Psychometrics of HRQoL questionnaires in bronchiectasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the psychometric properties of health related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires can help inform selection in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of HRQoL questionnaires in bronchiectasis. METHODS: A literature search was conducted. HRQoL questionnaires were assessed for psychometric properties (reliability, validity, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), floor/ceiling effects). Meta-analyses assessed the associations of HRQoL with clinical measures and responsiveness of HRQoL in clinical trials. RESULTS: 166 studies and 12 HRQoL questionnaires were included. The BHQ, LCQ, CAT and SF-36 had good internal consistency in all domains reported (Cronbach's α≥0.7) across all studies and the QoL-B, SGRQ, CRDQ and SOLQ had good internal consistency in all domains in the majority of (but not all) studies. The BHQ, SGRQ, LCQ and CAT had good test-retest reliability in all domains reported ((intraclass correlation coefficient) ICC ≥0.7) across all studies and the QoL-B, CRDQ and SOLQ had good test-retest reliability in all domains in the majority of (but not all) studies. HRQoL questionnaires were able to discriminate between demographics, important markers of clinical status, disease severity, exacerbations and bacteriology. For HRQoL responsiveness, there was a difference between the treatment and placebo effect. CONCLUSION: SGRQ was the most widely used HRQoL questionnaire in bronchiectasis studies and it had good psychometric properties, however good psychometric data are growing on bronchiectasis specific HRQoL questionnaires, QoL-B and BHQ. Future studies should focus on the medium-long term test-retest reliability, responsiveness and MCID in these HRQoL questionnaires which show potential in bronchiectasis

Multiple breath washout in bronchiectasis clinical trials: is it feasible?

BACKDGROUND: Evaluation of multiple breath washout (MBW) set-up including staff training, certification and central “over-reading” for data quality control is essential to determine the feasibility of MBW in future bronchiectasis studies. AIMS: To assess the outcomes of a MBW training, certification and central over-reading programme. METHODS: MBW training and certification was conducted in European sites collecting lung clearance index (LCI) data in the BronchUK Clinimetrics and/or i-BEST-1 studies. The blended training programme included the use of an eLearning tool and a 1-day face-to-face session. Sites submitted MBW data to trained central over-readers who determined validity and quality. RESULTS: Thirteen training days were delivered to 56 participants from 22 sites. Of 22 sites, 18 (82%) were MBW naïve. Participant knowledge and confidence increased significantly (p<0.001). By the end of the study recruitment, 15 of 22 sites (68%) had completed certification with a mean (range) time since training of 6.2 (3–14) months. In the BronchUK Clinimetrics study, 468 of 589 (79%) tests met the quality criteria following central over-reading, compared with 137 of 236 (58%) tests in the i-BEST-1 study. CONCLUSIONS: LCI is feasible in a bronchiectasis multicentre clinical trial setting; however, consideration of site experience in terms of training as well as assessment of skill drift and the need for re-training may be important to reduce time to certification and optimise data quality. Longer times to certification, a higher percentage of naïve sites and patients with worse lung function may have contributed to the lower success rate in the i-BEST-1 study

Use of low-dose oral theophylline as an adjunct to inhaled corticosteroids in preventing exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. An incomplete response to the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids is present in COPD. Preclinical work indicates that 'low dose' theophylline improves steroid responsiveness. The Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS) trial investigates whether the addition of 'low dose' theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids has clinical and cost-effective benefits in COPD. METHOD/DESIGN: TWICS is a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in primary and secondary care sites in the UK. The inclusion criteria are the following: an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC] of less than 0.7), age of at least 40 years, smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, current inhaled corticosteroid use, and history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics or oral corticosteroids in the previous year. A computerised randomisation system will stratify 1424 participants by region and recruitment setting (primary and secondary) and then randomly assign with equal probability to intervention or control arms. Participants will receive either 'low dose' theophylline (Uniphyllin MR 200 mg tablets) or placebo for 52 weeks. Dosing is based on pharmacokinetic modelling to achieve a steady-state serum theophylline of 1-5 mg/l. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg once daily (or placebo once daily) will be taken by participants who do not smoke or participants who smoke but have an ideal body weight (IBW) of not more than 60 kg. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg twice daily (or placebo twice daily) will be taken by participants who smoke and have an IBW of more than 60 kg. Participants will be reviewed at recruitment and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the total number of participant-reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that 'low dose' theophylline increases the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD by reducing the incidence of exacerbations is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health-care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620 was registered on Sept. 19, 2013, and the first subject was randomly assigned on Feb. 6, 2014

"The missing ingredient":The patient perspective of health related quality of life in bronchiectasis: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous disease which affects quality of life. Measuring symptoms and quality of life has proved challenging and research is limited by extrapolation of questionnaires and treatments from other diseases. The objective of this study was to identify the major contributors to quality of life in bronchiectasis and to evaluate existing health related quality of life questionnaires in bronchiectasis. Methods Eight adults with bronchiectasis participated in one to one semi-structured interviews. These were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to identify core themes relevant to disease burden and impact. Participant views on current health related quality of life questionnaires were also surveyed. Results Bronchiectasis symptoms are highly individual. Core themes identified were symptom burden, symptom variation, personal measurement, quality of life and control of symptoms. Themes contributing to quality of life were: social embarrassment, sleep disturbance, anxiety and modification of daily and future activities. Evaluation of 4 existing questionnaires established their individual strengths and weaknesses. A synthesis of the participants’ perspective identified desirable characteristics to guide future tool development. Conclusions: This qualitative study has identified core themes associated with symptoms and quality of life in bronchiectasis. Current treatments and quality of life tools do not fully address or capture the burden of disease in bronchiectasis from the patients’ perspective

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

OBJECTIVES: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. DESIGN: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. SETTING: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. PARTICIPANTS: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. RESULTS: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave

Multidimensional severity assessment in bronchiectasis:An analysis of 7 European cohorts.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a multidimensional disease associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Two disease-specific clinical prediction tools have been developed, the Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI) and the FACED score, both of which stratify patients into severity risk categories to predict the probability of mortality. METHODS: We aimed to compare the predictive utility of BSI and FACED in assessing clinically relevant disease outcomes across seven European cohorts independent of their original validation studies. RESULTS: The combined cohorts totalled 1612. Pooled analysis showed that both scores had a good discriminatory predictive value for mortality (pooled area under the curve (AUC) 0.76, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.78 for both scores) with the BSI demonstrating a higher sensitivity (65% vs 28%) but lower specificity (70% vs 93%) compared with the FACED score. Calibration analysis suggested that the BSI performed consistently well across all cohorts, while FACED consistently overestimated mortality in 'severe' patients (pooled OR 0.33 (0.23 to 0.48), p<0.0001). The BSI accurately predicted hospitalisations (pooled AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.84), exacerbations, quality of life (QoL) and respiratory symptoms across all risk categories. FACED had poor discrimination for hospital admissions (pooled AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.67) with low sensitivity at 16% and did not consistently predict future risk of exacerbations, QoL or respiratory symptoms. No association was observed with FACED and 6 min walk distance (6MWD) or lung function decline. CONCLUSION: The BSI accurately predicts mortality, hospital admissions, exacerbations, QoL, respiratory symptoms, 6MWD and lung function decline in bronchiectasis, providing a clinically relevant evaluation of disease severity

Bronchiectasis and asthma: Data from the European Bronchiectasis Registry (EMBARC)

\ua9 2024 The AuthorsBackground: Asthma is commonly reported in patients with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients with bronchiectasis and asthma (BE+A) had a different clinical phenotype and different outcomes compared with patients with bronchiectasis without concomitant asthma. Methods: A prospective observational pan-European registry (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration) enrolled patients across 28 countries. Adult patients with computed tomography–confirmed bronchiectasis were reviewed at baseline and annual follow-up visits using an electronic case report form. Asthma was diagnosed by the local investigator. Follow-up data were used to explore differences in exacerbation frequency between groups using a negative binomial regression model. Survival analysis used Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of 16,963 patients with bronchiectasis included for analysis, 5,267 (31.0%) had investigator-reported asthma. Patients with BE+A were younger, were more likely to be female and never smokers, and had a higher body mass index than patients with bronchiectasis without asthma. BE+A was associated with a higher prevalence of rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps as well as eosinophilia and Aspergillus sensitization. BE+A had similar microbiology but significantly lower severity of disease using the bronchiectasis severity index. Patients with BE+A were at increased risk of exacerbation after adjustment for disease severity and multiple confounders. Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was associated with reduced mortality in patients with BE+A (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.95) and reduced risk of hospitalization (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.67-0.86) compared with control subjects without asthma and not receiving ICSs. Conclusions: BE+A was common and was associated with an increased risk of exacerbations and improved outcomes with ICS use. Unexpectedly we identified significantly lower mortality in patients with BE+A

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. // Methods: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). // Findings: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9–6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40–59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. // Interpretation: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care