Eosinophilic ratio in COPD and outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation

Background: There’s a debate in the current literature about the utility of blood eosinophil count (EC) as a biomarker in COPD patients. Objectives: To evaluate if COPD patients have different outcomes in a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program (PRP) according EC. Methods: From 171 COPD patients referred to a PRP, 86 patients with blood EC were retrospectively analyzed. They were than separated into two groups: group 1 (56 patients) with EC Results: Between group 1 (35 [62.5%] female, median age 67.93±10.32, 40 [71.4%] exacerbator phenotype) and group 2 (24 [80.0%] male, median age 73.13±8.88, 15 [50.0%] exacerbator phenotype) there was no difference between lung function: FVC (2.38±0.83 vs. 2.41±0.88, p=0.670), FEV1 (2.32±8.95 vs. 1.21±0.66, p=0.786), FEV1/FVC (47.39±15.63 vs. 50.47±15.81, p=0.416) and rehabilitation outcomes: Δ6MWT (54.09±69.69 vs. 35.27±38.84, p=0.169), ΔmMRC (-0.84±0.85 vs. -1.33±0.82, p=0.083), ΔBAI (-7.37±6.36 vs. -3.36±8.07, p=0.287), ΔBDI (-9.10±8.27 vs. -2.29±6.06, p=0.007). SGRQ: ΔSymptoms (-10.40±28.01vs. -14.54±15.40, p=0.575), ΔActivities (-5.65±17.63 vs. -6.17±11.80, p=0.919), ΔImpact (-9.69±12.91 vs. -10.89±11.56, p=0.659), ΔTotal (-9.71±11.69 vs. -11.28±8.53, p=0.348) and ΔBODE index (-0.96±1.12 vs. -1.20±1.01, p=0.558). Conclusion: In this group of COPD patients, blood eosinophil count of 2% was not able to differentiate outcomes after a PRP.