4.6 Review

Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: the GOLD science committee report 2019

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00164-2019

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
  2. MRC [G1001365, G0800570, G1001372] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Precision medicine is a patient-specific approach that integrates all relevant clinical, genetic and biological information in order to optimise the therapeutic benefit relative to the possibility of sideeffects for each individual. Recent clinical trials have shown that higher blood eosinophil counts are associated with a greater efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Blood eosinophil counts are a biomarker with potential to be used in clinical practice, to help target ICS treatment with more precision in COPD patients with a history of exacerbations despite appropriate bronchodilator treatment. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 pharmacological treatment algorithms, based on the ABCD assessment, can be applied relatively easily to treatment-naive individuals at initial presentation. However, their use is more problematic during follow-up in patients who are already on maintenance treatment. There is a need for a different system to guide COPD pharmacological management during follow-up. Recent large randomised controlled trials have provided important new information concerning the therapeutic effects of ICSs and long-acting bronchodilators on exacerbations. The new evidence regarding blood eosinophils and inhaled treatments, and the need to distinguish between initial and follow-up pharmacological management, led to changes in the GOLD pharmacological treatment recommendations. This article explains the evidence and rationale for the GOLD 2019 pharmacological treatment recommendations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据