# Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

For the record, an edit of mine was removed due to WP:MEDRS. However, if you look at the research paper carefully, in fact it also included a review of others' research efforts, citing at least six other papers in its discussion part:

Alveolar lavage using antibiotics based on the bronchoscope technique has been widely applied in clinic... which can effectively increase the treatment effective rate of COPD patients complicated with pneumonia, and reduce the inflammatory response (10). Fortún et al (11) treated the COPD patients complicated with type II respiratory failure using alveolar lavage combined with mechanical ventilation, and the results showed that... improved. Gasiuniene et al (12) studied the curative effect of bronchoalveolar lavage on COPD patients... found that sputum suction and lavage via fiber bronchoscope can improve the symptoms, increase the cure rate and shorten the length of hospital stay... Studies have found that bronchoalveolar lavage can effectively remove the lung mucus and ... (15,16)... the application of bronchoalveolar lavage in removing the airway and lung mucus can significantly increase the cure rate of COPD complicated with pneumonia (17)...

So I believe it is a peer reviewed, reliable, third-party published secondary source. Anyway, I'm not going to revive my original edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustfreeworld (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 

With a second look, I believe I was probably wrong in saying that it's a secondary source. I might have misunderstood what the authors meant. It seems that the citations didn't directly support BAL as a treatment for COPD (though they might support symptom improvements with BAL). Being too impulsive when edits were reverted is really no good. Hope I'm more thoughtful now :). It's not uncommon for BAL being used for treatment of conditions besides pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (e.g., pneumonia, pneumoconiosis and COPD) in some parts of the world though[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Since it's a "relatively" safe procedure, BAL may still worth more weight in the article ... (should have posted this earlier, just too busy).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustfreeworld (talk • contribs) 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The two most common types of COPD are emphysema and chronic bronchitis and have been the two classic COPD phenotypes.
Is there a meaningful difference between the two parts of this sentence? —Tamfang (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it. I would go with:
The two most common phenotypes of COPD are emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Reconrabbit (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Have added to from same ref- meaning is possibly clearer with reading further down.--Iztwoz (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The addition is clarifying, but the sentence in question still seems to be repeating itself here, unless the concern is with the phrase "classic". Reconrabbit (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I have just written a new Talk on this topic, and it might interest you. I do not believe that the first part of the sentence is redundant, rather inaccurate. I think a false assumption was made based on the cited study regarding COPD imaging. You could read my argument and reply so we may correct the Wiki article if enough people agree to it.
What I can say as answer to your question is that, yes, there is a meaningful difference between the two parts. Type and Phenotype are two different terms regarding diseases; the former describes categories, classes, etc; the latter means the varying "appearances" (varieties) of a certain characteristic or disease, resulting from differing genotypes (genes) and epigenetic factors. Different phenotypes could be the sorting factor for a disease categorization, which could make the aforementioned part redundant. But this is not the problem in this case, since I find that the first part is straight-up incorrect. Θεμιστοκλής Χατζής (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I am a nursing student. I am doing some research on COPD for a personal project and I decided to visit Wikipedia to find ideas for things I could add, while cross-examining the details with other sources, mostly some books collected from my university. In the second paragraph of the first section of the article I ran across this statement: [...] The two most common types of COPD are emphysema and chronic bronchitis and have been the two classic COPD phenotypes. However, this basic dogma has been challenged as varying degrees of co-existing emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and potentially significant vascular diseases have all been acknowledged in those with COPD, giving rise to the classification of other phenotypes or subtypes. From what I already know, there is only a four-class classification for COPD, which mostly relates to the exacerbation and worsening of the disease and the emergence of dyspnea in relation to movement/exercise. Emphysema and chronic bronchitis are the two most basic pathophysiological characteristics of the disease (alongside the non-mentioned small airway disease), and are present alongside each other from the very onset of it. There is no such thing as two (sub)types, one characterized by emphysema only and the other by chronic bronchitis only.
To confirm whether the information on the Wiki article is correct of not, I decided to look at the cited paper (10 - Role of medical and molecular imaging in COPD). In the section "Background" the following is stated, from which I believe the aforementioned "two-type" deduction was made: The natural history of COPD is characterized by an irreversibly progressive decline in lung function, with the pathophysiology resulting in airway obstruction characterized by either the loss alveolar gas exchange units and elasticity or the development of muco-fibrotic airway remodeling. These paradigms have served as the basis for the two classic COPD phenotypes: emphysema and chronic bronchitis. However, this basic dogma has been challenged in recent years as varying degrees of co-existing emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and potentially significant vascular pathologies have been appreciated in patients with COPD.
While sharing the common terminal phenotype of irreversible airflow limitation, emphysema and chronic bronchitis are fundamentally different diseases and are suspected to have unique biomolecular mechanisms underpinning their pathogenesis.
The mentioned dogma refers to emphysema and chronic bronchitis being considered the two basic phenotypes of COPD, which is based on knowledge regarding its by-far-known mechanism, the paradigm (irreversible progressive decline... airway remodeling.). The mention of the basic dogma being challenged has to do with the latest findings of potentially significant vascular pathologies  co-existing alongside the two basic phenotypes, all of which can appear in varying degrees (of exacerbation, I assume). Therefore, the deduction written in the Wikipedia article must be wrong.
While the second quoted paragraph says that the two characteristics are fundamentally different diseases, that does not mean they cannot co-exist in COPD as pathophysiological entities, only that they are physiologically independent. Nevertheless, I believe this might be what solidified to the Wiki writer that the two entities do not normally co-exist in COPD. Admittedly, I do question the report of the pathophysiology resulting in airway obstruction characterized by either the loss alveolar gas exchange units and elasticity or the development of muco-fibrotic airway remodeling, since it implies a mutually exclusive relationship between loss of alveolar gas exchange units and elasticity (emphysema) and muco-fibrotic airway remodeling (chronic bronchitis). It could be an error in syntax and/or grammar, but I do not know.
Since I am only a student, and I might have assumed something by fault, I need other people's opinion on this. Whether it be from people inside the medical field or just anyone following my argumentation process, I am open to any answer. Closing, I also need to admit that I haven't read the full study and I might be missing some important detail. I'll return to my project now, thank you for your time. Θεμιστοκλής Χατζής (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, It says in the article that George L. Waldbott was the first to describe this disease. But the source is a popular science book he himself wrote. The source feels out of place compared to the other reliable published sources in the article. I suggest deleting the two sentences if it remains unverifiable. Thank you! Bex-Lemon (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

In the article about him, it is said that he has been suffering with this disease, which is a kind of bummer, given he is a professional singer. I don’t know, if it is worthy to add a section “Famous people suffering with this …” or something like it.
Ceplm (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)