Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Individualized Therapy: Tailored Approach to Symptom Management

<p><strong>Article full text</strong></p> <p><br> The full text of this article can be found <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0459-6"><b>here</b>.</a><br> <br> <strong>Provide enhanced digital features for this article</strong><br> If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced digital features for your article then please contact <u>[email protected]</u>.<br> <br> The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.<br> <br> Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:<br> • Slide decks<br> • Videos and animations<br> • Audio abstracts<br> • Audio slides<u></u></p

Port025-2017-0814-BancaPDM

aGerman unit costs according to Bock et al. [19]. bIndirect costs only for subjects of employable age < 65 years. cWork absence only for full-time and regular part-time employees. (DOC 40 kb

Additional file 1: Table S1. of Assessing health-related quality of life in COPD: comparing generic and disease-specific instruments with focus on comorbidities

Correlations between HRQL instruments and with GOLD grade and BODE as clinical measures: Spearman Correlation Coefficients. Table S2. Adjusted mean EQ-5D utilities, EQ-5D VAS, CAT score, SGRQ total scores for COPD grade 1–4 stratified for group with low (≤3) or high (>3) number of comorbidities. Table S3. Results of regression models considering interactions between COPD grades and low/high number of comorbidity. Figure S1. Lifetime prevalence of self-reported comorbidities (%) in the study population. Figure S2. HRQL scores by FEV1 % pred.: non-parametric quantile regression: quantile fit plots for FEV1 % pred. (DOC 258 kb

Specific protein measurements are displayed in four different ways.

<p>a. The breathing manoeuvres tidal breathing (TB) and hyperventilation (H) and also the devices RTube and ECoScreen turbo had no effect on the total concentration of Clara cell protein (CCP) and surfactant protein-A (SP-A), respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.17; <i>p</i> = 0.16). b. Normalizing the CCP and SP-A protein concentrations to ventilated volume revealed lower CCP and SP-A values under hyperventilation conditions (<i>p</i><0.001; <i>p</i><0.0001). c. Absolute amount of CCP and SP-A. Hyperventilation leads to significant higher SP-A and CCP levels (<i>p</i><0.0001 for both). d. Normalizing the absolute amount of SP-A and CCP to the volume of ventilated air resulted in no significant difference of CCP and SP-A levels comparing hyperventilation with tidal breathing.</p

Bland Altman Plots are shown to display differences in individual measurements of the exhaled breath condensate (EBC) under certain conditions.

<p>Neither the device nor the ventilation pattern changed the EBC pH significantly. a. RTube and ECoScreen showed comparable pH values in EBC in tidal breathing (TB). b. RTube and ECoScreen showed comparable pH values in EBC in hyperventilation (H). c. The breathing manoeuvres did not produce significant differences in EBC pH using the ECoScreen. d. The breathing manoeuvres did not produce significant differences in EBC pH using the RTube.</p

Mahalanobis distance and cross validation value (CVV; in parentheses).

<p>The four groups (RTube or ECoScreen performing tidal breathing (TB) or hyperventilation (H)) were clearly distinguishable after analyzing the EBC with the electronic nose.</p

Bland and Altman plots with the mean over three days.

<p>Upper/lower limits of agreement and 95% CI (over/under the means) of steps (A), calories (B), daily activity (C) and MET (D) between Polar A300^™ and SWA.</p

Baseline Characteristics.

<p>Baseline Characteristics.</p

The three-dimensional plot of the linear discriminant (LD) analysis shows that two breathing patterns and the two devices were clearly separable using the electronic Nose (Cyranose 320).

<p>The three-dimensional plot of the linear discriminant (LD) analysis shows that two breathing patterns and the two devices were clearly separable using the electronic Nose (Cyranose 320).</p

Displayed are the overall protein measurements in four different ways.

<p>a. Comparing the ECoScreen and RTube EBC protein concentration after tidal breathing (TB) no statistical significant difference could be shown (<i>p</i> = 0.51). After hyperventilation (H) ECoScreen resulted in higher protein concentrations than the RTube (<i>p</i><0.001). Comparing the two manoeuvres, hyperventilation yielded higher concentrations than tidal breathing, but this difference was significant only in the ECoScreen (<i>p</i><0.0001). b. To the volume of ventilated air normalized protein concentrations in EBC collected by the ECoScreen device did not show a difference between tidal breathing and hyperventilation (<i>p</i> = 1). c. Analyzing the total protein amount in EBC, hyperventilation with ECoScreen resulted in higher protein values compared to RTube (<i>p</i><0.05). Comparing hyperventilation with tidal breathing in the ECoScreen device, hyperventilation resulted in higher absolute protein amounts (<i>p</i><0.001). d. By normalizing the absolute protein amount in EBC to the volume of ventilated air using the ECoScreen turbo hyperventilation expressed higher overall protein values/ventilated volume (<i>p</i><0.05).Within the same device hyperventilation yielded higher overall protein concentrations of EBC than tidal breathing, though the difference was statistically significant only in the ECoScreen device (H: 0.033 mg/ml±0.008 mg/ml vs. TB: 0.016 mg/ml±0.003 mg/ml; <i>p</i><0.05; <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0027467#pone-0027467-g004" target="_blank">figure 4a</a>, grey bars).</p