ERS/EBMT clinical practice guidelines on treatment of pulmonary chronic graft-versus-host disease in adults.

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a common complication after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, characterised by a broad disease spectrum that can affect virtually any organ. Although pulmonary cGvHD is a less common manifestation, it is of great concern due to its severity and poor prognosis. Optimal management of patients with pulmonary cGvHD is complicated and no standardised approach is available. The purpose of this joint European Respiratory Society (ERS) and European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation task force was to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the treatment of pulmonary cGvHD phenotype bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome in adults. A multidisciplinary group representing specialists in haematology, respiratory medicine and methodology, as well as patient advocates, formulated eight PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) and two narrative questions. Following the ERS standardised methodology, we conducted systematic reviews to address these questions and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to develop recommendations. The resulting guideline addresses common therapeutic options (inhalation therapy, fluticasone-azithromycin-montelukast, imatinib, ibrutinib, ruxolitinib, belumosudil, extracorporeal photopheresis and lung transplantation), as well as other aspects of general management, such as lung functional and radiological follow-up and pulmonary rehabilitation, for adults with pulmonary cGvHD phenotype bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. These recommendations include important advancements that could be incorporated in the management of adults with pulmonary cGvHD, primarily aimed at improving and standardising treatment and improving outcomes.

An Electronic Health Record-integrated Web Application Augments a QI-directed Morbidity & Mortality Conference and Improves Quality of Care.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, we developed a QI-directed Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) Conference, prioritizing discussion of individual and system failures, as well as development of action items to prevent failure recurrence. However, due to a reliance on individual electronic documents to store M&M data, our ability to assess trends in failures and action item implementation was hindered. To address this issue, in 2019, we created a secure electronic health record (EHR)-integrated web application (web app) to store M&M data. STUDY DESIGN: In this study, we assessed the impact of our web app on efficient review and tracking of M&M data, including system failure occurrence and closure of action items. Additionally, in 2021, it was discovered that a backlog of action items existed. To address this issue, we implemented a QI initiative to reduce the backlog, and used the web app to compare action item closure over time. RESULTS: Use of the web app dramatically improved review of M&M data. During the study period, there was a 67.0% reduction in the occurrence of the most common system failures. Additionally, our QI initiative resulted in a 97.7% reduction in the duration of time to complete a single action item and a 61.1% increase in the on-time closure rate for action items. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of a web app into a QI-directed M&M Conference enhanced our ability to track system level failures and action item closure over time. Using this web app, we demonstrated that our M&M Conference achieved its intended goal of improving the quality of patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting ß2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma.

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting ß2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

Patients' acceptance of outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisation for COPD exacerbations: a CICERO Clinical Research Collaboration-European Lung Foundation online patient survey.

Background: The lack of standardised outcome assessments during hospitalisation and follow-up for acute COPD exacerbations has hampered scientific progress and clinical proficiency. The objective of the present study was to evaluate patients' acceptance of selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations and follow-up. Methods: An online survey was held amongst COPD patients in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The European Lung Foundation COPD Patient Advisory Group was involved in the conceptualisation, development and dissemination of the survey. The survey was complementary to a previously obtained expert consensus. We assessed patients' views and acceptance of selected patient-reported outcomes or experiences and corresponding measurement instruments (for dyspnoea, frequent productive cough, health status and hospitalisation experience), and of selected clinical investigations (blood draw, pulmonary function test, 6-min walk test, chest computed tomography, echocardiography). Findings: 200 patients completed the survey. All selected outcomes and experiences were deemed important, and acceptance of their methods of assessment was high. The modified Medical Research Council scale and a numerical rating scale to address dyspnoea, the COPD Assessment Test for quality of life and frequent productive cough, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems for hospital experiences were the instruments preferred by patients. Consensus on importance of blood draw and spirometry was higher compared with the other investigations. Interpretation: The survey results endorse the use of the selected outcome and experience measurements during hospitalisations for COPD exacerbations. They can be used to optimise standardised and patient-centred care and facilitate multicentric data collection.

European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline: palliative care for people with COPD or interstitial lung disease.

There is increased awareness of palliative care needs in people with COPD or interstitial lung disease (ILD). This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force aimed to provide recommendations for initiation and integration of palliative care into the respiratory care of adult people with COPD or ILD. The ERS task force consisted of 20 members, including representatives of people with COPD or ILD and informal caregivers. Eight questions were formulated, four in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome format. These were addressed with full systematic reviews and application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the evidence. Four additional questions were addressed narratively. An "evidence-to-decision" framework was used to formulate recommendations. The following definition of palliative care for people with COPD or ILD was agreed. A holistic and multidisciplinary person-centred approach aiming to control symptoms and improve quality of life of people with serious health-related suffering because of COPD or ILD, and to support their informal caregivers. Recommendations were made regarding people with COPD or ILD and their informal caregivers: to consider palliative care when physical, psychological, social or existential needs are identified through holistic needs assessment; to offer palliative care interventions, including support for informal caregivers, in accordance with such needs; to offer advance care planning in accordance with preferences; and to integrate palliative care into routine COPD and ILD care. Recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

What bothers severe asthma patients most? A paired patient-clinician study across seven European countries.

Introduction: Severe asthma is a complex, multidimensional disease. Optimal treatment, adherence and outcomes require shared decision-making, rooted in mutual understanding between patient and clinician. This study used a novel, patient-centred approach to examine the most bothersome aspects of severe asthma to patients, as seen from both perspectives in asthma registries. Methods: Across seven countries, 126 patients with severe asthma completed an open-ended survey regarding most the bothersome aspect(s) of their asthma. Patients' responses were linked with their treating clinician who also completed a free-text survey about each patient's most bothersome aspect(s). Responses were coded using content analysis, and patient and clinician responses were compared. Finally, asthma registries that are part of the SHARP (Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research collaboration, Patient-centred) Clinical Research Collaboration were examined to see the extent to which they reflected the most bothersome aspects reported by patients. Results: 88 codes and 10 themes were identified. Clinicians were more focused on direct physical symptoms and were less focused on "holistic" aspects such as the effort required to self-manage the disease. Clinicians accurately identified a most bothersome symptom for 29% of patients. Agreement was particularly low with younger patients and those using oral corticosteroids infrequently. In asthma registries, patient aspects were predominantly represented in questionnaires. Conclusions: Results demonstrated different perspectives and priorities between patients and clinicians, with clinicians more focused on physical aspects. These differences must be considered when treating individual patients, and within multidisciplinary treatment teams. The use of questionnaires that include multifaceted aspects of disease may result in improved asthma research.

Principles of patient partnership: integrating patient perspectives into ERS Clinical Research Collaborations.

Patient and public involvement in research is increasingly considered a cornerstone of good research practice, and the research community recognises people with lived experience as valuable stakeholders within the research process. European Respiratory Society (ERS) strongly encourages patient input into its research programme and scientific activities, working in partnership with the European Lung Foundation (ELF) to facilitate this. Based on the ERS and ELF experience and best practice in the field of patient and public involvement, we developed a set of principles to which future ERS and ELF collaborations should adhere. These principles provide guidance on how to address key challenges when planning and conducting patient and public involvement in order to develop successful partnerships with patients and drive forward patient-centred research.

Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review.

Background: Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma. Methods: We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Results: 13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards. Conclusions: This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.

Identifying and appraising outcome measures for severe asthma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Valid outcome measures are imperative to evaluate treatment response, yet the suitability of existing end-points for severe asthma is unclear. This review aimed to identify outcome measures for severe asthma and appraise the quality of their measurement properties. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify "candidate" outcome measures published between 2018 and 2020. A modified Delphi exercise was conducted to select "key" outcome measures within healthcare professional, patient, pharmaceutical and regulatory stakeholder groups. Initial validation studies for "key" measures were rated against modified quality criteria from COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The evidence was discussed at multi-stakeholder meetings to ratify "priority" outcome measures. Subsequently, four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to 20 July 2020 to identify development and validation studies for these end-points. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed their methodological quality and graded the evidence according to COSMIN. RESULTS: 96 outcome measures were identified as "candidates", 55 as "key" and 24 as "priority" for severe asthma, including clinical, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, asthma control and composite. 32 studies reported measurement properties of 17 "priority" end-points from the latter three domains. Only the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Childhood Asthma Control Test were developed with input from severe asthma patients. The certainty of evidence was "low" to "very low" for most "priority" end-points across all measurement properties and none fulfilled all quality standards. CONCLUSIONS: Only two outcome measures had robust developmental data for severe asthma. This review informed development of core outcome measures sets for severe asthma.

Development of Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma (COMSA).

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) Working Group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies. METHODS: COMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives, and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients' and carers' views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria. RESULTS: Both adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) as z-scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test or Childhood Asthma Control Test, while the adult COM set includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately). CONCLUSIONS: This patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.

Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There are now many biological therapies to treat severe asthma. To assess which work best for which patient, we need to develop definitions of response. This narrative review aims to capture severe asthma patients' perceptions about non-response and response to biological therapy. METHODS: Four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Grey literature was searched with the involvement of patient representatives. A thematic approach was used for synthesis. No qualitative studies specifically explore patients' perspectives on response to biological therapy for severe asthma. Three papers and one published asthma patient interview were included. Relevant grey literature was included from online discussion forums, blogs and social media websites. RESULTS: Adult patients framed positive response to biological therapy in terms of reduced burden of disease and treatment. Both were multifaceted. Some patients experienced reduced benefit from biological therapy over time. There was a group of patients who described a limited response or non-response to biological therapy. This was framed within the context of continuing hospitalisation and oral corticosteroid treatment. The speed of onset of benefit was felt to be important by some. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of non-response and response need to be patient-centred, yet there is a complete lack of qualitative research focused on this topic. By combining relevant published and grey literature we have provided a description of adult patients' perceptions of response to biological therapy in severe asthma. We now need to understand the views of children and adolescents with severe asthma and their carers, and diverse patient experiences in real-world settings.

European Respiratory Society Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Asthma in Adults.

Although asthma is very common affecting 5-10% of the population, the diagnosis of asthma in adults remains a challenge in the real world that results in both over- and under-diagnosis. A task force (TF) was set up by the European Respiratory Society to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic accuracy of tests used to diagnose asthma in adult patients and provide recommendation for clinical practice.The TF defined eight PICO (Population, Index, Comparator, and Outcome) questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, The TF utilised the outcomes to develop an evidenced-based diagnostic algorithm, with recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday practice that was directed by real-life patient experiences.The TF support the initial use of spirometry followed, and if airway obstruction is present, by bronchodilator reversibility testing. If initial spirometry fails to show obstruction, further tests should be performed in the following order: FeNO, PEF variability or in secondary care, bronchial challenge. We present the thresholds for each test that are compatible with a diagnosis of asthma in the presence of current symptoms.The TF reinforce the priority to undertake spirometry and recognise the value of measuring blood eosinophils and serum IgE to phenotype the patient. Measuring gas trapping by body plethysmography in patients with preserved FEV1/FVC ratio deserves further attention. The TF draw attention on the difficulty of making a correct diagnosis in patients already receiving inhaled corticosteroids, the comorbidities that may obscure the diagnosis, the importance of phenotyping, and the necessity to consider the patient experience in the diagnostic process.

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

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.

Family planning, pregnancy and birth in women with lung conditions: a worldwide survey.

Lung diseases can complicate pregnancy, but little is known about the experiences of pregnancy among women living with such diseases. This survey aimed to understand the experiences of women with a lung condition before and during pregnancy, in childbirth and post-partum. The survey was translated into nine languages and hosted online between March and May 2018. This paper reports on 327 women who had asthma, cystic fibrosis (CF), lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) and sarcoidosis as a sole or primary lung condition. Women with CF and LAM were most likely to report that their condition influenced their decision to have children. Those with CF and LAM who did become pregnant reported greater satisfaction with their healthcare during pregnancy and gave more consideration to factors such as location and type of birth; they were also more concerned about the impact of the pregnancy on their health than women with other diseases. Women with sarcoidosis reported receiving conflicting advice as to both the impact of their condition on pregnancy and how becoming pregnant might impact their health. Women with asthma reported not always being able to access the information they needed from healthcare professionals. The results suggest that healthcare providers should be having dialogues with affected women early on, from before conception, throughout the pregnancy and after giving birth, and training should be provided to healthcare staff to equip them with the information they need to do this.

Balancing treatment and side-effects in severe asthma: a patient and professional perspective.

Oral corticosteroid side-effects in severe asthma affect a person's image and sense of self. Patients balance a web of risks and benefits around treatment adherence. Biological therapies may offer targeted treatment with a lower side-effect burden. https://bit.ly/3cHmcuk.

Improving spirometry testing by understanding patient preferences.

The American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society commissioned a task force to update the technical standards for spirometry testing with the aim of increasing the accuracy, precision and quality of spirometry measurements and improving the patient experience. To inform the task force with patient experiences, the European Lung Foundation, in collaboration with the task force, conducted an online survey in 10 languages between August and September 2018. There were 1760 respondents from 52 countries. The majority were adults (97.1%); the most common reasons for spirometry referral were diagnosis (35.0%) and management of an ongoing condition (60.1%). 53.2% reported regularly using inhalers. Respondents were very experienced with spirometry: 89.9% completed more than one test; 48% completed 10 or more tests. However, most reported not knowing what forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) means (59.4%) and only 39.6% knew their most recent FEV1; the exception was respondents with cystic fibrosis who reported much greater knowledge. Respondents rated as moderately or seriously problematic: being told to keep blowing when they felt nothing is coming out (31.4%), coughing (30.4%), tiredness (26.3%) and concern about shortness of breath (20.1%). Overall, respondents found spirometry to be acceptable; however, an important minority (17%) found it difficult. Patients want clear information before, during and after the test, including information on stopping medications. Operators have an important role in increasing the ease of patients and changes to the testing environment can increase patient comfort. Patients want access to their results and want to understand how they relate to their individual health.

European Respiratory Society statement on thoracic ultrasound.

Thoracic ultrasound is increasingly considered to be an essential tool for the pulmonologist. It is used in diverse clinical scenarios, including as an adjunct to clinical decision making for diagnosis, a real-time guide to procedures and a predictor or measurement of treatment response. The aim of this European Respiratory Society task force was to produce a statement on thoracic ultrasound for pulmonologists using thoracic ultrasound within the field of respiratory medicine. The multidisciplinary panel performed a review of the literature, addressing major areas of thoracic ultrasound practice and application. The selected major areas include equipment and technique, assessment of the chest wall, parietal pleura, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, interstitial syndrome, lung consolidation, diaphragm assessment, intervention guidance, training and the patient perspective. Despite the growing evidence supporting the use of thoracic ultrasound, the published literature still contains a paucity of data in some important fields. Key research questions for each of the major areas were identified, which serve to facilitate future multicentre collaborations and research to further consolidate an evidence-based use of thoracic ultrasound, for the benefit of the many patients being exposed to clinicians using thoracic ultrasound.