# Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatments to prevent COPD exacerbations: applicability to real-life patients

Laurie Pahus, Pierre-Régis Burgel, Nicolas Roche, Jean-Louis Paillasseur, Pascal Chanez

► To cite this version:

Laurie Pahus, Pierre-Régis Burgel, Nicolas Roche, Jean-Louis Paillasseur, Pascal Chanez. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatments to prevent COPD exacerbations: applicability to real-life patients. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 2019, 19, 10.1186/s12890-019-0882-y. hal-02619803

HAL Id: hal-02619803

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02619803

Submitted on 25 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Randomized controlled trials of
pharmacological treatments to prevent
COPD exacerbations: applicability to
real-life patients

Laurie Pahus¹,<fnref n="2" />,³*, Pierre-Régis Burgel⁴,⁵, Nicolas Roche⁴,⁵, Jean-Louis Paillasseur⁶, Pascal Chanez¹,³ and on behalf
of Initiatives BPCO scientific committee

**Abstract**

**Background:** In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, all efforts should be made to prevent exacerbations because each event modifies the trajectory of the disease. Treatment recommendations are mostly built on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whose methodology ensure internal validity. However, their relevance may be compromised by the lack of generalizability, due to poor representability of study populations compared to real-life patients.

In order to delimit to whom the results of studies on current and future treatments apply, we sought to identify and characterize the fraction of COPD population that would be eligible for inclusion into RCTs aiming at decreasing exacerbation risk.

**Methods:** We used the Initiatives-BPCO database, a French cohort of 1309 real-life COPD patients monitored in academic centers. We identified industry-sponsored phase III and IV trials that enrolled more than 500 patients, lasted at least one year and used exacerbations related endpoints. Eligibility criteria were extracted from each trial and applied to the patients.

**Results:** The eligibility criteria of 16 RCTs were applied to the 1309 patients. The most discriminating eligibility criteria were FEV1, minimum exacerbation rate in the previous year and smoking history, responsible for the exclusion of 39.9, 36.7 and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Altogether, 2.3 to 46.7% of our patients would have satisfied all eligibility criteria.

**Conclusion:** These analyses confirm that an important gap exists between real-life patients and clinical trials populations in COPD, which limits the relevance of results and therefore should be considered when grading levels of evidence and designing future studies.

**Keywords:** Clinical research, External validity, COPD exacerbations

<footnote>* Correspondence: Laurie.Pahus@ap-hm.fr
¹Clinique des bronches allergies et sommeil, Aix Marseille Univ, APHM, CIC 9502, 13015 Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²ADES, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, Marseille, France
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
## Background

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a major public health concern worldwide due to its high prevalence, major impact on health status and elevated costs [1–3]. In most patients, the natural course of the disease is complicated by acute episodes of symptom flares called exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations, especially of the moderate and severe subtypes, have been shown to impair quality of life [4], accelerate the decline in lung function [5] and decrease survival [6].

Each exacerbation has the potential to alter the trajectory of the disease course, increasing the risk for subsequent events [7, 8] and shortening the time to the next event [6]. The decisive turning point may be the second severe episode, which delineates a new phase of the disease associated with higher mortality rates [6].

Facing this, all efforts should be made to prevent COPD exacerbations [9]. Several marketed drugs have been shown to decrease the exacerbation rate, and others are currently being tested through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for this purpose. Treatment recommendations for the management of COPD and related exacerbations are mostly built on these RCTs results [10]. For both scientific community and public opinions, the high level of evidence produced by RCTs drives treatment recommendations and labels the clinical management as “evidence-based”.

However, despite a strong methodology ensuring internal validity of results, skepticism about the representativeness of such trials populations towards real-life patients has grown [11–18]. As a consequence of narrow eligibility criteria, efficacy results may not apply to some patients and, more importantly, safety results may underestimate potential side effects. As a result, the importance of real-life evidence to complement RCTs has been emphasized and these study designs have been positioned within a global framework of therapeutic research [19].

The GOLD document on COPD management [10] acknowledges that the lack of external validity may compromise the applicability of trials’ results to a broader population. Nonetheless it remains difficult to set apart - among the “excluded” patients - the patients who could benefit from a treatment from those who would not.

In order to delimit to whom the results of studies on current and future treatments apply, we sought to identify and characterize patients from a well-characterized real-life hospital-based COPD cohort (Initiatives BPCO) who would be eligible for inclusion into industry-sponsored RTCs on pharmacological treatments of COPD aiming at decreasing exacerbation risk.

## Methods

### Patients

We used the Initiatives-BPCO French cohort, which contained 1309 patients at the time of the present

analysis. Patients in this cohort were recruited under stable condition in 18 academic centers in France. Patients recruited in this cohort were aged ≥40 years with spirometry-confirmed diagnosis of COPD, as defined by post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.7. The exclusion criteria included a predominant diagnosis of asthma, bronchiectasis, or any other significant respiratory disease. Data collection has been extensively described previously [20]. Briefly, a case-report form was used to collect in patient's medical file demographic data, smoking history, physician-diagnosed comorbidities, symptoms, dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council scale), results of pulmonary function tests, and the number of exacerbations and hospitalizations in the previous year. The cohort was approved by the Ethics Committee of Versailles, France (ref 04-479). All patients have provided informed consent for the anonymized recording and analysis of their data.

### Selection of RCTs and eligibility criteria.

Using clinicaltrials.com and Pubmed websites, we selected between January 2000 and December 2016 all industry-sponsored phase III and IV RCTs that enrolled more than 500 COPD patients, lasted at least 1 year and aimed at decreasing exacerbations risk. For twin studies, we kept only one study in the analysis. All the eligibility criteria used in these trials were compiled.

## Analysis of eligibility of patients with COPD to RCTs

To determine whether patients recruited in the Initiatives-BPCO cohort would have been eligible to RCTs, our analysis first focused on the eligibility criteria per se. It allowed the identification of the most frequently required criteria. By applying criteria to the patients from the Initiatives-BPCO cohort, we were able to assess the share of patients fulfilling each criterion. We could then rank the most discriminating criteria.

The second analysis aimed at applying the set of criteria of each RCT to each patient from the cohort in order to assess the proportion of patients that would be eligible to join each trial (Fig. 1).

The third and final part of the study was to distinguish the eligibility rates of different groups of RCTs differing by their phases of development, pharmacological class of tested agents and starting year.

Several data were not collected or missing in the Initiatives-BPCO database. When this occurred, participants were deemed to remain eligible by the criterion we could not assess. This decision was made in order to avoid underestimating the number of patients that would have been eligible.

All analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 7.03 for windows (GraphPad Software, LaJolla California USA, www.graphpad.com). Phases, pharmacological agents and starting years' comparisons were
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Methods used to assess the proportion of eligible patients within a real-life hospital-based cohort of COPD patients</figcaption></figure>

performed using Mann-Whitney test, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparison and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively.

## Results

### RCTs

The online search for trials provided 16 RCTs fulfilling our criteria (Table 1).

From these 16 RCTs, 11 were phase III trials. The pharmacological agents tested comprised a panel consistent with the different options marketed or being developed in COPD. The distribution of trials based on their starting year covered the whole research timeframe considered for this study (Fig. 2).

### Description of eligibility criteria (Table 2)

#### Analysis of eligibility rates

Within our real-life population, eligibility for inclusion into RCTs ranged from 2.3 to 46.7% of patients depending on the trial with a mean eligibility rate of 16.5% (95% CI, 9.2–23.7).

Among all trials, a mean of 39.9% of our patients would fail because of an FEV1 outside the accepted range. Insufficient exacerbation rate during the previous year would be responsible for the exclusion of 36.7% of patients. Smoking history criteria would be responsible for the exclusion of patients with a cumulative consumption lower than required (16.8% of patients). The fourth and fifth most selecting criteria would be comorbidity-related exclusion criteria: cardiovascular comorbidities and asthma restrictions leading to the ineligibility of 16.1 and 11.5% of patients respectively.

The mean exclusion rates among the 16 trials for criteria related to oxygen therapy, allergic status, diabetes, age, oral corticosteroids intake, upper limit of exacerbations annual rate and history of lung transplant would be less than 6%. (Fig. 3).

#### Eligibility rates in subgroups of trials

Phase IV trials (n = 5) have a mean eligibility rate of 10.3% while phase III trials (n = 11) have a mean eligibility rate of 19.3%. These results are shown in Fig. 4 along with eligibility rates by pharmacological class of tested agents and starting year of RCTs.

#### Discussion

In this large cohort of 1309 well-characterized and followed-up COPD patients from French centers, a majority of patients would not be eligible for enrolment into RCTs assessing the efficacy of pharmaceutical intervention for COPD exacerbations. Importantly, our study described precisely the main reasons for ineligibility in these real-life patients with COPD and illustrate their evolution over 16 years. These data may contribute to the design of future RCTs with the aim of limiting exclusion of patients.

One limitation is the use of an academic cohort as the “real-life” reference. Moreover, enrollment in our cohort is itself limited by some eligibility criteria. We focused on the trials aiming at decreasing the exacerbation risk because they require the enrolment of patients experiencing
<table><caption>**Table 1** RCTs selected for the analysis</caption><thead><tr><th>Clinicaltrials number</th><th>Title</th><th>Investigational product</th><th>Phase</th><th>Starting year</th><th>Number of patients enrolled</th><th>Percentage of eligible patients</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>NCT00430729</td><td>Effect of Roflumilast on Exacerbation Rate in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A 52 Weeks Double Blind Study With 500mcg Roflumilast Once Daily Versus Placebo. Ratio-Study.</td><td>Roflumilast</td><td>III</td><td>2003</td><td>1100</td><td>8.8%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT01120691</td><td>A 64-week Treatment, Multi-center, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Active Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effect of QVA149 (110/50 µg o.d.) vs NVA237 (50 µg o.d.) and Open-label Tiotropium (18 µg o.d.) on COPD Exacerbations in Patients With Severe to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)</td><td>Indacaterol/ Glycopyrronium</td><td>III</td><td>2010</td><td>2224</td><td>2.3%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT00909779</td><td>A Large Simple Safety Study of Arformoterol Tartrate Inhalation Solution in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease</td><td>Arformoterol</td><td>III</td><td>2009</td><td>841</td><td>5.3%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT00419744</td><td>A Phase IIIb, 12-Month, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Randomised, Parallel-group, Multicentre Exacerbation Study of SYMBICORT® pMDI 160/4.5 µg x 2 Actuations Twice-daily and 80/4.5 µg x 2 Actuations Twice-daily Compared to Formoterol Turbuhaler® 4.5 µg x 2 Inhalations Twice-daily in COPD Subjects</td><td>Budesonide/ Formoterol</td><td>III</td><td>2007</td><td>1200</td><td>35.8%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT01009463</td><td>HZC102871: A 52-week Efficacy and Safety Study to Compare the Effect of Three Dosage Strengths of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol Inhalation Powder With Vilanterol on the Annual Rate of Exacerbations in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)</td><td>Fluticasone / Vilanterol</td><td>III</td><td>2009</td><td>1626</td><td>19.1%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT01126437</td><td>A Randomized, Active-controlled, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Parallel Group Design, Multi-center Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of 2.5 µg and 5 µg Tiotropium Inhalation Solution Delivered by the Respimat Inhaler With Tiotropium Inhalation Capsules 18 µg Delivered by the HandiHaler (TIOSPIR)</td><td>Tiotropium (respimat)</td><td>III</td><td>2010</td><td>17,210</td><td>46.7%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT01443845</td><td>Roflumilast in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patients Treated With Fixed Dose Combinations of Long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) and Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS)</td><td>Roflumilast</td><td>IV</td><td>2011</td><td>2300</td><td>5.7%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT01329029</td><td>Effect of Roflumilast on Exacerbation Rate in Patients With COPD Treated With Fixed Combinations of LABA and ICS. A 52-week, Randomised Double-blind Trial With Roflumilast 500 µg Versus Placebo. The REACT Trial</td><td>Roflumilast</td><td>IV</td><td>2011</td><td>1945</td><td>5.7%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT00361959</td><td>A Multicentre, Randomised, Double-Blind, Double Dummy, Parallel Group, 104 Week Study to Compare the Effect of the Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate Combination Product (SERETIDE) 50/500mcg With</td><td>Fluticasone/ Salmeterol</td><td>IV</td><td>2003</td><td>1270</td><td>5.0%</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1** RCTs selected for the analysis (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Clinicaltrials number</th><th>Title</th><th>Investigational product</th><th>Phase</th><th>Starting year</th><th>Number of patients enrolled</th><th>Percentage of eligible patients</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>NCT00563381</td><td>Tiotropium Bromide 18 Mcg on the Rate of Exacerbations in Subjects With Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)<br/>Effect of Inhalation of Tiotropium Once Daily 18 Mcg Versus Salmeterol Twice Daily 50 Mcg on Time to First Exacerbation in COPD Patients (a Randomised, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Parallel Group, One-year Study).</td><td>Tiotropium</td><td>IV</td><td>2008</td><td>7376</td><td>27.2%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT00115492</td><td>A Randomised, Double-Blind, Parallel Group, 52-week Study to Compare the Effect of the Fluticasone Propionate/ Salmeterol DISKUS Combination Product 250/50mcg BID with Salmeterol DISKUS 50mcg BID on the Annual Rate of Moderate/Severe Exacerbations in Subjects with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)</td><td>Fluticasone/ Salmeterol</td><td>IV</td><td>2004</td><td>740</td><td>7.9%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT02138916</td><td>Randomised, Double-blind, 56 Week Placebo-controlled, Parallel Group, Multicentre, Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of 2 Doses of Bentrallizumab in Patients With Moderate to Very Severe COPD With a History of Exacerbations</td><td>Benralizumab</td><td>III</td><td>2014</td><td>1626</td><td>13.9%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT02579850</td><td>52-week, Double Blind, Randomized, 2 Active Parallel Arms Study of Fixed Combination CHF 5993 Administered vs Ultibro® in COPD Patients</td><td>Béclomethasone/ Formoterol/ Glycopyrronium</td><td>III</td><td>2015</td><td>1534</td><td>4.1%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT02465567</td><td>A Randomised, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Parallel-Group Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of PT010 Relative to PT003 and PT009 on COPD Exacerbations Over a 52-Week Treatment Period in Subjects With Moderate to Very Severe COPD (Ethos)</td><td>Budesonide/ Formoterol/ Glycopyrronium</td><td>III</td><td>2015</td><td>8000</td><td>32.2%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT02105961</td><td>Study MEA117113: Mepolizumab vs. Placebo as Add-on Treatment for Frequently Exacerbating COPD Patients Characterized by Eosinophil Level</td><td>Mepolizumab</td><td>III</td><td>2014</td><td>660</td><td>16.3%</td></tr><tr><td>NCT02296138</td><td>A Randomised, Double-blind, Active-controlled Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the Effect of 52 Weeks of Once Daily Treatment of Orally Inhaled Tiotropium + Olodaterol Fixed Dose Combination Compared With Tiotropium on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Exacerbation in Patients With Severe to Very Severe COPD. [DYNAGITO]</td><td>Tiotropium/ Olodaterol</td><td>III</td><td>2015</td><td>7800</td><td>27.7%</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Eligibility criteria and related exclusion rates</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Criterion</th><th>Total number of trials setting the criterion</th><th>Cut-off values of the criterion</th><th>Number of trials setting the criterion</th><th>Availability of data in Initiative BPCO database</th><th>Percentage of patients excluded by the criterion</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Demographics</td><td>Minimum age</td><td>16 (100%)</td><td>40 years</td><td>16 (100%)</td><td>yes</td><td>1.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum age</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>80 years</td><td>2 (12.5%)</td><td>yes</td><td>5.3%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Disease diagnosis and severity</td><td>Smoking history</td><td>15 (93.8%)</td><td>85 years<br>Current or former smoker</td><td>15 (93.8%)</td><td>yes</td><td>0.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Airway obstruction</td><td>16 (100%)</td><td>At least 10 PY<br>At least 15 PY<br>At least 20 PY</td><td>11 (68.8%)<br>1 (6.3%)<br>2 (12.5%)</td><td>yes<br>yes<br>yes</td><td>17.6%<br>20.2%<br>25.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum FEV1<sup>a</sup></td><td>15 (93.8%)</td><td>FEV1/FVC &lt; 0.7<br>49% (GOLD 3 threshold)</td><td>16 (100%)<br>8 (50%)</td><td>yes<br>yes</td><td>0%<br>54.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum FEV1</td><td>1 (5.5%)</td><td>79% (GOLD 2 threshold)</td><td>1 (6.3%)</td><td>yes</td><td>9.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum exacerbation rate during the previous year</td><td>14 (87.5%)</td><td>70%<br>65%<br>60%</td><td>3 (18.8%)<br>2 (12.5%)<br>1 (6.3%)</td><td>yes<br>yes<br>yes</td><td>22.7%<br>31.2%<br>45%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Disease control</td><td>Maximum exacerbation rate during the previous year<sup>b</sup></td><td>13 (81.3%)</td><td>1 event<br>2 events<br>24 events<br>12 events<br>9 events</td><td>10 (62.5%)<br>4 (25%)<br>2 (12.5%)<br>8 (50%)</td><td>yes<br>yes<br>yes<br>yes</td><td>36.4%<br>62.2%<br>0%<br>0.1%</td></tr><tr><td>COPD symptoms</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>Evidence of chronic productive cough</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>yes</td><td>0.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Concomitant treatments restrictions<sup>c</sup></td><td>Long term oxygen therapy</td><td>7 (43.8%)</td><td>mMRC score &gt; 1<br>CAT &gt; 10<br>&lt; 12 h/day<br>&lt; 15 h/day<br>&lt; 16 h/day<br>Not daily<br>Forbidden</td><td>1 (6.3%)<br>1 (6.3%)<br>1 (6.3%)<br>1 (6.3%)<br>4 (25%)<br>4 (25%)</td><td>no</td><td>Uncollected data (assumed 0%)<br>use of oxygenotherapy assessed<br>Intake of OCS assessed</td></tr><tr><td>Oral corticosteroids</td><td>6 (37.5%)</td><td>Forbidden<br>&lt; 10 mg/day</td><td>2 (12.5%)</td><td>no</td><td>3.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Previous participation in a</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>Forbidden</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>no</td><td>Uncollected data</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Eligibility criteria and related exclusion rates (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Criterion</th><th>Total number of trials setting the criterion</th><th>Cut-off values of the criterion</th><th>Number of trials setting the criterion</th><th>Availability of data in Initiative BPCO database</th><th>Percentage of patients excluded by the criterion (assumed 0%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">Comorbidities restrictions<sup>d</sup></td><td>pulmonary rehabilitation program</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Concomitant pulmonary diseases</td><td>15 (93.8%)</td><td>Forbidden</td><td>15 (93.8%)</td><td>Only asthma assessed</td><td>13.1%</td></tr><tr><td>History of pulmonary surgery</td><td>7 (43.8%)</td><td>Lobectomy</td><td>4 (25%)</td><td>Only transplantation assessed</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Lung volume reduction</td><td>6 (37.5%)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Transplantation</td><td>2 (12.5%)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>History of cancer</td><td>8 (50%)</td><td>Forbidden</td><td>1 (6.3%)</td><td>no</td><td>Uncollected data (assumed 0%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Forbidden if within 1 year</td><td>1 (6.3%)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Forbidden if within 5 years</td><td>6 (37.5%)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Cardiovascular comorbidities (including arterial hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction and arrhythmias)</td><td></td><td>10 (62.5%)</td><td>Forbidden</td><td>10 (62.5%)</td><td>Cardiovascular comorbidities assessed</td><td>16.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Endocrine disorders</td><td>5 (31.3%)</td><td>No diabetes</td><td>2 (12.5%)</td><td>yes</td><td>13.6%</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>No thyrotoxicosis</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>No</td><td>Uncollected data(assumed 0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Renal impairment</td><td>4 (22.2%)</td><td>No obesity (BMI > 45 kg/m2)</td><td>1 (6.3%)</td><td>No</td><td>Uncollected data(assumed 0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Allergic status</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>No moderate or severe renal failure</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>No</td><td>Uncollected data(assumed 0%)</td></tr><tr><td>History or current drug or alcohol abuse</td><td>8 (50%)</td><td>No atopic status</td><td>2 (12.5%)</td><td>yes</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td>History of poor compliance to medication prescription</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>No allergic rhinitis</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>yes</td><td>21.2%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Compliance</td><td></td><td></td><td>Forbidden</td><td>8 (504%)</td><td>No</td><td>Uncollected data(assumed 0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Pregnancy and breastfeeding</td><td>8 (50%)</td><td>Forbidden</td><td>3 (18.8%)</td><td>No</td><td>Uncollected data(assumed 0%)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8 (50%)</td><td>No</td><td>Uncollected data (assumed 0%)</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. maximum FEV1 was required to be met post bronchodilator in 13 trials, pre bronchodilator in 1 trial. Timing of measurement was not specified in 2 trials

b. None of the trials set a maximum number of exacerbations but some did not allow study participation if an event occurred 2 weeks, 4 weeks or 6 weeks before enrolment. In these trials we excluded patient who experienced more than 24, 12 or 9 events in the previous year, respectively

c. Excluding pharmacological contraindications with study drugs

d. Inclusion of patients with unstable or seriously significant disease of any kind was forbidden. Here are presented
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

severe exacerbations, the patients observed from our cohort being closer to the target population.

We must however acknowledge the potential gap between our cohort and real-life patients. Thus, our eligibility rates may be overestimated but this will not bias our conclusions.

Our findings of eligibility rates ranging from 2.3 to 46.7% with a mean of 16.5% are consistent with previously published results: we identified 6 studies dealing with external validity of COPD randomized controlled trials over the last two decades [11–16]. None of them focused specifically on trials aiming at decreasing exacerbation rates but our results are clearly complementary with theirs. Herland applied a limited set of criteria from a fictive “typical RCT” to 366 patients [14]. They found a share of 17.2% of potentially eligible patients. These results are consistent with those obtained by Kruis (17 to 42% out of 3508 patients from 7 European primary

care databases would have been eligible to enter 6 large industrial RCTs [15]) and our own results. Halpin found eligibility rates ranging from 3.5 to 57.6% of 36,893 patients from primary and secondary care [11].

Scichilone and Travers both focused on RCTs supporting the old GOLD guidelines for management of COPD in a hospital cohort [12] and in general population [13]. Eligibility rates of 16.9% and 0 to 9% respectively show worryingly the impact of the lack of representativity on the recommendations of patients management at the collective level. These results point the poor external validity of many RCTs.

One other limitation is the existence of uncollected data. In this case, a patient was considered fulfilling the missing criterion. This could have resulted in overestimating the eligibility rates. However, with higher eligibility rates than actual rates, our conclusions would even be strengthened. Moreover, we only considered eligibility

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

criteria at inclusion, some run-in or randomization criteria may apply.

Decreasing the number of exacerbations (especially the severe ones) is a major challenge in COPD. Promising results obtained in RCTs often contrast with the modest results observed in daily practice. The evidence-based management of individual patients relies on a meticulous analysis of external validity of RCTs results: Would my patient have been includable in this trial? If not, can I extrapolate the results to my patient considering the unmet criteria?

Some eligibility criteria may have a limited impact on external validity: excluding patients who previously participated in rehabilitation program for example may not exclude a specific sub-population.

Some other criteria are selecting but relevant with regard to the primary endpoint. We focused on RCTs aiming at decreasing the exacerbation risk, which makes it appropriate to enroll patients with a history of exacerbation(s). We must however mention that considering the study primary efficacy endpoint is crucial in the extrapolation of results to a patient. Rothnie and colleagues recently show that almost 52% of COPD patients do not exacerbate in the first year of follow up and that a 26% do not exacerbate during a 10 years follow up. Treating these patients with medications that only prove their efficacy on exacerbation rate would not be relevant, but it remains difficult if not impossible to predict the risk of exacerbation accurately on an individual basis [21].

In contrast, some other eligibility criteria are responsible for the exclusion of important sub-populations of patients whose COPD exacerbations triggers and pathophysiology may differ from the ones of enrolled patients.

To illustrate this point, three groups of criteria require particular attention:

First, a selective FEV1-related criterion is set in 94% of RCTs and would be responsible for the exclusion of 39.9% of patients from our database. Only one trial allowed the enrollment of patients with mild airflow limitation. To assess medications aiming at decreasing exacerbation risk, most RCTs only allowed the enrollment of patients with severe airflow obstruction, which is not necessarily correlated to exacerbation risk. Another interesting finding of Kruis is the proportion of frequent exacerbators among GOLD 1 patients: 12% are frequent exacerbators with ≥ 2 events a year. 34% have at least 1 event a year. Woodruff has similar findings pointing that COPD exacerbations and symptoms may occur in patient with preserved pulmonary function [22]. We cannot assume that RCTs results are extrapolatable to these patients.

The second set of criteria is related to the potential risk factors for COPD. In 94% of RCTs in our analysis, only current or former smokers were enrolled. There is no doubt as to the responsibility of tobacco as a risk factor in COPD. However, it is reductive to consider only this risk factor in drug development as COPD may develop in never smokers (up to 27% in some studies) [23–25].

Similarly, wheezing and a past history of asthma have been shown to be major risk factors for COPD exacerbations [8, 26]. These patients are excluded from 87% of RCTs in our study. Thus, patients with an Asthma-COPD overlap are not considered in COPD studies. They are also excluded from asthma studies [18] which makes it difficult to define their management in an evidence-based manner.

Because patients are excluded from RCTs based on risk factors, the pharmaceutical industry does not consider the heterogeneity of patients with COPD in the development of medications [27]. As a correlate, this aspect is poorly considered either during the registration process by regulatory authorities.
Pathophysiological mechanisms may differ and we
cannot assume that RCTs results apply to COPD pheno-
types in which they have not been tested.

Lastly, the set of exclusion criteria related to comor-
bidities raises additional concerns about the applicability
of patients' outcomes in RCTs to real-life situations.
Cardiovascular comorbidities as well as atopy and
diabetes are common barriers to inclusion. These are
also highly prevalent in COPD patients, associated to
worse outcomes and to different response to therapy. If
allergic status and diabetes rates are consistent with pre-
vious epidemiologic studies, we found lower cardiovas-
cular comorbidities proportions in our cohort than
previously reported [28, 29] while these where not exclu-
sion criteria to enter the initiatives-BPCO cohort. Only
arterial hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction
and arrhythmias were collected in our database.

Several comorbidities have been shown to be associ-
ated with the “frequent exacerbator” phenotype and
to increase the exacerbation risk [30]. This is particu-
larly the case for heart failure, asthma and diabetes,
which are all frequent exclusion criteria in RCTs in
our study. Excluding patients with higher exacerbation
risk is then questionable in studies aiming at decreas-
ing exacerbation risk.

All these restrictions in RCTs lead to poor external validity. It is common belief to think that this gap between trials and real-life populations exists more in phase III than in phase IV trials. We found that phase 4 are also poorly representative.

We could then hypothesize that meta-analyses could
help increasing the applicability of results to patients
excluded in some but not all studies. However, our
results highlight important similarities of eligibility
criteria among RCTs. Consequently, tested popula-
tions are very homogeneous and meta-analyses cannot
fully bridge the gap.

These results emphasize the need for high quality real-
life therapeutic research to complement RCTs and deter-
mine whether, to which extent and in whom efficacy
results translate into real-life effectiveness [31].

Conclusion

Our study shows that a majority of real-life COPD
patients are not eligible for inclusion in RCTs assessing
the effects of therapeutic intervention on COPD exacer-
bations. The excluded populations may present distinct
triggers for exacerbations and we cannot assume the
applicability of study results to these patients.

This important gap between real-life patients and
clinical trials populations limits the external validity of
RCTs and therefore should be considered when grading
levels of evidence and designing future studies to ensure
evidence-based medical decision-making.

Abbreviations

BMI: Body Mass Index; CAT: COPD Assessment Test; COPD: Chronic Obstructive
Pulmonary Disease; FEV1: Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s; FVC: Forced Vital
Capacity; GOLD: Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease;
ICS: Inhaled Corticosteroids; ILS: Interleukin 5; LABA: Long Acting Beta2 Agonist;
LAMA: Long Acting Muscarinic Antagonist; Mcg: Microgram; mMRC: Modified
Medical Research Council; PE4i: Phosphodiesterase type 4 Inhibitor; PY: Pack
Year; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and informed consent to participate

The cohort was approved by the Ethics Committee of Versailles, France (ref 04-
479). All patients have provided written informed consent for the anonymized
recording and analysis of their data.

Authors' contribution

Conception and design: LP, PRB, NR, JLP, PC. Database extraction: JLP Analysis
and interpretation: LP, PRB, NR, PC. Redaction: LP Corrections: PRB, NR, PC. All
the authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The French Initiative BPCO cohort is supported by an unrestricted grant from Boehringer Ingelheim and (until 2015) Pfizer. The funding bodies played no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, interpretation of data and writing of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request after approval from
initiatives BPCO scientific committee.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

LP has no conflicts of interest to report.
PRB reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Boehringer
Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from GSK, personal fees
from Novartis, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Vertex, outside
the submitted work.
NR reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis,
Pfizer and personal fees from Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Mundipharma,
Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3 M, Zambon outside the submitted work.
JLP has no conflicts of interest to report.

PC, as an advisory board member, consultant or lecturer, has previously
received honoraria or grants from Boehringer Ingeheim, Almirall, Centocor,
GSK, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Teva, Chiesi, Shering Plough and Amu.
None of the latter participated in or had any influence over the present
analysis or manuscript.

Author details

¹Clinique des bronches allergies et sommeil, Aix Marseille Univ, APHM, CIC 9502, 13015 Marseille, France. ²ADES, Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, Marseille, France. ³C2VN (INSERM U1263, INRA 1260), Aix Marseille Univ, Marseille, France. ⁴Service de Pneumologie, GH Cochin-Broca-Hôtel Dieu, APHP, Paris, France. ⁵Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

⁶EFFI-STAT, Paris, France.

Received: 25 January 2019 Accepted: 19 June 2019

Published online: 12 July 2019

References

1. Rycroft CE, Heyes A, Lanza L, Becker K. Epidemiology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a literature review. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S32330 PubMed PMID: 22927753; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3422122.

2. Blanchette CM, Dalal AA, Mapel D. Changes in COPD demographics and costs over 20 years. J Med Econ. 2012. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998. 2012.713880 PubMed PMID: 22812689.
3. Chapman KR, Mannino DM, Soriano JB, Vermeire PA, Buist AS, Thun MJ, et al. Epidemiology and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2006 doi: https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.000024505. PubMed PMID: 16387952.

4. 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; PubMed PMID: 9603117.

5. Donaldson GC, Seemungal TA, Bhowmik A, Wedzicha JA. Relationship between exacerbation frequency and lung function decline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2002; PubMed PMID: 12324669; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1746193.

6. Suissa S, Dell'Aniello S, Ernst P. Long-term natural history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: severe exacerbations and mortality. Thorax. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-201518 PubMed PMID: 22684094; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3505864.

7. Sin DD, Anthonisen NR, Soriano JB, Agusti AG. Mortality in COPD: role of comorbidities. Eur Respir J. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00133805 PubMed PMID: 17138679.

8. Hurst JR, Vestbo J, Anzueto A, Locantore N, Müllerova H, Tal-Singer R, et al. Susceptibility to exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0909883 PubMed PMID: 20843247.

9. FitzGerald JM. Targeting lung attacks. Thorax. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.156760 PubMed PMID: 21398372.

10. From the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017. Available from: http://goldcopd.org.

11. Halpin DM, Kerkhof M, Soriano JB, Mikkelsen H, Price DB. Eligibility of real-life patients with COPD for inclusion in trials of inhaled long-acting bronchodilator therapy. Respir Res. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-016-0433-5 PubMed PMID: 27663386; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5034631.

12. Schichilone N, Basile M, Battaglia S, Bellia V. What proportion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outpatients is eligible for inclusion in randomized clinical trials? Respiration. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1159/000355082 PubMed PMID: 24281343.

13. Travers J, Marsh S, Caldwell B, Williams M, Aldington S, Weatherall M, et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials in COPD. Respir Med. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2006.10.011 PubMed PMID: 17113277.

14. Herland K, Akselsen JP, Skjønsberg OH, Bjermer L. How representative are clinical study patients with asthma or COPD for a larger "real life" population of patients with obstructive lung disease? Respir Med. 2005; PubMed PMID: 15672843.

15. Kruis AL, Ställberg B, Jones RC, Tsiligianni IG, Lisspers K, van der Molen T, et al. Primary care COPD patients compared with large pharmaceutically-sponsored COPD studies: an UNLOCK validation study. PLoS One. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090145 PubMed PMID: 24598945; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3943905.

16. Walker S, Fingleton J, Weatherall M, Beasley R. Limited generalisability of UPLIFT findings to clinical practice. Thorax. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203724 PubMed PMID: 23744029.

17. Travers J, Marsh S, Williams M, Weatherall M, Caldwell B, Shirtcliffe P, et al. External validity of randomised controlled trials in asthma: to whom do the results of the trials apply? Thorax. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2006.066837 PubMed PMID: 17105779; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2117157.

18. Pahus L, Alagha K, Sofalvi T, Vachier I, Bourdin A, Molinari N, et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials in severe asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201502-0391LE PubMed PMID: 26177176.

19. Roche N, Reddel HK, Agusti A, Bateman ED, Krishnan JA, Martin RJ, et al. Integrating real-life studies in the global therapeutic research framework. Lancet Respir Med. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70199-1 PubMed PMID: 24461762.

20. Burgel PR, Nesme-Meyer P, Chanez P, Caillaud D, Carré P, Perez T, et al. Cough and sputum production are associated with frequent exacerbations and hospitalizations in COPD subjects. Chest. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-2062 PubMed PMID: 19017866.

21. Rothnie KJ, Müllerová H, Smeeth L, Quint JK. Natural history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations in a general practice-based population with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201710-2029OC PubMed PMID: 29474094; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6118021.

22. Woodruff PG, Barr RG, Bleecker E, Christenson SA, Couper D, Curtis JL, et al. Clinical significance of symptoms in smokers with preserved pulmonary function. N Engl J Med 2016 doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1505971. PubMed PMID: 27168432; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4968204.

23. Tan WC, Sin DD, Bourbeau J, Hernandez P, Chapman KR, Cowie R, et al. Characteristics of COPD in never-smokers and ever-smokers in the general population: results from the CanCOLD study. Thorax. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-206938 PubMed PMID: 26048404.

24. Denguezli M, Daldoul H, Harrabi I, Gnatiac L, Coton S, Burney P, et al. COPD in nonsmokers: reports from the Tunisian population-based burden of obstructive lung disease study. PLoS One. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151981 PubMed PMID: 27010214; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4807055.

25. Lamprecht B, McBurnie MA, Vollmer WM, Gudmundsson G, Welte T, Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E, et al. COPD in never smokers: results from the population-based burden of obstructive lung disease study. Chest. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-1253 PubMed PMID: 20884729; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3168866.

26. Silva GE, Sherrill DL, Guerra S, Barbee RA. Asthma as a risk factor for COPD in a longitudinal study. Chest. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.126.1.59 PubMed PMID: 15249443.

27. Koblizek V, Milenkovic B, Barczyk A, Tkacova R, Somfay A, Zykov K, et al. Phenotypes of COPD patients with a smoking history in central and Eastern Europe: the POPE study. Eur Respir J. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01446-2016 PubMed PMID: 28495687; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5460642.

28. Putcha N, Drummond MB, Wise RA, Hansel NN. Comorbidities and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prevalence, influence on outcomes, and management. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1556063 PubMed PMID: 26238643; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5004772.

29. Smith MC, Wrobel JP. Epidemiology and clinical impact of major comorbidities in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S49621 PubMed PMID: 25210449; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4154888.

30. Westerik JA, Metting EI, van Boven JF, Tiersma W, Kocks JW, Schermer TR. Associations between chronic comorbidity and exacerbation risk in primary care patients with COPD. Respir Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-017-0512-2 PubMed PMID: 28166777; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5294875.

31. Roche N, Reddel H, Martin R, Brusselle G, Papi A, Thomas M, et al. Quality standards for real-world research. Focus on observational database studies of comparative effectiveness. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201309-300RM PubMed PMID: 24559028.

## Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ready to submit your research? Choose BMC and benefit from:

* fast, convenient online submission

* thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field

* rapid publication on acceptance

* support for research data, including large and complex data types

* gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations

* maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year

At BMC, research is always in progress.

Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions

BMC