9 research outputs found

    Multidimensional indexes and phenotypes in the evaluation of the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation

    Get PDF
    Department of Pneumology and Allergology, Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy of the Republic of Moldova, The 8th International Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors, September 24-26, 2020Introduction. COPD is a considerable element in worldwide chronic morbidity and mortality and invariably leads to a deterioration in the quality of life and death from it and its complications. Multiple studies had shown that exacerbations must be considered in evaluation and management of patients with COPD. Each exacerbation significantly damages quality of life and worsens the prognosis, due to association with a lung function impairment, so it also can serve as an independent prognostic factor. The task of a practitioner is to identify patients at increased risk for exacerbation, which still remains a challenge. Aim of the study. Comparative assessment of prognostic value of different approaches in COPD exacerbations: GOLD ABCD classification, multidimensional indices and phenotypes. Materials and methods. In the study were included 433 patients, hospitalized during the period of 2012-2016. The phenotypes and the following COPD classifications were used in order to assess spirometric data (FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), FVC (forced vital capacity), FEV1/FVC) and e-BODE (exacerbation, body-mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise): GOLD (The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) 2001, GOLD ABCD 2011 and GOLD ABCD 2017. Results. 352 (81%) men and 81 (19%) women with mean age 62,7 ± 9,8 years participated in research. e-BODE index and phenotypic classification showed a high correlation with exacerbation frequency (e-BODE AUC 0.908 and phenotypic classification AUC 0.995) whereas GOLD classifications underestimated the risk (GOLD 2001 AUC (area under the curve) - 0.623, GOLD ABCD AUC - 0.546 and GOLD ABCD 2017 AUC - 0.545). Conclusions. COPD diagnosis and management needs a personalized medicine strategy including assessment and prevention of future exacerbations

    Core outcome set for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force study protocol.

    Get PDF
    Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of COPD exacerbations evaluate heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically important and patient relevant. This limits their usability and comparability. A core outcome set (COS) is a consensus-based minimum set of clinically important outcomes that should be evaluated in all RCTs in specific areas of health care. We present the study protocol of the COS-AECOPD ERS Task Force, aiming to develop a COS for COPD exacerbation management, that could remedy these limitations. For the development of this COS we follow standard methodology recommended by the COMET initiative. A comprehensive list of outcomes is assembled through a methodological systematic review of the outcomes reported in relevant RCTs. Qualitative research with patients with COPD will also be conducted, aiming to identify additional outcomes that may be important to patients, but are not currently addressed in clinical research studies. Prioritisation of the core outcomes will be facilitated through an extensive, multi-stakeholder Delphi survey with a global reach. Selection will be finalised in an international, multi-stakeholder meeting. For every core outcome, we will recommend a specific measurement instrument and standardised time points for evaluation. Selection of instruments will be based on evidence-informed consensus. Our work will improve the quality, usability and comparability of future RCTs on the management of COPD exacerbations and, ultimately, the care of patients with COPD. Multi-stakeholder engagement and societal support by the European Respiratory Society will raise awareness and promote implementation of the COS

    ERS statement: A core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the management of COPD exacerbations

    Get PDF
    Clinical trials evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of COPD assess heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically relevant or more important to patients. We have developed a core outcome set, a consensus-based minimum set of important outcomes that we recommend are evaluated in all future clinical trials on exacerbations management, to improve their quality and comparability. COPD exacerbations outcomes were identified through methodological systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with 86 patients from 11 countries globally. The most critical outcomes were prioritised for inclusion in the core outcome set through a two-round Delphi survey completed by 1063 participants (256 patients, 488 health professionals and 319 clinical academics) from 88 countries in five continents. Two global, multi-stakeholder, virtual consensus meetings were conducted to 1) finalise the core outcome set and 2) prioritise a single measurement instrument to be used for evaluating each of the prioritised outcomes. Consensus was informed by rigorous methodological systematic reviews. The views of patients with COPD were accounted for at all stages of the project. Survival, treatment success, breathlessness, quality of life, activities of daily living, the need for a higher level of care, arterial blood gases, disease progression, future exacerbations and hospital admissions, treatment safety and adherence were all included in the core outcome set. Focused methodological research was recommended to further validate and optimise some of the selected measurement instruments. The panel did not consider the prioritised set of outcomes and associated measurement instruments to be burdensome for patients and health professionals to use

    ERS Statement: A core outcome set for clinical trials evaluating the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations

    No full text
    Clinical trials evaluating the management of acute exacerbations of COPD assess heterogeneous outcomes, often omitting those that are clinically relevant or more important to patients. We have developed a core outcome set, a consensus-based minimum set of important outcomes that we recommend are evaluated in all future clinical trials on exacerbations management, to improve their quality and comparability. COPD exacerbations outcomes were identified through methodological systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with 86 patients from 11 countries globally. The most critical outcomes were prioritized for inclusion in the core outcome set through a two-round Delphi survey that was completed by 1,063 participants (256 patients, 488 health professionals and 319 clinical academics) from 88 countries in 5 continents. Two global, multi-stakeholder, virtual consensus meetings were conducted to (i) finalize the core outcome set and (ii) prioritize a single measurement instrument to be used for evaluating each of the prioritized outcomes. Consensus was informed by rigorous methodological systematic reviews. The views of patients with COPD were accounted for in all stages of the project. Survival, treatment success, breathlessness, quality of life, activities of daily living, need for higher level of care, arterial blood gases, disease progression, future exacerbations and hospital admissions, treatment safety and adherence were all included in the core outcome set. Focused methodological research was recommended to further validate and optimize some of the selected measurement instruments. The panel did not consider the prioritized set of outcomes and associated measurement instruments burdensome for patients and health professionals to use

    Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire. METHODS: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months. RESULTS: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses. CONCLUSION: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research
    corecore