Nationwide cohort study identifies eosinophil variability factors in COPD, suggesting need for regular monitoring.
Background Blood eosinophil counts are pivotal for guiding advanced therapies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), yet their long-term consistency is poorly understood. This study aimed to characterize the longitudinal variability of blood eosinophils and identify factors associated with their instability within a large, real-world COPD population. Methods We conducted a nationwide, register-based cohort study of 63,517 Danish patients with COPD, each with at least four eosinophil measurements over a median follow-up of 3.4 years. Eosinophil levels were categorized into three groups: <0.15, 0.15-0.29, and ≥0.30 ×109/L. We used logistic regression, adjusting for multiple clinical variables including age, sex, comorbidities, and treatments, to determine predictors of stability. Patient transitions between eosinophil categories were visualized using Sankey diagrams. Findings A significant majority of patients (74%) transitioned between eosinophil categories at least once, with only 26% exhibiting a stable eosinophil profile throughout the follow-up period. While a high baseline eosinophil count (≥0.30 ×109/L) was a predictor of stability (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.63-1.77), eosinophil counts were highly variable overall. Although severe exacerbations and treatment with oral corticosteroids or antibiotics were associated with shifts in eosinophil levels, over 80% of these shifts occurred in the absence of such clinical events. Among patients with unstable counts, 39.7% changed category once, 43.2% twice, and 17.1% three times. Interpretation In patients with COPD, blood eosinophil counts demonstrate substantial long-term variability, often independent of acute clinical events. Consequently, relying on a solitary measurement to guide therapeutic decisions may be insufficient. Serial monitoring of eosinophil counts could offer a more reliable method for identifying patients with persistent type 2 inflammation who are most likely to respond to targeted therapies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: