Multiple-Breath Washout Outcome Measures in Adults with Bronchiectasis.

Rationale: Lung clearance index (LCI) has good intravisit repeatability with better sensitivity in detecting lung disease on computed tomography scan compared with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in adults with bronchiectasis. Alternative multiple-breath washout parameters have not been systematically studied in bronchiectasis. Objectives: To determine the validity, repeatability, sensitivity, specificity, and feasibility of standard LCI (LCI2.5), shortened LCI (LCI5.0), ventilation heterogeneity arising within proximal conducting airways (ScondVT), and ventilation heterogeneity arising within the acinar airways (SacinVT) in a cross-sectional observational cohort of adults with bronchiectasis. Methods: Cross-sectional multiple-breath nitrogen washout data (Exhalyzer D; Eco Medics AG) from 132 patients with bronchiectasis across five United Kingdom centers (BronchUK Clinimetrics study) and 88 healthy control subjects were analyzed. Results: Within-test repeatability (mean coefficient of variation) was <5% for both LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 in patients with bronchiectasis, and there was no difference in mean coefficient of variation for LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 in patients with bronchiectasis compared with healthy volunteers. Moderate-strength correlations were seen between FEV1 and LCI2.5 (r = -0.54), LCI5.0 (r = -0.53), ScondVT (r = -0.35), and SacinVT (r = -0.38) z-scores. The proportion of subjects with abnormal multiple-breath washout (z-score > 2) but in normal FEV1 (z-score < -2) was 42% (LCI2.5) and 36% (LCI5.0). Overall results from the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that LCI2.5 had the greatest combined sensitivity and specificity to discriminate between bronchiectasis and control subjects, followed by LCI5.0, FEV1, and ScondVT z-scores. There was a 57% time saving with LCI5.0. Conclusions: LCI2.5 and LCI5.0 had good within-test repeatability and superior sensitivity compared with spirometry measures in differentiating between health and bronchiectasis disease. LCI5.0 is quicker and more feasible than LCI2.5. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02468271).

Quality control for multiple breath washout tests in multicentre bronchiectasis studies: Experiences from the BRONCH-UK clinimetrics study.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple Breath Washout (MBW) to measure Lung Clearance Index (LCI) is increasingly being used as a secondary endpoint in multicentre bronchiectasis studies. LCI data quality control or "over-reading" is resource intensive and the impact is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the proportion of MBW tests deemed unacceptable with over-reading, and to assess the change in LCI (number of turnovers), LCI coefficient of variation (CV%) and tidal volume (VT) CV% results after over-reading. METHODS: Data were analysed from 250 MBW tests (from 98 adult bronchiectasis patients) collected as part of the Bronch-UK Clinimetrics study in 5 UK centres. Each MBW test was over-read centrally using pre-defined criteria. MBW tests with <2 technically valid and repeatable trials were deemed unacceptable to include in analysis. In accepted tests, values for LCI, LCI CV% and VT CV% before and after over-reading, were compared. RESULTS: Insufficient data was collected in 10/250 tests. With over-reading, 30/240 (12%) were deemed unacceptable to include in analysis. In those accepted tests, overall the change in LCI, LCI CV% and VT CV% with over-reading was not statistically significant. When MBW new sites were compared to MBW expert sites, the change in LCI with over-reading was significantly greater in MBW new sites (p = 0.047). Data suggests that over-reading could be important up to at least 12 months post initiation of MBW activity. CONCLUSION: MBW over-reading was important in this study as 12% of tests were considered unacceptable. Over-reading improved test result accuracy in sites new to MBW.

Clinician-Facilitated Physical Activity Intervention Versus Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Improving Physical Activity in COPD: A Feasibility Study.

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) may not suit all individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may not result in increased physical activity. Higher levels of physical activity are associated with reduced mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a trial to investigate the effectiveness of a clinician-facilitated physical activity intervention (PAI) versus PR in improving physical activity in patients with COPD referred to PR. In this randomised controlled mixed methods feasibility study, all patients referred to PR who were eligible and willing were assessed at baseline and then randomised to the PAI or to PR. The assessments were repeated post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up. The main outcome was step count measured by Actigraph. Semi-structured interviews were conducted post-intervention. The N = 50 patients; mean (SD) age, 64.1(8.6) years, 24M were recruited and randomised; N = 23 (PAI) and n = 26 (PR): one patient was excluded from the analysis as that person did not meet the GOLD diagnostic criteria. Key feasibility criteria were met; recruitment was 11%, dropouts in PAI were 26% (n = 6) and 50% (n = 13/26) PR. Participants in both groups experienced a range of health benefits from their respective programmes. The PAI appears to be effective in increasing step counts in people with COPD: mean change (standard deviation) [confidence interval] for the PAI group was 972.0(3230.3)[-1080.3 to 3024.4], n = 12 and 4.3(662.7)[-440.9 to 449.5], n = 11 for the PR group. The PAI met all domains of fidelity. This study provides key information to inform a future-randomised controlled trial in physical activity.

Sedentary behaviour and physical activity in bronchiectasis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of bronchiectasis on sedentary behaviour and physical activity is unknown. It is important to explore this to identify the need for physical activity interventions and how to tailor interventions to this patient population. We aimed to explore the patterns and correlates of sedentary behaviour and physical activity in bronchiectasis. METHODS: Physical activity was assessed in 63 patients with bronchiectasis using an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer over seven days. Patients completed: questionnaires on health-related quality-of-life and attitudes to physical activity (questions based on an adaption of the transtheoretical model (TTM) of behaviour change); spirometry; and the modified shuttle test (MST). Multiple linear regression analysis using forward selection based on likelihood ratio statistics explored the correlates of sedentary behaviour and physical activity dimensions. Between-group analysis using independent sample t-tests were used to explore differences for selected variables. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients had complete datasets. Average daily time, mean(standard deviation) spent in sedentary behaviour was 634(77)mins, light-lifestyle physical activity was 207(63)mins and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was 25(20)mins. Only 11% of patients met recommended guidelines. Forced expiratory volume in one-second percentage predicted (FEV1% predicted) and disease severity were not correlates of sedentary behaviour or physical activity. For sedentary behaviour, decisional balance 'pros' score was the only correlate. Performance on the MST was the strongest correlate of physical activity. In addition to the MST, there were other important correlate variables for MVPA accumulated in ≥10-minute bouts (QOL-B Social Functioning) and for activity energy expenditure (Body Mass Index and QOL-B Respiratory Symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with bronchiectasis demonstrated a largely inactive lifestyle and few met the recommended physical activity guidelines. Exercise capacity was the strongest correlate of physical activity, and dimensions of the QOL-B were also important. FEV1% predicted and disease severity were not correlates of sedentary behaviour or physical activity. The inclusion of a range of physical activity dimensions could facilitate in-depth exploration of patterns of physical activity. This study demonstrates the need for interventions targeted at reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity, and provides information to tailor interventions to the bronchiectasis population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01569009 ("Physical Activity in Bronchiectasis").

Facilitating education in pulmonary rehabilitation using the living well with COPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation: a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Standardised evidenced-based materials and mechanisms to facilitate the delivery of the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation are not widely available. The aims of this study were: 1) to adapt the self-management programme Living Well with COPD (LWWCOPD) programme, for embedding in pulmonary rehabilitation; and, 2) to conduct a process evaluation of the adapted programme. METHODS: The adaptations to the LWWCOPD programme were informed by focus groups, current practice, relevant research and guideline documents. Pulmonary rehabilitation sites used the adapted programme, the LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation, to deliver the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation. A process evaluation was conducted: elements included reach (patients' attendance rates), dose delivered (amount of programme delivered), dose received (health professional and patient satisfaction) and fidelity (impact on patients' knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy on the Understanding COPD questionnaire). Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) were used to summarise demographics and key data from the feedback questionnaires. Qualitative feedback on the programme was collated and categorised. Changes in the Understanding COPD questionnaire were examined using paired t-tests. RESULTS: The LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation was delivered in eleven hospital- and community-based programmes (n=25 health professionals, n=57 patients with COPD). It consisted of six weekly 30-45 minute sessions. The process evaluation showed positive results: 62.3% of patients attended ≥ 4 education sessions (reach); mean (SD) 90 (10)% of the session content were delivered (dose delivered); the majority of sessions were rated as excellent or good by health professionals and patients. Patients' satisfaction was high: mean (SD) Section B of the Understanding COPD questionnaire: 91.67 (9.55)% (dose received). Knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy improved significantly: mean change (95% CI): Section A of the Understanding COPD questionnaire: 26.75 (21.74 to 31.76)%, BCKQ 10.64 (6.92 to 14.37)% (fidelity). CONCLUSION: This rigorous process evaluation has demonstrated that the LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation can be used to deliver high quality, consistent and equitable education sessions during hospital and community-based pulmonary rehabilitation. This programme is now available worldwide (http://www.livingwellwithcopd.com/living-well-and-pulmonary-rehabilitation.html). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (reference number: NCT01226836).

Assessing education in pulmonary rehabilitation: the Understanding COPD (UCOPD) questionnaire.

There is currently no questionnaire available that comprehensively assesses patients' understanding, self-efficacy and satisfaction with the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to develop the Understanding COPD (UCOPD) questionnaire. The key stages in the development of the UCOPD questionnaire were: (i) Generation of questions, and assessment of face and content validity, user-centredness, acceptability and feasibility; (ii) Assessment of plain English and readability; (iii) Assessment of structural validity; (iv) Assessment of test-retest reliability and internal consistency; (v) Assessment of the responsiveness, convergent validity and floor and ceiling effects. The UCOPD questionnaire assesses understanding, self-efficacy and use of key self-management skills (Section A) and satisfaction (Section B). It has good validity and practical properties, and readability was acceptable. It has good test-retest reliability (Section A: ICC range: 0.87 to 0.96; Section B: Wilcoxon: p > 0.05) and internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha range: 0.78 to 0.95). It is responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation (Mean change: About COPD: 18.26 [12.12 to 24.40]%, Managing Symptoms 20.94 [13.86 to 28.01]%, Accessing Help and Support 24.06 [14.53 to 33.60]%, Total 20.59 [14.43 to 26.75]%, p < 0.001). It had a moderate correlation with the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ): pre-pulmonary rehabilitation: r = 0.41, p = 0.02; post-pulmonary rehabilitation: r = 0.35, p = 0.047. In conclusion, the UCOPD questionnaire offers the opportunity to assess the benefit of the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation in terms of its effect on understanding, self-efficacy and satisfaction. Further research is needed across different pulmonary rehabilitation settings to demonstrate the robustness of the UCOPD questionnaire, and to establish the minimum clinically important difference.

Managing patients with low-risk MDS.

Supportive care with blood transfusion and administration of hematopoietic growth factors (eg, erythropoietin, colony-stimulating factors) has been the standard of care for patients with low-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), a group of disorders characterized by hyperproliferation of the bone marrow and ineffective hematopoiesis. However, the development of new drugs, including lenalidomide, azacitidine, and decitabine, has led to a new era of more effective treatment for MDS. Further, the use of classification and risk stratification has allowed for the identification of individuals who are expected to benefit from some therapies while simultaneously excluding over-treatment and unnecessary toxicity in those who are unlikely to benefit from specific drugs. In this Clinical Roundtable Monograph, the faculty discusses the epidemiology, classification, and risk stratification for MDS, medical and nursing issues associated with supportive care and the new therapies for low-risk MDS, and patient education and other strategies for the optimization of quality of life in patients with low-risk MDS.