Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 241
Filtrar
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34848210

RESUMO

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with multiple underlying inflammatory pathways and structural airway abnormalities that impact disease persistence and severity. Recent progress has been made in developing targeted asthma therapeutics, especially for subjects with eosinophilic asthma. However, there is an unmet need for new approaches to treat patients with severe and exacerbation prone asthma, who contribute disproportionately to disease burden. Extensive deep phenotyping has revealed the heterogeneous nature of severe asthma and identified distinct disease subtypes. A current challenge in the field is to translate new and emerging knowledge about different pathobiologic mechanisms in asthma into patient-specific therapies, with the ultimate goal of modifying the natural history of disease. Here we describe the Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation Prone Asthma (PrecISE) Network, a groundbreaking collaborative effort of asthma researchers and biostatisticians from around the U.S. The PrecISE Network was designed to conduct phase II/proof of concept clinical trials of precision interventions in the severe asthma population, and is supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Using an innovative adaptive platform trial design, the Network will evaluate up to six interventions simultaneously in biomarker-defined subgroups of subjects. We review the development and organizational structure of the Network, and choice of interventions being studied. We hope that the PrecISE Network will enhance our understanding of asthma subtypes and accelerate the development of therapeutics for of severe asthma.

2.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34741513

RESUMO

Chatbots are software applications to simulate a conversation with a person. The effectiveness of chatbots in facilitating the recruitment of study participants in research, specifically among racial and ethnic minorities, is unknown. The objective of this study is to compare a chatbot versus telephone-based recruitment in enrolling research participants from a predominantly minority patient population at an urban institution. We randomly allocated adults to receive either chatbot or telephone-based outreach regarding a study about vaccine hesitancy. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who provided consent to participate in the study. In 935 participants, the proportion who answered contact attempts was significantly lower in the chatbot versus telephone group (absolute difference -21.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -27.0%, -16.5%; P < 0.001). The consent rate was also significantly lower in the chatbot group (absolute difference -3.4%; 95% CI -5.7%, -1.1%; P = 0.004). However, among participants who answered a contact attempt, the difference in consent rates was not significant. In conclusion, the consent rate was lower with chatbot compared to telephone-based outreach. The difference in consent rates was due to a lower proportion of participants in the chatbot group who answered a contact attempt.

3.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health ; 5(12): 862-872, 2021 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34762840

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic studies in asthma cohorts, primarily made up of White people of European descent, have identified loci associated with response to inhaled beta agonists and corticosteroids (ICSs). Differences exist in how individuals from different ancestral backgrounds respond to long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and ICSs. Therefore, we sought to understand the pharmacogenetic mechanisms regulating therapeutic responsiveness in individuals of African descent. METHODS: We did ancestry-based pharmacogenetic studies of children (aged 5-11 years) and adolescents and adults (aged 12-69 years) from the Best African Response to Drug (BARD) trials, in which participants with asthma uncontrolled with low-dose ICS (fluticasone propionate 50 µg in children, 100 µg in adolescents and adults) received different step-up combination therapies. The hierarchal composite outcome of pairwise superior responsiveness in BARD was based on asthma exacerbations, a 31-day difference in annualised asthma-control days, or a 5% difference in percentage predicted FEV1. We did whole-genome admixture mapping of 15 159 ancestral segments within 312 independent regions, stratified by the two age groups. The two co-primary outcome comparisons were the step up from low-dose ICS to the quintuple dose of ICS (5 × ICS: 250 µg twice daily in children and 500 µg twice daily in adolescents and adults) versus double dose (2-2·5 × ICS: 100 µg twice daily in children, 250 µg twice daily in adolescents and adults), and 5 × ICS versus 100 µg fluticasone plus a LABA (salmeterol 50 µg twice daily). We used a genome-wide significance threshold of p<1·6 × 10-4, and tested for replication using independent cohorts of individuals of African descent with asthma. FINDINGS: We included 249 unrelated children and 267 unrelated adolescents and adults in the BARD pharmacogenetic analysis. In children, we identified a significant admixture mapping peak for superior responsiveness to 5 × ICS versus 100 µg fluticasone plus salmeterol on chromosome 12 (odds ratio [ORlocal African] 3·95, 95% CI 2·02-7·72, p=6·1 × 10-5) fine mapped to a locus adjacent to RNFT2 and NOS1 (rs73399224, ORallele dose 0·17, 95% CI 0·07-0·42, p=8·4 × 10-5). In adolescents and adults, we identified a peak for superior responsiveness to 5 × ICS versus 2·5 × ICS on chromosome 22 (ORlocal African 3·35, 1·98-5·67, p=6·8 × 10-6) containing a locus adjacent to TPST2 (rs5752429, ORallele dose 0·21, 0·09-0·52, p=5·7 × 10-4). We replicated rs5752429 and nominally replicated rs73399224 in independent African American cohorts. INTERPRETATION: BARD is the first genome-wide pharmacogenetic study of LABA and ICS response in clinical trials of individuals of African descent to detect and replicate genome-wide significant loci. Admixture mapping of the composite BARD trial outcome enabled the identification of novel pharmacogenetic variation accounting for differential therapeutic responses in people of African descent with asthma. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

4.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 2021 Nov 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34793687

RESUMO

Rationale Whether biomarkers can be used to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in mild persistent asthma is unclear. Objectives In a pre-specified exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial of 295 participants >12 years old with uncontrolled mild persistent asthma, we sought to identify biomarkers of treatment response after 12 weeks of ICS (mometasone 200µg or 220µg twice/day), LAMA (tiotropium 5µg/day), or placebo in adults (>18 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) separately. Methods The primary outcome was a composite outcome of asthma control (treatment failure, asthma control days, and forced expired volume in the first second [FEV1]). Analyses examined Type 2 inflammatory biomarkers and physiologic biomarkers. We assessed the area under curve (AUC) for response to ICS and LAMA (each vs. placebo). An AUC of 0.5 suggests no discrimination, 0.7 to 0.8 is considered acceptable, more than 0.8 to 0.9 is considered excellent, and more than 0.9 is considered outstanding. Results In 237 adults, sputum and blood eosinophil levels and FeNO each predicted ICS response (AUCs 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.69), 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.72), and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.54-0.70), respectively; all p-values<0.01); the AUC for blood eosinophil levels and FeNO together = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.74), p<0.001. In 58 adolescents, the number of positive aeroallergens and total serum IgE each predicted ICS response (AUCs 0.69 (95% CI, 0.52-0.85) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.87), respectively; both p-values<0.03); the AUC for both together was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.87), p=0.003. Post-ipratropium bromide FEV1 reversibility predicted LAMA response in adults (AUC 0.61 (95% CI, 0.53-0.69), p=0.007), but not in adolescents. Conclusions The AUCs of the Type 2 inflammatory biomarkers and physiologic biomarkers we examined may not be high enough to confidently identify individuals with asthma who respond to ICS and LAMA. However, our findings indicate that the biomarkers that predict response to ICS or LAMA may differ in adults versus adolescents with uncontrolled mild persistent asthma. Prospective, biomarker-stratified clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings and to identify first-line controllers tailored for each population. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02066298).

6.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34658302

RESUMO

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults/adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

7.
Respirology ; 2021 Oct 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34668278

RESUMO

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

8.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34718211

RESUMO

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

9.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34672872

RESUMO

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease is the end-result of a series of dynamic and cumulative gene-environment interactions over a lifetime. The evolving understanding of COPD biology provides novel opportunities for prevention, early diagnosis, and intervention. To advance these concepts we propose therapeutic trials in two major groups of subjects: those "young" individuals with COPD and those with pre-COPD. Given that lungs grow to about 20 years of age and begin to age at approximately 50 years, we consider "young" COPD those patients in the age range of 20-50 years. Pre-COPD relates to individuals of any age who have respiratory symptoms with or without structural and/or functional abnormalities, in the absence of airflow limitation, and who may develop persistent airflow limitation over time. We exclude from the current discussion infants and adolescents because of their unique physiological context and COPD in older adults given their representation in prior randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We highlight the need of RCTs focused on young COPD or Pre-COPD patients to reduce disease progression, providing innovative approaches to identifying and engaging potential study subjects. We detail approaches to RCTs design including potential outcomes such as lung function, patient reported outcomes, exacerbations, lung imaging, mortality, and composite endpoints. We critically review study design components such as statistical powering and analysis, duration of study treatment, and formats to trial structure including platform, basket, and umbrella trials. We provide a call to action for treatment RCTs in (1) young adults with COPD and (2) those with pre-COPD at any age.

10.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1703-1712, 2021 11 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34633405

RESUMO

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.


Assuntos
Aspirina/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Fator Xa/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/uso terapêutico , Pirazóis/uso terapêutico , Piridonas/uso terapêutico , Trombose/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/complicações , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Término Precoce de Ensaios Clínicos , Inibidores do Fator Xa/administração & dosagem , Inibidores do Fator Xa/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/efeitos adversos , Pirazóis/administração & dosagem , Pirazóis/efeitos adversos , Piridonas/administração & dosagem , Piridonas/efeitos adversos
11.
Eur Respir J ; 2021 Oct 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34667060

RESUMO

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes.GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by >60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA.Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11  years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4.Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34666208

RESUMO

The use of a single inhaler containing the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and formoterol, a specific long-acting bronchodilator, for both maintenance and quick relief therapy (single maintenance and reliever therapy [SMART or MART]) is recommended by both the Global Initiative for Asthma and the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee in steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. This article provides practical advice about implementing SMART in clinical practice based on evidence and clinical experience. Fundamental to SMART is that ICS-formoterol provides quick relief of asthma symptoms similar to that of short-acting ß2-agonists such as albuterol, while reducing the risk for severe asthma exacerbations and at an overall lower ICS exposure. Most SMART clinical trials were in adults and adolescents (aged ≥12 years), using budesonide-formoterol 160/4.5 µg (delivered dose), one inhalation once or twice daily (step 3) and two inhalations twice daily (step 4). For both steps 3 and 4, patients take additional inhalations of budesonide-formoterol 160/4.5 µg, one inhalation whenever needed for symptom relief, up to a maximum for adults and adolescents of 12 total inhalations in any single day (delivering 54 µg formoterol). The efficacy and safety of SMART with budesonide-formoterol and beclometasone-formoterol have been confirmed, but other ICS-long-acting bronchodilator combinations have not been studied. The SMART regimen should be introduced with a careful explanation of its role in self-management, preferably with a customized written asthma action plan. The cost to patients and the availability of SMART treatment will depend on the prescribed dose and national or local payer agreements.

13.
14.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 2021 Aug 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34410883

RESUMO

RATIONALE: Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) have a high prevalence of depression, which is associated with increased COPD hospitalizations and readmissions. OBJECTIVES: Examine the impact of depressive symptoms compared to FEV1% on COPD morbidity. METHODS: Using longitudinal data from individuals with COPD in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study, longitudinal growth analysis was performed to assess COPD morbidity by assessing differences in baseline 6 minute walk distance (6MWD) and patient reported outcomes (PROs) and their rate of change over time explained by depressive symptoms or lung function, as measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) or FEV1% respectively. PROs consisted of in person completion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F), and Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) measures. RESULTS: Of individuals analyzed (n=1830), 43% were females, 81% Caucasian with mean ±SD age of 65.1±8.1, and 52.7±27.5 pack-years smoking. Mean ±SD FEV1% was 60.9±23.0% and 20% had clinically significant depressive symptoms. Adjusted models showed higher HADS scores and lower FEV1% each were associated with worse PROs at baseline (p≤0.001). Depression accounted for more baseline variance in SGRQ, CAT, and FACT-F than FEV1%, explaining 30-67% of heterogeneity. While FEV1% accounted for more baseline variance in mMRC and 6MWD than depression, explaining 16-32% of heterogeneity. Depressive symptoms accounted for 3-17% variance in change over time in PROs. In contrast, FEV1% accounted for 1-4% variance over time in PROs. CONCLUSIONS: Depression is more strongly associated with many PROs at baseline and their change over time compared to FEV1%. Recognizing and incorporating the impact of depressive symptoms into individualized care may improve COPD outcomes.

16.
Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis ; 8(4): 414-426, 2021 Oct 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34339598

RESUMO

The Losartan Effects on Emphysema Progression (LEEP) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that losartan slows progression of emphysema in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (NCT00720226). It was conducted by the Pulmonary Trials Cooperative consortium, in collaboration with the American Lung Association Airways Clinical Research Centers network. We describe the design of the trial and challenges for recruitment and follow-up of participants. LEEP is a placebo-controlled, parallel randomized trial, allocation ratio of 1:1, with a planned sample size of 220. Primary eligibility criteria were mild emphysema based on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans with 5% to 35% voxels <-950 Hounsfield units (HU), airway obstruction based on spirometry, and not taking an angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. Participants received either losartan or placebo for 48 weeks. A total of 2779 individuals were screened to enroll 220 eligible participants at 26 clinical sites, all located in the continental United States. Recruitment took 45% longer than planned (32 months versus 22 months), with an average accrual rate of 6.7 participants per month. Recruitment challenges included identification of eligible participants who were not already taking or who did not have an established clinical indication for an angiotensin receptor blocker or ACE inhibitor drug and recalls of contaminated lots of losartan by the Food and Drug Administration. A number of recruitment initiatives were launched in response. Recruitment was completed in February 2020, just prior to a nationwide shutdown of research activities due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

17.
Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis ; 8(3): 326-335, 2021 Jul 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34197703

RESUMO

Secondary polycythemia has long been recognized as a consequence of chronic pulmonary disease and hypoxemia and is associated with lower mortality and fewer hospitalizations among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-prescribed long-term oxygen therapy. This study investigates the association of polycythemia with COPD severity, phenotypic features, and respiratory exacerbations in a contemporary and representative sample of individuals with COPD. Current and former smokers with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <70%) without a history of hematologic/oncologic disorders were selected from the SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcomes Measures In COPD Study (SPIROMICS), a multi-center observational cohort. Participants with polycythemia (hemoglobin ≥15g/dL [females] or ≥17g/dL [males]), were compared to individuals without anemia (hemoglobin ≥12g/dL [females] or ≥13g/dL [males]). Cross-sectional outcomes including percent predicted FEV1, respiratory symptoms, quality of life, exercise tolerance, and percentage and distribution of emphysema (voxels<-950 Hounsfield units [HU] at total lung capacity) were evaluated using linear or logistic regression. Longitudinal acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) and severe AECOPD (requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalization) were assessed using zero-inflated negative binomial models. Among 1261 participants, 148 (11.7%) had polycythemia. Average follow-up was 4.2±1.7 years and did not differ by presence of polycythemia. In multivariate analysis, compared to participants with normal hemoglobin, polycythemia was associated with a reduced rate of severe AECOPD (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33-0.98), lower percent predicted FEV1, lower resting oxygen saturation, increased upper to lower lobe ratio of emphysema, and a greater degree of emphysema, though the latter was attenuated after adjusting for lung function. There were no significant differences in total AECOPD, patient-reported outcomes, or exercise tolerance. These findings suggest that polycythemia, while associated with less favorable physiologic parameters, is not independently associated with symptoms, and is associated with fewer severe exacerbations. Future studies should explore the potentially protective role of increased hemoglobin beyond the correction of anemia.

18.
Med Care ; 59(Suppl 4): S344-S354, 2021 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34228016

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-documented risks to patient safety associated with transitions from one care setting to another, health care organizations struggle to identify which interventions to implement. Multiple strategies are often needed, and studying the effectiveness of these complex interventions is challenging. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to present lessons learned in implementing and evaluating complex transitional care interventions in routine clinical care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Nine transitional care study teams share important common lessons in designing complex interventions with stakeholder engagement, implementation, and evaluation under pragmatic conditions (ie, using only existing resources), and disseminating findings in outlets that reach policy makers and the people who could ultimately benefit from the research. RESULTS: Lessons learned serve as a guide for future studies in 3 areas: (1) Delineating the function (intended purpose) versus form (prespecified modes of delivery of the intervention); (2) Evaluating both the processes supporting implementation and the impact of adaptations; and (3) Engaging stakeholders in the design and delivery of the intervention and dissemination of study results. CONCLUSION: These lessons can help guide future pragmatic studies of care transitions.


Assuntos
Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/métodos , Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Cuidado Transicional/normas , Academias e Institutos , Humanos , Ciência da Implementação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...