Prospective study explores clinical outcomes in biomass smoke-related COPD, indicating different management needs.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore clinical characteristics and outcomes among patients with biomass smoke-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (BS-COPD), those with cigarette smoke-related COPD (CS-COPD), and those exposed to both (CS+BS-COPD). The outcomes of patients receiving different inhaled drugs was also explored. METHODS: This was a real-world, combined cross-sectional and prospective observational study conducted within the RealDTC cohort. The participants were divided into BS-COPD, CS-COPD, and CS+BS-COPD groups. Study outcomes included symptom improvement, moderate-to-severe exacerbations during 1-year follow-up, and all-cause mortality during the total follow-up period. RESULTS: Among the 4436 eligible patients, compared with the CS-COPD group, the BS-COPD group had more females, higher CAT scores, fewer low attenuation areas (LAA%>5%), but more airway mucus plugs, higher WA%, and higher dPA/A. The CS+BS-COPD group had a higher proportion of LAA%>5% than BS-COPD group and more patients with mucus plugs than CS-COPD group. In the adjusted model, BS-COPD had a lower risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbations than CS-COPD, with similar mortality. The CS+BS-COPD group had a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe exacerbations than the other two groups. Moreover, BS-COPD group experienced greater symptom improvement than the others. Across all groups, LABA+LAMA or ICS+LABA+LAMA were associated with lower exacerbation risk than LAMA alone. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, BS-COPD patients had less emphysema but greater airway wall thickness and more mucus plugs, along with lower exacerbation risk and greater symptom improvement than CS-COPD patients. Combined exposure to both biofuels and cigarette smoke was associated with an aggravated exacerbation risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: