-
Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine 2016Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic devastating interstitial lung disease associated with exercise intolerance, dyspnea, hypoxemia, diminished quality of... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic devastating interstitial lung disease associated with exercise intolerance, dyspnea, hypoxemia, diminished quality of life and poor prognosis. A growing body of evidence with respect to short-term effects of exercise training has demonstrated clinical benefits in IPF patients. A recent systematic review showed significant improvements in 6-min walking distance, peak aerobic capacity, reduced dyspnea and improved quality of life. However, aspects of training programs, maintenance and predictors of improvement and the impact on prognosis need to be further explored. The aim of this paper was to comprehensively review the existing scientific literature regarding exercise training in patients with IPF and identify important gaps that should be studied in the future.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Dyspnea; Exercise Therapy; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Prognosis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 26567878
DOI: 10.1586/17476348.2016.1121104 -
The European Respiratory Journal May 2020https://bit.ly/2XVwIsa
https://bit.ly/2XVwIsa
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus; Coronavirus Infections; Dyspnea; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32341100
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01009-2020 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine Dec 2022Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been adopted as a powerful tool in acute medicine. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the existing literature on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been adopted as a powerful tool in acute medicine. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the existing literature on point-of-care ultrasound in respiratory or circulatory deterioration.
METHODS
Original studies on POCUS and dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock from March 2002 until March 2022 were assessed in the PubMed and Embase Databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using an established checklist.
RESULTS
We included 89 articles in this review. Point-of-care ultrasound in the initial workup increases the diagnostic accuracy in patients with dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension and shock in the ED, ICU and medical ward setting. No improvement is found in patients with severe sepsis in the ICU setting. POCUS is capable of narrowing the differential diagnoses and is faster, and more feasible in the acute setting than other diagnostics available. Results on outcome measures are heterogenous. The quality of the included studies is considered low most of the times, mainly because of performance and selection bias and absence of a gold standard as the reference test.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that POCUS contributes to a higher diagnostic accuracy in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock. It aides in narrowing the differential diagnoses and shortening the time to correct diagnosis and effective treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRY
INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY202220020; URL: https://inplasy.com/.
Topics: Humans; Point-of-Care Systems; Emergency Service, Hospital; Ultrasonography; Dyspnea; Shock; Hypotension
PubMed: 35927185
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.07.017 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jan 2023Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom for oncology patients.However, dyspnea is not well-characterized and often underestimated by clinicians. This systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom for oncology patients.However, dyspnea is not well-characterized and often underestimated by clinicians. This systematic review summarizes the prevalence, intensity, distress, and impact of dyspnea in oncology patients and identifies research gaps.
METHODS
A search of all of the relevant databases was done from 2009 to May 2022. A qualitative synthesis of the extant literature was performed using established guidelines.
RESULTS
One hundred-seventeen studies met inclusion criteria. Weighted grand mean prevalence of dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer was 58.0%. Intensity of dyspnea was most common dimension evaluated, followed by the impact and distress. Depression and anxiety were the most common symptoms that co-occurred with dyspnea.
CONCLUSION
Numerous methodologic challenges were evident across studies. Future studies need to use valid and reliable measures; evaluate the impact of dyspnea; and determine biomarkers for dyspnea.
Topics: Humans; Anxiety; Dyspnea; Neoplasms; Prevalence
PubMed: 36375635
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103870 -
Respiratory Medicine Nov 2023Dyspnea is a commonly described symptom in various chronic and acute conditions. Despite its frequency, relatively little is known about the prevalence and assessment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Dyspnea is a commonly described symptom in various chronic and acute conditions. Despite its frequency, relatively little is known about the prevalence and assessment of dyspnea in general populations. The aims of this review were: 1) to estimate the prevalence of dyspnea in general adult populations; 2) to identify associated factors; and 3) to identify used methods for dyspnea assessment.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and JAMA network. Records were screened by two independent reviewers and quality was assessed by using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for risk of bias in prevalence studies. Multi-level meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled prevalence. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021275499).
RESULTS
Twenty original articles, all from studies in high-income countries, met the criteria for inclusion. Overall, their quality was good. Pooled prevalence of dyspnea in general adult populations based on 11 studies was 10% (95% CI 7, 15), but heterogeneity across studies was high. The most frequently reported risk factors were increasing age, female sex, higher BMI and respiratory or cardiac disease. The MRC or the modified MRC scale was the most used tool to assess dyspnea in general populations.
CONCLUSIONS
Dyspnea is a common symptom in adults in high-income countries. However, the high heterogeneity across studies and the lack of data from low- and middle-income countries limit the generalizability of our findings. Therefore, more research is needed to unveil the prevalence of dyspnea and its main risk factors in general populations around the world.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Female; Prevalence; Dyspnea; Risk Factors; Cross-Sectional Studies; Income
PubMed: 37595674
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2023.107379 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review published in 2015. Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder, characterised by recurring, unprovoked seizures. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a neuromodulatory treatment that is used as an adjunctive therapy for treating people with drug-resistant epilepsy. VNS consists of chronic, intermittent electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, delivered by a programmable pulse generator.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS when used as add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS), and MEDLINE Ovid on 3 March 2022. We imposed no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups, including Epilepsy, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered parallel or cross-over, randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of VNS as add-on treatment, which compared high- and low-level stimulation (including three different stimulation paradigms: rapid, mild, and slow duty-cycle), and VNS stimulation versus no stimulation, or a different intervention. We considered adults or children with drug-resistant focal seizures who were either not eligible for surgery, or who had failed surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods, assessing the following outcomes: 1. 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency 2. Treatment withdrawal (any reason) 3. Adverse effects 4. Quality of life (QoL) 5. Cognition 6. Mood
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update, therefore, the conclusions are unchanged. We included the five randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the last update, with a total of 439 participants. The baseline phase ranged from 4 to 12 weeks, and double-blind treatment phases from 12 to 20 weeks. We rated two studies at an overall low risk of bias, and three at an overall unclear risk of bias, due to lack of reported information about study design. Effective blinding of studies of VNS is difficult, due to the frequency of stimulation-related side effects, such as voice alteration. The risk ratio (RR) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.64; 4 RCTs, 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that high frequency VNS was over one and a half times more effective than low frequency VNS. The RR for treatment withdrawal was 2.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 12.71; 4 RCTs, 375 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for the top five reported adverse events were: hoarseness RR 2.17 (99% CI 1.49 to 3.17; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); cough RR 1.09 (99% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 3 RCTs, 334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); dyspnoea RR 2.45 (99% CI 1.07 to 5.60; 3 RCTs, 312 participants; low-certainty evidence); pain RR 1.01 (99% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 2 RCTs; 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); paraesthesia 0.78 (99% CI 0.39 to 1.53; 2 RCTs, 312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Results from two studies (312 participants) showed that a small number of favourable QOL effects were associated with VNS stimulation, but results were inconclusive between high- and low-level stimulation groups. One study (198 participants) found inconclusive results between high- and low-level stimulation for cognition on all measures used. One study (114 participants) found the majority of participants showed an improvement in mood on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale compared to baseline, but results between high- and low-level stimulation were inconclusive. We found no important heterogeneity between studies for any of the outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
VNS for focal seizures appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Results of the overall efficacy analysis show that high-level stimulation reduced the frequency of seizures better than low-level stimulation. There were very few withdrawals, which suggests that VNS is well tolerated. Adverse effects associated with implantation and stimulation were primarily hoarseness, cough, dyspnoea, pain, paraesthesia, nausea, and headache, with hoarseness and dyspnoea more likely to occur with high-level stimulation than low-level stimulation. However, the evidence for these outcomes is limited, and of moderate to low certainty. Further high-quality research is needed to fully evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of VNS for drug-resistant focal seizures.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Child; Cough; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspnea; Hoarseness; Humans; Pain; Paresthesia; Seizures; Vagus Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 35833911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002896.pub3 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine May 2023Frailty has been increasingly identified as a risk factor of adverse outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The prevalence and impact of frailty on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Frailty has been increasingly identified as a risk factor of adverse outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The prevalence and impact of frailty on health outcomes in people with COPD require clarification.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science (January 1, 2002, to July 1, 2022) were comprehensively searched to identify studies related to frailty and COPD. Comparisons were made between people who did and did not have frailty for pulmonary function, dyspnea severity, 6-minute walking distance, activities of daily life, and mortality.
RESULTS
Twenty studies (9 cross-sectional, 10 cohort studies,1 clinical trial) from Europe (9), Asia (6), and North and South America (4), Oceania (1) involving 11, 620 participants were included. The prevalence of frailty was 32.07% (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.64-37.49) with a range of 6.43-71.70% based on the frailty tool used. People with frailty had lower predicted forced expiratory volume in the first second (mean difference - 5.06%; 95%CI -6.70 to -3.42%), shorter 6-minute walking distance (mean difference - 90.23 m; 95%CI -124.70 to -55.76), poorer activities of daily life (standardized mean difference - 0.99; 95%CI -1.35 to -0.62), higher CAT(COPD Assessment Test) score(mean difference 6.2; 95%CI 4.43 to 7.96) and mMRC (modified Medical Research Council) grade (mean difference 0.93; 95%CI 0.85 to 1.02) compared with those who did not (P < 0.001 for all). Meta-analysis showed that frailty was associated with an increased risk of long-term all-cause mortality (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.37-2.05; I = 0%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Frailty is prevalent in people with COPD and linked with negative clinical outcomes including pulmonary function, dyspnea severity, exercise capacity, quality of life and mortality.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Frailty; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Dyspnea
PubMed: 37173728
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-023-02454-z -
European Journal of Physical and... Dec 2023Until the last update in February 2022, the Cochrane Rehabilitation COVID-19 Evidence-based Response (REH-COVER) action identified an increasing volume of evidence for...
INTRODUCTION
Until the last update in February 2022, the Cochrane Rehabilitation COVID-19 Evidence-based Response (REH-COVER) action identified an increasing volume of evidence for the rehabilitation management of COVID-19. Therefore, our aim was to identify the best available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for rehabilitation for COVID-19-related limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in adults with COVID-19 or post COVID-19 condition (PCC).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We ran the searches on February 17, 2023, in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINHAL, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, applying a publication date restriction to retrieve only papers published in 2022. To retrieve papers published before 2022, we screened the reference lists of previous publications included in the REH-COVER action, covering papers from early 2020 to the end of 2022. This current review includes only randomised controlled trials and concludes the rapid living systematic reviews of the Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated in all studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE, respectively. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022374244.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
After duplicate removal, we identified 18,950 individual records and 53 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Our findings suggest that the effect of breathing and strengthening exercise programs on dyspnea and physical exercise capacity compared to no treatment in non-severe COVID-19 patients is uncertain. Multicomponent telerehabilitation may slightly increase physical exercise capacity compared to educational intervention in adults with PCC. There is, however, uncertainty about its effect on lung function and physical exercise capacity when compared to no treatment. Finally, the effect of inspiratory muscle training on maximal inspiratory pressure compared to no treatment in adults with PCC is uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS
Interventions that are part of comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation approaches may benefit dyspnea and exercise tolerance in adults with COVID-19 and PCC. The available evidence has several methodological limitations that limit the certainty of evidence and the clinical relevance of findings. Therefore, we cannot provide robust suggestions for practice. While high-quality RCTs are being conducted, clinicians should consider using high-quality evidence from other pulmonary conditions to rehabilitate patients with COVID-19 or PCC using context-specific interventions.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Disease; COVID-19; Dyspnea; Exercise; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 38214047
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.08331-4 -
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica :... Dec 2022
Review
Topics: Humans; Laryngeal Neoplasms; Cricoid Cartilage; Chondrosarcoma
PubMed: 36654516
DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-N1912 -
Palliative & Supportive Care Oct 2022Cancer-related dyspnea is a common symptom in patients with cancer. It has also been reported to be a predictor of poorer prognosis, which can then change clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Cancer-related dyspnea is a common symptom in patients with cancer. It has also been reported to be a predictor of poorer prognosis, which can then change clinical treatment and advance care planning. Currently, no definitive recommendation for pharmacologic agents for cancer-related dyspnea exists. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to compare pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-related dyspnea.
METHODS
A search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL through May 2021. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), as reported by studies or calculated from baseline and follow-up dyspnea scores, were amalgamated into a summary SMD and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a restricted maximum likelihood multivariate network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included in this review; six reported on prophylaxis of exertional dyspnea, five on treatment of everyday dyspnea, and one on treatment of episodic dyspnea. Morphine sulfate was better at controlling everyday dyspnea than placebo (SMD 1.210; 95% CI: 0.415-2.005). Heterogeneity in study design and comparisons, however, led to some concerns with the underlying consistency assumption in network meta-analysis design.
CONCLUSION
Optimal pharmacologic interventions for cancer-related dyspnea could not be determined based on this analysis. Further trials are needed to report on the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions for the prophylaxis and treatment of cancer-related dyspnea.
Topics: Dyspnea; Humans; Morphine; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 36111729
DOI: 10.1017/S1478951521001656