Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a widespread illness that affects the lungs, causing decreased airflow and lowered lung capacity. Protocols for treating COPD vary from one country to another. Generally, there is a reasonable consensus on the criteria for diagnosis and the initial treatment procedures, however, there are differences in the categorization of patients with COPD and the advanced treatment methods (Miravitlles et al., 2016). This review aims to highlight these differences in guidelines for COPD treatment by critically analyzing two scholarly articles on the topic. Main body The first scientific paper by Ferreira et al. is called “Optimal treatment sequence in COPD: Can a consensus be found?” The article analyzes treatment guidelines from four countries: Spain, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Chosen treatment protocols were discussed on a meeting of the GI DPOC-Grupo de Interesse na Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crónica in December 2014 and through 2015 via emails (Ferreira et al., 2016). The purpose of this discussion is to develop a unified therapeutic scheme for COPD treatment. Several recent studies on the subject are used as evidence for the best available treatment. Potential issues with particular therapy methods in different patient groups are identified. For example, the safety of long-acting bronchodilators in patients with asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS) is discussed (Ferreira et al., 2016). The authors attempt to create a unified list of treatment methods based on their meaningfulness, safety, and effectiveness. The topic of discussion proceeds into the outlining of non-inhaled therapies based on their usefulness. Ferreira et al. (2016) review several drugs used in COPD treatment, they include “mucolytic agents, macrolides, PDE4i, xanthine derivatives, and immunostimulating agents” (p. 43). The next chapter provides an overview of comorbidities and their input to the problem. Ferreira et al. (2016) state that the exclusion of the patients with relevant comorbidities from clinical trials “prevented evidence-based clinical treatment guidelines in these patients” (p. 44). Potential negative impacts by comorbidities on COPD syndromes and treatment are analyzed and presented to readers. The paper provides findings on the differences between COPD treatment guidelines in different countries and offers the middle-ground that would improve patient outcomes. However, Ferreira et al. (2016) conclude that there are “too many unknown variables, no reliable biomarkers to guide treatment, and a poor definition of clinically relevant COPD phenotypes” (p. 46). I think that the main strength of this article is that it reviews a variety of crucial obstacles in COPD treatment, and authors attempt to generalize their findings in the form of their recommendations. However, its weak point is that it does not draw a consensus and states the need for further research on the subject. The second article that will be analyzed is “A review of national guidelines for the management of COPD in Europe” by Miravitlles et al. The guidelines were chosen from the following countries: Finland, Russia, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom