Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
1.
J Cyst Fibros ; 16(5): 607-615, 2017 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28438499

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Given the variability in pulmonary exacerbation (PEx) management within and between Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Care Centers, it is possible that some approaches may be superior to others. A challenge with comparing different PEx management approaches is lack of a community consensus with respect to treatment-response metrics. In this analysis, we assess the feasibility of using different response metrics in prospective randomized studies comparing PEx treatment protocols. METHODS: Response parameters were compiled from the recent STOP (Standardized Treatment of PEx) feasibility study. Pulmonary function responses (recovery of best prior 6-month and 12-month FEV1% predicted and absolute and relative FEV1% predicted improvement from treatment initiation) and sign and symptom recovery from treatment initiation (measured by the Chronic Respiratory Infection Symptom Score [CRISS]) were studied as categorical and continuous variables. The proportion of patients retreated within 30days after the end of initial treatment was studied as a categorical variable. Sample sizes required to adequately power prospective 1:1 randomized superiority and non-inferiority studies employing candidate endpoints were explored. RESULTS: The most sensitive endpoint was mean change in CRISS from treatment initiation, followed by mean absolute FEV1% predicted change from initiation, with the two responses only modestly correlated (R2=.157; P<0.0001). Recovery of previous best FEV1 was a problematic endpoint due to missing data and a substantial proportion of patients beginning PEx treatment with FEV1 exceeding their previous best measures (12.1% >12-month best, 19.6% >6-month best). Although mean outcome measures deteriorated approximately 2-weeks post-treatment follow-up, the effect was non-uniform: 62.7% of patients experienced an FEV1 worsening versus 49.0% who experienced a CRISS worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Results from randomized prospective superiority and non-inferiority studies employing mean CRISS and FEV1 change from treatment initiation should prove compelling to the community. They will need to be large, but appear feasible.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Fibrosis Quística , Determinación de Punto Final , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/métodos , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio , Adulto , Protocolos Clínicos/normas , Fibrosis Quística/complicaciones , Fibrosis Quística/diagnóstico , Fibrosis Quística/tratamiento farmacológico , Determinación de Punto Final/métodos , Determinación de Punto Final/normas , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Masculino , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/normas , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones del Sistema Respiratorio/etiología , Tamaño de la Muestra , Encuestas y Cuestionarios/normas , Brote de los Síntomas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
Detalles de la búsqueda