Prospective cohort study reveals FeNO variation predicts future exacerbations in COPD, indicating its use for risk assessment.
Background Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) reflects type 2 airway inflammation, yet the prognostic utility of longitudinal FeNO changes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unclear. We aim to explore whether 6-month FeNO-variation patterns predict subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbations in COPD patients receiving triple therapy. Methods We prospectively evaluated COPD patients receiving triple inhaled therapy from 2023 to 2024. Four FeNO-related variables used to derive FeNO-variation phenotypes via K-means unsupervised clustering. Results Three distinct FeNO-variation phenotypes were identified: a High FeNO–Persistently Elevated subtype (Cluster 1, 11.2%), a High FeNO–Declining subtype (Cluster 2, 20.3%), and a Low FeNO–Stable subtype (Cluster 3, 68.5%). During 6–12 months follow up, 75 patients (33.8%) experienced a moderate-to-severe exacerbation. Compared with Cluster 3, both Cluster 1 (OR 6.97, 95% CI 2.38–20.47) and Cluster 2 (OR 20.08, 95% CI 7.01–57.58) were independently associated with future exacerbations (P<0.001). The final prediction model incorporating FeNO variation phenotypes demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC 0.889) and provided greater net clinical benefit than models using traditional clinical predictors alone (p=0.004). Subgroup analyses revealed consistent effect sizes across categories of age, prior-year exacerbations, baseline FEV 1 % predicted, symptom burden, smoking status, and proportion of days covered (PDC), supporting the robustness and internal consistency of the FeNO-variation phenotyping approach. Conclusion Short-term longitudinal FeNO variation over 6 months was independently associated with future moderate-to-severe exacerbations in COPD patients receiving triple therapy, supporting risk stratification and hypothesis generation for future interventional studies rather than direct treatment guidance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: