-
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases... Oct 2021Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) struggle with respiratory symptoms that impair their daily activities and quality of life. Understanding a...
RATIONALE
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) struggle with respiratory symptoms that impair their daily activities and quality of life. Understanding a treatment's ability to relieve symptoms requires precise assessment. The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) was developed to quantify respiratory symptoms in clinical trials. This study aimed to better understand how trials use this patient-reported outcome measure as an endpoint, as well as its responsiveness and performance relative to other outcome measures.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the use of the E-RS:COPD in pharmacological trials since its qualification by regulatory authorities.
METHODS
A rapid systematic literature review, using key biomedical databases to identify English language full-text publications of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that included the E-RS:COPD as an endpoint (2010-2020). Two investigators independently screened the publications and extracted data.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Of 219 screened records, 28 full-text publications were included, and data from 17 reporting 20 unique double-blind RCTs were synthesized. The E-RS:COPD was positioned as a primary or secondary endpoint in six publications (35%), and served as an exploratory or additional endpoint in 11 (65%). Statistically significant E-RS:COPD treatment effects versus placebo/comparator were found in 13 of the 14 publications reporting symptom results. E-RS:COPD effects corresponded well with other outcome measures (e.g., St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and forced expiratory volume 1 second [FEV]). Two publications reported the number of responders.
CONCLUSIONS
E-RS:COPD is sensitive to treatment effects in clinical trials testing drug therapies. Presentation of trial results should include responder analyses to facilitate interpretation and application of results.
PubMed: 34614551
DOI: 10.15326/jcopdf.2021.0235 -
Monaldi Archives For Chest Disease =... Feb 2020To date treatment protocols in Respiratory and or Internal departments across Italy for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at hospital...
To date treatment protocols in Respiratory and or Internal departments across Italy for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at hospital admission with relapse due to exacerbation do not find adequate support in current guidelines. Here we describe the results of a recent clinical audit, including a systematic review of practices reported in literature and an open discussion comparing these to current real-life procedures. The process was dived into two 8-hour-audits 3 months apart in order to allow work on the field in between meeting and involved 13 participants (3 nurses, 1 physiotherapist, 2 internists and 7 pulmonologists). This document reports the opinions of the experts and their consensus, leading to a bundle of multidisciplinary statements on the use of inhaled drugs for hospitalized COPD patients. Recommendations and topics addressed include: i) monitoring and diagnosis during the first 24 h after admission; ii) treatment algorithm and options (i.e., short and long acting bronchodilators); iii) bronchodilator dosages when switching device or using spacer; iv) flow measurement systems for shifting to LABA+LAMA within 48 h; v) when nebulizers are recommended; vi) use of SMI to deliver LABA+LAMA when patient needs SABA <3 times/day independently from flow limitation; vii) use of DPI and pre-dosed MDI to deliver LABA+LAMA or TRIPLE when patient needs SABA <3 times/day, with inspiratory flow > 30 litres/min; viii) contraindication to use DPI; ix) continuation of LABA-LAMA when patient is already on therapy; x) possible LABA-LAMA dosage increase; xi) use of SABA and/or SAMA in addition to LABA+LABA; xii) use of SABA+SAMA restricted to real need; xiii) reconciliation of drugs in presence of comorbidities; xiv) check of knowledge and skills on inhalation therapy; xv) discharge bundle; xvi) use of MDI and SMI in tracheostomized patients in spontaneous and ventilated breathing.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Aged, 80 and over; Bronchodilator Agents; Clinical Audit; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hospitalization; Humans; Italy; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Patient Care Team; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 32072800
DOI: 10.4081/monaldi.2020.1176 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2019The opportunity of a multidisciplinary evaluation for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonias highlighted a major change in the diagnostic approach to diffuse lung...
The opportunity of a multidisciplinary evaluation for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonias highlighted a major change in the diagnostic approach to diffuse lung disease. The new American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Latin American Thoracic Society guidelines for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have reinforced this assumption and have underlined that the exclusion of connective tissue disease related lung involvement is mandatory, with obvious clinical and therapeutic impact. The multidisciplinary team discussion consists in a moment of interaction among the radiologist, pathologist and pulmonologist, also including the rheumatologist when considered necessary, to improve diagnostic agreement and optimize the definition of those cases in which pulmonary involvement may represent the first or prominent manifestation of an autoimmune systemic disease. Moreover, the proposal of classification criteria for interstitial lung disease with autoimmune features (IPAF) represents an effort to define lung involvement in clinically undefined autoimmune conditions. The complexity of autoimmune diseases, and in particular the lack of classification criteria defined for pathologies such as anti-synthetase syndrome, makes the involvement of the rheumatologist essential for the correct interpretation of the autoimmune element and for the application of classification criteria, that could replace clinical pictures initially interpreted as IPAF in defined autoimmune disease, minimizing the risk of misdiagnosis. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence about the efficiency and efficacy of different multidisciplinary team approaches, in order to standardize the professional figures and the core set procedures that should be necessary for a correct approach in diagnosing patients with interstitial lung disease.
PubMed: 31750308
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00246