Two axes, one lung
When controlling the inflammation in emphysema reopens the case for volume reduction

The drugs that calm emphysema and the procedures that reduce its volume have always run on separate tracks — chosen by different tests, discussed in different clinics, rarely in the same sentence. A run of trials in the last three years has quietly joined them: by settling the exacerbations that keep a patient off the list, a biologic can turn someone who was ineligible for volume reduction into a candidate for it.

Two axes that never met

Severe emphysema is really two problems wearing one name. There is the inflammatory problem — the exacerbations, the chest infections, the flares that land people in hospital — and there is the mechanical problem: lung so destroyed and over-inflated that what good tissue remains has no room to work. They are treated by different people looking at different things. The inflammatory axis belongs to the respiratory physician, worked out from symptoms, exacerbation history and, increasingly, the blood eosinophil count. The mechanical axis is mine, decided by the distribution of the emphysema on CT, the residual volume, and whether the target lobe has an intact fissure — whether, in the jargon, it is free of collateral ventilation. Almost nothing that settles one settles the other. A patient can sit squarely on both, and until recently the two assessments had no reason to meet.

What changed on the medical side

What changed is that the inflammatory axis acquired real firepower. For a long time the ceiling of medical treatment was triple inhaled therapy, and the patients who kept exacerbating through it had little left to try. Then a class of drugs borrowed from severe asthma — biologics that block type-2 inflammation — began to work in a defined slice of COPD. Dupilumab, which blocks the interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 pathways, cut moderate and severe exacerbations by roughly a third in patients with a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per microlitre, across two trials (BOREAS and NOTUS); in the subgroup who had emphysema specifically, the reduction held at 29%. Mepolizumab, which targets interleukin-5, cut exacerbations by about a fifth in the same eosinophilic population (MATINEE). These are add-on treatments for people already on maximal inhalers who go on exacerbating — and the effect is narrow: it falls on the exacerbations, and, for mepolizumab, not on lung function at all. That narrowness turns out to be the useful part.

Why frequent exacerbations keep a patient off the list

It is useful because a frequent exacerbator is, in my clinic, a poor candidate for volume reduction — and for endobronchial valves in particular. The published selection guidance is explicit that repeated infection and frequent exacerbations count against the procedure, and that valves are for a stable phase of disease, not an unstable one. The reason is mechanical as much as infective: a valve works by collapsing the worst lobe, and a lung that is inflamed and exacerbating tolerates that badly. A recent exacerbation postpones the procedure; a settled pattern of them takes it off the table. None of this is abstract. A patient can wait months for a valve assessment, reach the front of the queue, and then exacerbate in the weeks before the date — at which point it is deferred and the wait, in effect, resets. For some of these patients the exacerbations are not a complication of the emphysema alongside everything else. They are the single thing standing between the patient and the one intervention that would help the mechanics.

The overlap is narrow — and that is the point

So the logic is plain: if the exacerbations are what excludes the patient, and a drug now exists that stops them, the drug can hand the patient back to candidacy. But it runs only for a particular person, and the boundaries are worth stating flatly, because they are where the idea is easy to oversell. The biologic works only if the exacerbations are eosinophilic — driven by type-2 inflammation, with the eosinophil count to match. Identifying that phenotype is not always clean either: a maintenance dose of oral steroid suppresses the very eosinophil count one would measure, so a patient can look non-eosinophilic on paper for reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying inflammation. The frequent exacerbator whose flares are infective or neutrophilic rather than eosinophilic will not be rescued by an anti-eosinophil drug, and stays exactly as ineligible as before. Nor does the biologic touch the mechanics: it does nothing for the hyperinflation, nothing for the destroyed parenchyma, and — in the case of mepolizumab — nothing measurable for lung function. It is not an alternative to volume reduction. It removes one specific barrier to it, for the subset of patients whose barrier happens to be eosinophilic exacerbations. That is a narrow gate. But the people who fit through it are precisely those for whom both axes are in play, and who have, until now, fallen into the space between them.

What I would ask of a respiratory colleague

The first sequential cases are already in print: a patient with asthma–COPD overlap whose exacerbations were brought under control with a biologic (tezepelumab, in that instance) and who then, stable at last, went on to have valves placed, with the benefit holding two years later. It is one case, in overlap rather than pure COPD, and it is not a pathway. But it is the shape of the thing. My ask of the physicians who manage these patients is small and specific. When you start someone with eosinophilic COPD on a biologic and the exacerbations settle, hold on to what that stability may have unlocked. A patient who was turned down for volume reduction because they kept exacerbating is not turned down for good — the reason for the refusal may simply have gone. It is worth putting them forward for reassessment rather than assuming the earlier answer still stands. These are trial-of-therapy drugs, continued only where they are demonstrably working and reviewed within the first year, which is time enough to watch the exacerbations settle and to reach a valve assessment while the patient is stable. The operation itself, in its modern form, is a good deal safer than the reputation it still carries — a point I have made elsewhere. What is new is that a drug on the other axis can now decide who gets to reach it.

← Back to the Journal