William Z Zhang1,2. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care MedicineJoan and Sanford I. Weill Cornell MedicineNew York, New Yorkand. 2. New York-Presbyterian HospitalNew York, New York.
Fundamentally, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a
heterogeneous disorder, and over the past 40 years, there have been great advances in
clarifying this heterogeneity to the point that we now have a number of candidates that
can be considered veritable COPD endotypes (1).
Despite this progress, spirometry is still required to diagnose COPD, and the constraint
to meet this spirometric criteria has obscured an important truth: a post-bronchodilator
FEV1/FVC ratio less than 0.70 only defines a destination but does not
reveal how the patient arrived there (2). After
all, one of the main goals of COPD research is to help clinicians predict how their
patients’ diseases will evolve and to map out individual natural histories such
that timely interventions can be applied to slow or halt lung function decline. In
reality, these paths and roads stretch both forward and backward, and thus it is perhaps
prudent to examine where we came from as well as where we are going.A discussion of the natural history of COPD necessarily begins with the work of Charles
Fletcher and Richard Peto, but the dogma of accelerated FEV1 decline was
challenged in 2015 when Lange and colleagues demonstrated that the inability to attain
maximal lung function in early adulthood contributes significantly to COPD development
(3, 4). In that landmark study, an analysis of pooled participants from three
large longitudinal cohorts revealed distinct lung function trajectories when the results
were stratified based on whether the study participant had normal FEV1 at
cohort inception (4). Four divergent
trajectories were modeled, of which two outlined markedly different pathways to COPD:
some subjects with normal FEV1 at study onset developed COPD as a result of
accelerated lung function decline, whereas an equal number had low or submaximal
FEV1 at study onset and developed COPD despite having a normal rate of
decline. In this issue of the Journal, Marott and colleagues (pp.
210–218) provided an insightful update on one of these three
cohorts, the Copenhagen City Heart Study (5).
After 20 years of follow-up, 144 of 1,170 participants in this cohort developed COPD,
including 79 who were in the “normal maximally attained FEV1”
trajectory and 65 in the “low maximally attained FEV1”
trajectory. These two subpopulations were equivalent in age, smoking habits, asthma
history, and FEV1 at the time of diagnosis, but predictably, participants who
attained normal maximal FEV1 had a FEV1 rate of decline that was
twice as high as those who had low maximal FEV1. After another 10 years of
follow-up, the rate of FEV1 decline in these two COPD subgroups converged,
but their mortality curves separated, with individuals in the normal maximally attained
FEV1 trajectory having increased all-cause mortality as well as
nonmalignant respiratory mortality. There were several limitations to this study, the
most important of which being the dwindling of the study population over the four
decades of follow-up, especially in those with COPD. This resulted in large confidence
intervals in the hazard ratio estimates and potentially prevented detection of other
differences, such as severe exacerbation risk because of inadequate power. Detractors
may also suggest that it was overly simplistic to dichotomize patients into these two
trajectories of normal and low maximally attained FEV1 and that, in reality,
there is likely a spectrum of different lung function trajectories (6). Nevertheless, at least two other longitudinal
studies of children, one starting at birth and another at a young age, have modeled
similar lung function trajectories, with both demonstrating an association between early
low lung function and COPD development later in life (7, 8). Any single patient’s
natural history of disease is affected by a collection of genetic and environmental
factors, but grouping individuals into these trajectories is a valuable cognitive
construct for thinking about COPD pathogenesis and progression. Furthermore, the fact
that this study showed that these trajectories are associated with differences in
mortality suggests that this “low maximal lung function” trajectory is
more than just a developmental component to COPD and may represent a biologically
distinct COPD subtype altogether.These ideas have important implications for future research. Clinical COPD studies are
already shifting their attention toward “early COPD” and focusing on
younger smokers (9). However, practical cutoffs
for age and cigarette smoke exposure are still required for recruitment into studies,
and depending on the stringency of individual studies, some cutoffs may not attack the
root of COPD aggressively enough, as multiple studies have already demonstrated that
selected smokers as young as in their 20s can have an increased risk for developing COPD
(10, 11). This is particularly relevant as the at-risk population shifts younger,
as evidenced by the high prevalence of tobacco and electronic cigarette use among high
school students and even middle school students; the biological underpinnings of COPD
may be developing in these very young smokers, even when they have smoked well short of
10 pack-years (12, 13). Notably, previous studies have not shown that there is a
difference in the rate of exposure to maternal smoking during gestation or early active
smoking between young adults in the normal lung function trajectory and those in the low
lung function trajectory (7, 8). Alternative risk factors to smoke, such as
early respiratory viral infections (and the potential resultant changes to the lung
microbiome), childhood asthma, and exposure to pollution, have all been connected to
COPD development, but more work in these areas is needed. There is also a critical need
for innovative models that explore COPD pathogenesis at a mechanistic level. Current
animal models of COPD, including elastase and cigarette smoke–exposure models,
target animals at an age when lung development has already completed (14). In addition, these studies frequently focus
on airspace enlargement or emphysema development as a primary outcome, which, though
impressive histologically, does not adequately represent the biological processes that
occur in early COPD. Likewise, animal models of abnormal lung development or
bronchopulmonary dysplasia have similar limitations: they are challenging to apply to
very young postnatal animals and often result in phenotypes such as acute lung injury or
fibrosis, which are not reflective of problems in lung development (15). Novel approaches, such as applying machine
learning techniques to younger smoker cohorts to improve the clustering of trajectories
or using three-dimensional organoids to model lung morphogenesis and disease, can
potentially complement conventional clinical and animal studies (16, 17).As outlined in this study and others, if the low maximal lung function trajectory is the
road taken by nearly half of patients with COPD, then considerable additional effort is
required to explore this road on a foundational level; tracing this path back to its
beginning will not only add to our understanding of the origins of COPD but also provide
us with new tools for tracking and treating its progression.
Authors: Dinh S Bui; Caroline J Lodge; John A Burgess; Adrian J Lowe; Jennifer Perret; Minh Q Bui; Gayan Bowatte; Lyle Gurrin; David P Johns; Bruce R Thompson; Garun S Hamilton; Peter A Frith; Alan L James; Paul S Thomas; Deborah Jarvis; Cecilie Svanes; Melissa Russell; Stephen C Morrison; Iain Feather; Katrina J Allen; Richard Wood-Baker; John Hopper; Graham G Giles; Michael J Abramson; Eugene H Walters; Melanie C Matheson; Shyamali C Dharmage Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Peter Lange; Bartolome Celli; Alvar Agustí; Gorm Boje Jensen; Miguel Divo; Rosa Faner; Stefano Guerra; Jacob Louis Marott; Fernando D Martinez; Pablo Martinez-Camblor; Paula Meek; Caroline A Owen; Hans Petersen; Victor Pinto-Plata; Peter Schnohr; Akshay Sood; Joan B Soriano; Yohannes Tesfaigzi; Jørgen Vestbo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M J McGeachie; K P Yates; S T Weiss; R C Strunk; X Zhou; F Guo; A L Sternberg; M L Van Natta; R A Wise; S J Szefler; S Sharma; A T Kho; M H Cho; D C Croteau-Chonka; P J Castaldi; G Jain; A Sanyal; Y Zhan; B R Lajoie; J Dekker; J Stamatoyannopoulos; R A Covar; R S Zeiger; N F Adkinson; P V Williams; H W Kelly; H Grasemann; J M Vonk; G H Koppelman; D S Postma; B A Raby; I Houston; Q Lu; A L Fuhlbrigge; K G Tantisira; E K Silverman; J Tonascia Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cristine E Berry; Dean Billheimer; Isaac C Jenkins; Zhenqiang J Lu; Debra A Stern; Lynn B Gerald; Tara F Carr; Stefano Guerra; Wayne J Morgan; Anne L Wright; Fernando D Martinez Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Fernando J Martinez; MeiLan K Han; James P Allinson; R Graham Barr; Richard C Boucher; Peter M A Calverley; Bartolome R Celli; Stephanie A Christenson; Ronald G Crystal; Malin Fagerås; Christine M Freeman; Lars Groenke; Eric A Hoffman; Mehmet Kesimer; Kostantinos Kostikas; Robert Paine; Shahin Rafii; Stephen I Rennard; Leopoldo N Segal; Renat Shaykhiev; Christopher Stevenson; Ruth Tal-Singer; Jørgen Vestbo; Prescott G Woodruff; Jeffrey L Curtis; Jadwiga A Wedzicha Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roberto de Marco; Simone Accordini; Isa Cerveri; Angelo Corsico; Josep M Antó; Nino Künzli; Christer Janson; Jordi Sunyer; Deborah Jarvis; Susan Chinn; Paul Vermeire; Cecilie Svanes; Ursula Ackermann-Liebrich; Thorarinn Gislason; Joachim Heinrich; Bénédicte Leynaert; Françoise Neukirch; Jan P Schouten; Matthias Wjst; Peter Burney Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-09-28 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jacob Louis Marott; Truls Sylvan Ingebrigtsen; Yunus Çolak; Jørgen Vestbo; Peter Lange Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: James P Allinson; Rebecca Hardy; Gavin C Donaldson; Seif O Shaheen; Diana Kuh; Jadwiga A Wedzicha Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Andy I Ritchie; Jonathon R Baker; Trisha M Parekh; James P Allinson; Surya P Bhatt; Louise E Donnelly; Gavin C Donaldson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: David T J Broderick; David W Waite; Robyn L Marsh; Carlos A Camargo; Paul Cardenas; Anne B Chang; William O C Cookson; Leah Cuthbertson; Wenkui Dai; Mark L Everard; Alain Gervaix; J Kirk Harris; Kohei Hasegawa; Lucas R Hoffman; Soo-Jong Hong; Laurence Josset; Matthew S Kelly; Bong-Soo Kim; Yong Kong; Shuai C Li; Jonathan M Mansbach; Asuncion Mejias; George A O'Toole; Laura Paalanen; Marcos Pérez-Losada; Melinda M Pettigrew; Maxime Pichon; Octavio Ramilo; Lasse Ruokolainen; Olga Sakwinska; Patrick C Seed; Christopher J van der Gast; Brandie D Wagner; Hana Yi; Edith T Zemanick; Yuejie Zheng; Naveen Pillarisetti; Michael W Taylor Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 5.640