31 research outputs found

    PAciFy Cough – A multicentre, double blind, placebo controlled, crossover trial of morphine sulfate for the treatment of PulmonAry Fibrosis Cough

    Get PDF
    Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease that leads to lung scarring, Cough is reported by 85% of patients with IPF and can be a distressing symptom with a significant impact on patients’ quality of life. There are no proven effective therapies for IPF related cough. While morphine is frequently used as a palliative agent for breathlessness in IPF, its effects on cough have never been tested. PAciFy Cough is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of morphine sulfate for the treatment of cough in IPF. Methods: We will recruit 44 subjects with IPF prospectively from three interstitial lung disease units in the UK, namely the Royal Brompton Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) and Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Patients will be randomized (1:1) to either placebo twice daily or morphine sulfate 5mg twice daily for 14 days. They will then crossover after a 7 day washout period. The primary endpoint is the percent change in daytime cough frequency (coughs per hour) from baseline as assessed by objective cough monitoring at Day 14 of treatment. Discussion: This multicentre, randomised trial will assess the effect of opioids on cough counts and cough associated quality of life in IPF subjects. If proven to be an effective intervention, it represents a readily available treatment for patients. Trial registration: The study was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (Ref: CTA 21268/0224/001-0001 – EUDRACT 2019-003571-19 – Protocol Number RBH2019/001) on 08 April 2020, in compliance with the European Clinical Trials Directive and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 and its subsequent amendments. The study was provided with ethical approval by the London Brent Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/LO/0368) on 21 May 2020 and is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04429516) on 12 June 2020, available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0442951

    Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: An international case-cohort study

    Get PDF
    We conducted an international study of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) diagnosis among a large group of physicians and compared their diagnostic performance to a panel of IPF experts. A total of 1141 respiratory physicians and 34 IPF experts participated. Participants evaluated 60 cases of interstitial lung disease (ILD) without interdisciplinary consultation. Diagnostic agreement was measured using the weighted kappa coefficient (\u3baw). Prognostic discrimination between IPF and other ILDs was used to validate diagnostic accuracy for first-choice diagnoses of IPF and were compared using the Cindex. A total of 404 physicians completed the study. Agreement for IPF diagnosis was higher among expert physicians (\u3baw=0.65, IQR 0.53-0.72, p20 years of experience (C-index=0.72, IQR 0.0-0.73, p=0.229) and non-university hospital physicians with more than 20 years of experience, attending weekly MDT meetings (C-index=0.72, IQR 0.70-0.72, p=0.052), did not differ significantly (p=0.229 and p=0.052 respectively) from the expert panel (C-index=0.74 IQR 0.72-0.75). Experienced respiratory physicians at university-based institutions diagnose IPF with similar prognostic accuracy to IPF experts. Regular MDT meeting attendance improves the prognostic accuracy of experienced non-university practitioners to levels achieved by IPF experts

    Validity of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) Questionnaire

    Get PDF
    Background: This study assessed the validity and reliability of the generic module of the recently developed Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) questionnaire in a sample of patients in the Netherlands. Methods: The generic module of the PESaM questionnaire consists of 18 items related to the domains effectiveness, side effects and ease of use of medications. It assesses patients’ experiences regarding the impact of the medication on daily life, health and satisfaction. In 2017, the PESaM questionnaire was sent out to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients using pirfenidone or nintedanib, atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome patients receiving eculizumab and patients using tacrolimus after kidney transplantation. Mean scores for each domain were calculated applying a scoring algorithm. Construct validity and reliability were assessed using recommended methods. Results: 188 participants completed the generic module, of whom 48% used pirfenidone, 36% nintedanib, 11% tacrolimus and 5% eculizumab. The generic module has good structural properties. Internal consistency values of the domains were satisfactory (i.e. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha above 0.7). Confirmatory factor analysis provided further evidence for construct validity, with good convergent and discriminant validity. The PESaM questionnaire also showed different scores for patients using different medications, in line with expectations, and was therefore able to differentiate between patient groups. Test–retest reliability of the items and domains were rated as moderate to fair (i.e. intraclass coefficients ranged between 0.18 and 0.76). Conclusions: The PESaM questionnaire is a unique patient-reported outcome measure evaluating patient experiences and satisfaction with medications. It has been developed in conjunction with patients, ensuring coverage of domains and issues relevant from the patient’s perspective. This study has shown promising validity of the generic module of the PESaM questionnaire. Further research is recommended to assess reliability in greater detail as well as the responsiveness of the measure. Trial registration: The study

    Physiologie und Pharmakologie der Gebärmutterbewegungen. (Untersuchungen an Bauchfensterkaninchen.)

    No full text

    Ãœber Entgiftungserregung und Entgiftungshemmung

    No full text

    The Ariane-IPF ERS Clinical Research Collaboration: seeking collaboration through launch of a federation of European registries on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

    No full text
    Rationale for a multinational registry Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is the most prevalent of rare pulmonary diseases [1], and the most severe of the chronic forms of idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, with rising incidence and prevalence [2\u20134]. The prognosis for people diagnosed with IPF is a median survival of 3\u20133.5 years [1]

    Home spirometry in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: data from the INMARK trial

    No full text
    Data from the INMARK trial were used to investigate the feasibility and validity of home spirometry as a measure of lung function decline in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).Subjects with IPF and preserved forced vital capacity (FVC) were randomised to receive nintedanib or placebo for 12 weeks followed by open-label nintedanib for 40 weeks. Clinic spirometry was conducted at baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36 and 52. Subjects were asked to perform home spirometry at least once a week and ideally daily. Correlations between home- and clinic-measured FVC and rates of change in FVC were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients.In total, 346 subjects were treated. Mean adherence to weekly home spirometry decreased over time but remained above 75% in every 4-week period. Over 52 weeks, mean adherence was 86%. Variability in change from baseline in FVC was greater when measured by home rather than clinic spirometry. Strong correlations were observed between home- and clinic-measured FVC at all time-points (r=0.72 to 0.84), but correlations between home- and clinic-measured rates of change in FVC were weak (r=0.26 for rate of decline in FVC over 52 weeks).Home spirometry was a feasible and valid measure of lung function in patients with IPF and preserved FVC, but estimates of the rate of FVC decline obtained using home spirometry were poorly correlated with those based on clinic spirometry
    corecore