sex, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C), the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) were evaluated. Patients were categorized into different BMI groups according to the two BMI classification systems. Result: FEV₁ and the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage revealed an inverse “U”-shaped pattern as the BMI groups changed from underweight to obese when WHO cutoffs were applied. When Asia-Pacific cutoffs were applied, FEV₁ and DLCO (%) exhibited a linearly ascending relationship as the BMI increased, and the percentage of patients in the overweight and obese groups linearly decreased with increasing severity of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria. From the underweight to the overweight groups, SGRQ-C and mMRC had a decreasing relationship in both the WHO and Asia-Pacific classifications. The prevalence of comorbidities in the different BMI groups showed similar trends in both BMI classifications systems.
Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that patients with COPD who have a high BMI have better pulmonary function and health-related quality of life and reduced dyspnea symptoms. Furthermore, the Asia-Pacific BMI classification more appropriately reflects the correlation of obesity and disease manifestation in Asian COPD patients than the WHO classification.

Clinical characteristics of the international population with severe asthma are unknown. Intercountry comparisons are hindered by variable data collection within regional and national severe asthma registries. We aimed to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of patients treated in severe asthma services in the United States, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. The International Severe Asthma Registry retrospectively and prospectively collected data in patients with severe asthma (≥ 18 years old), receiving Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Step 5 treatment or with severe asthma remaining uncontrolled at GINA Step 4. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected from the United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Italy, and the Severe Asthma Web-based Database registry (including Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand) from December 2014 to December 2017. We included 4,990 patients. Mean (SD) age was 55.0 (15.9) years, and mean (SD) age at asthma onset was 30.7 (17.7) years. Patients were predominantly female (59.3%) and white (72.6%), had never smoked (60.5%), and were overweight or obese (70.4%); 34.9% were at GINA Step 5; and 57.2% had poorly controlled disease. A total of 51.1% of patients were receiving regular intermittent oral corticosteroids, and 25.4% were receiving biologics (72.6% for those at GINA Step 5). Mean (SD) exacerbation rate was 1.7 (2.7) per year. Intercountry variation was observed in clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, and biomarker profiles. Using a common data set and definitions, this study describes severe asthma characteristics of a large patient cohort included in multiple severe asthma registries and identifies country differences. Whether these are related to underlying epidemiological factors, environmental factors, phenotypes, asthma management systems, treatment access, and/or cultural factors requires further study.

Phenotypic characteristics of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma patients are not well-characterized in global, real life severe asthma cohorts. What is the prevalence of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic phenotypes in the severe asthma population, and can they be differentiated by clinical and biomarker variables? This was an historical, registry study. Adult severe asthma patients with available blood eosinophil count (BEC) from 11 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (01/01/2015 to 09/30/2019) were categorized according to likelihood of eosinophilic phenotype using a pre-defined gradient eosinophilic algorithm based on highest BEC, long-term oral corticosteroid use, elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide, nasal polyps, and adult-onset asthma. Demographic/clinical characteristics were defined at baseline (i.e. 1-year prior or closest to date of BEC). 1,716 patients with prospective data were included; 83.8% were identified as "most likely" (Grade 3), 8.3% were "likely" (Grade 2), and 6.3% "least likely" (Grade 1) to have an eosinophilic phenotype. 1.6% of patients had a non-eosinophilic phenotype (Grade 0). Eosinophilic phenotype patients (i.e. Grade 2 or 3) had later asthma onset (29.1 vs 6.7 yrs; p<0.001), and worse lung function (post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV₁: 76.1% vs 89.3%; p=0.027) than those with a non-eosinophilic phenotype. Non-eosinophilic-phenotype patients were more likely to be female (81.5% vs 62.9%; p=0.047), have eczema (20.8% vs 8.5%; p=0.003) and use anti-IgE (32.1% vs 13.4%; p=0.004) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (50.0% vs 28.0%; p=0.011) add-on therapy. According to this multi-component, consensus-driven, and evidence-based eosinophil gradient algorithm (using variables readily accessible in real life), the severe asthma eosinophilic phenotype was more prevalent than previously identified, and phenotypically distinct. This pragmatic gradient algorithm utilizes variables readily accessible in primary and specialist care, addressing inherent issues of phenotype heterogeneity and phenotype instability. Identification of treatable traits across phenotypes should improve therapeutic precision. None.

The clinical characteristics and optimal duration of corticosteroid treatment for acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP) have not been fully evaluated. This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from 137 patients with AEP, treated with standardised protocol, to clarify the clinical characteristics and compare the efficacies of 2 weeks versus 4 weeks of corticosteroid treatment for AEP. The majority of the patients altered their smoking habits within a median (interquartile range) of 17 (13-26) days prior to development of AEP. 80 (58%) patients presented with acute respiratory failure. A total of 127 (92%) patients were treated with corticosteroids: 4 weeks, n=42; 2 weeks, n=85. Major symptoms were resolved in 3 days and the severity of respiratory failure was inversely correlated with clinical outcomes. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, the differences in adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) for resolution of dyspnoea and disappearance of all symptoms were 0.57 (-0.71-1.86) and -0.04 (-1.91-1.83) days, respectively. The difference in adjusted proportion of resolution of radiological abnormalities was 6.92% (-8.19-22.02). In conclusion, the duration of corticosteroid treatment could be shortened to 2 weeks, even in patients with respiratory failure.

Rationale: There is no consensus on criteria to include in an asthma remission definition in real life. Factors associated with achieving remission after biologic initiation remain poorly understood. Objectives: To quantify the proportion of adults with severe asthma achieving multidomain-defined remission after biologic initiation and identify prebiologic characteristics associated with achieving remission that may be used to predict it. Methods: This was a longitudinal cohort study using data from 23 countries from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Four asthma outcome domains were assessed in the 1 year before and after biologic initiation. A priori–defined remission cutoffs were: 0 exacerbations/yr, no long-term oral corticosteroid (LTOCS), partly/well-controlled asthma, and percent predicted FEV1 ⩾ 80%. Remission was defined using two (exacerbations + LTOCS), three (+control or +lung function), and four of these domains. The association between prebiologic characteristics and postbiologic remission was assessed by multivariable analysis. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 50.2%, 33.5%, 25.8%, and 20.3% of patients met criteria for two-, three- (+control), three- (+lung function), and four-domain remission, respectively. The odds of achieving four-domain remission decreased by 15% for every additional 10 years of asthma duration (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–1.00). The odds of remission increased in those with fewer exacerbations per year, lower LTOCS daily dose, better control, and better lung function before biologic initiation. Conclusions: One in five patients achieved four-domain remission within 1 year of biologic initiation. Patients with less severe impairment and shorter asthma duration at initiation had a greater chance of achieving remission after biologic treatment, indicating that biologic treatment should not be delayed if remission is the goal.