Autor : Videla Alejandro
These absurd
conjectures prove that people were already growing quite tired of the Chimaera.
It was better to
translate it into something else than to picture it.
Jorge Luis Borges
El libro de los seres
imaginarios (Book of Imaginary Beings), 1967
On
the occasion of the death of Dr. Alejandro Raimondi, Dr. Daniel Colodenco
recalled that “He had the enormous capacity to identify novel processes in
respiratory medicine and give them original, funny, and noticeably smart
names”. In the ‘80s, we used to see patients with overlapping features of
asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), in whom it was very
difficult to figure out which condition prevailed. Since it was impossible to
define them in an accurate manner, Alejandro believed that an ad hoc neologism
could be useful for designating this new chimaera, thus, he started to label
them as “bronchastic” and “asthmitic”. That nominative originality, which he
showed frequently, came to be accepted in the European and American scientific
societies as “asthma-COPD overlap”, with the ACO acronym, a not so funny way of
assuming the existence of a hybrid entity in the clinical practice. If only Dr.
Raimondi could have read the article published in this RAMR issue…
In this article, Dr. López et al show a secondary
analysis of the EPOC.AR study (a population-based survey of national scope) for
the purpose of finding an answer to the clinical question regarding the
prevalence of asthma and COPD coexistence (ACO) in our country1 . The
authors want to measure and weigh this new chimaera. It was found that asthma
coexistence was produced in 19.08% of the cases in accordance with the
diagnostic criteria of the Denver Agreement2 . 14.5%
of the cases were characterized as ACO only because of the presence of a
bronchodilator response between 200 mL and 400 mL, and 4.6% due to the presence
of a previous asthma diagnosis (with or without significant bronchodilator
response). Patients with ACO were younger than the rest of the cases and
reported more sibilance and more cases with family history of asthma. Also,
these patients were receiving inhaled corticosteroids combined with long-acting
bronchodilators more frequently, thus suffering more exacerbations and showing
repeated absences from work and higher antibiotic consumption. Finally, the
pre-bronchodilator lung function was also lower in the ACO group.
The prevalence range found by the authors is below the one
reported in COPD studies (between 13% and 55.7%)3. The
great variation among the results that can be found in the literature can be
attributed to the use of different definitions and diagnostic criteria, and
probably to geographical differences and differences in population exposure to
risk factors. The reported prevalence of asthma and COPD in our country are
within ranges more similar to those from other countries, which leaves us with
a question to be further investigated for future studies: to
what extent is the underdiagnosis of these diseases influencing the ACO
diagnosis? and, what about the fact that eosinophilia wasn’t determined in the
results?4. It seems improbable that
the lack of a laboratory minor criterion had a considerable impact on the
reported result. On the contrary, its presence could be associated with the
eosinophilic variant of COPD.
The results of this study describe a group of people who suffer
from a more severe disease, with higher impact on their quality of life, higher
frequency of exacerbations, and reduced lung function. These findings are
compatible with an American study that showed that patients with ACO have
higher risk of visiting the emergency department and reduced lung function5. It
would seem that these patients were recognized as asthmatics by their doctors,
and treated with inhaled corticosteroids. Unfortunately, there aren’t any
large, randomized, controlled studies of this subgroup, and recommendations
for their treatment are based on expert opinions6.
There is much more that we don’t know than we do know about ACO.
We can’t define yet if it is a mere coincidence of two common diseases or a
phenotype with a differential behavior. The results of this study at least aim
to indicate that the impact on patients who develop an entity with combined
features of asthma and COPD is even higher than the one produced by each one of
them independently, and is a valuable addition to local knowledge of
respiratory medicine. The ACO is not something that was designed in an effort
to diagnose, but a real entity with a negative impact on those who suffer from
it.
BIBLIOGRAFÍA
1.
Echazarreta AL, Arias SJ, del Olmo R, et al. Prevalencia de enfermedad pulmonar
obstructiva crónica en 6 aglomerados urbanos de Argentina: el estudio
EPOC.AR [Internet]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2018; 54(5): 260-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2017.09.018
2. Sin DD, Miravitlles M, Mannino DM, et al.
What is asthma- COPD overlap syndrome? Towards a consensus definition from
a round table discussion. Eur Respir J 2016; 48(3): 664-73.
https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00436-2016
3. Hosseini M, Almasi-Hashiani A, Sepidarkish M, Maroufizadeh S.
Global prevalence of asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) in the general population: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Res 2019; 20(1): 229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-019-1198-4
4. Arias SJ, Neffen H, Bossio JC, et al. Prevalencia y características
clínicas del asma en adultos jóvenes en zonas urbanas de
Argentina. Arch Bronconeumol 2018;54(3): 134-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbres.2017.08.021
5. Mendy A, Forno E, Niyonsenga T, Carnahan R, Gasana J.
Prevalence and features of asthma-COPD overlap in the United States 2007-2012.
Clin Respir J 2018; 12(8): 2369- 77. https://doi.org/10.1111/crj.12917
6. Maselli DJ, Hardin M, Christenson SA, et al. Clinical Approach
to the Therapy of Asthma-COPD Overlap. Chest 2019; 155(1): 168-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.028