Dataset Information

Comprehensive self management and routine monitoring in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in general practice: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the long term effects of two different modes of disease management (comprehensive self management and routine monitoring) on quality of life (primary objective), frequency and patients' management of exacerbations, and self efficacy (secondary objectives) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in general practice.

Design

24 month, multicentre, investigator blinded, three arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

Setting

15 general practices in the eastern part of the Netherlands.

Participants

Patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry and treated in general practice. Patients with very severe COPD or treated by a respiratory physician were excluded.

Interventions

A comprehensive self management programme as an adjunct to usual care, consisting of four tailored sessions with ongoing telephone support by a practice nurse; routine monitoring as an adjunct to usual care, consisting of 2-4 structured consultations a year with a practice nurse; or usual care alone (contacts with the general practitioner at the patients' own initiative).

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was the change in COPD specific quality of life at 24 months as measured with the chronic respiratory questionnaire total score. Secondary outcomes were chronic respiratory questionnaire domain scores, frequency and patients' management of exacerbations measured with the Nijmegen telephonic exacerbation assessment system, and self efficacy measured with the COPD self-efficacy scale.

Results

165 patients were allocated to self management (n=55), routine monitoring (n=55), or usual care alone (n=55). At 24 months, adjusted treatment differences between the three groups in mean chronic respiratory questionnaire total score were not significant. Secondary outcomes did not differ, except for exacerbation management. Compared with usual care, more exacerbations in the self management group were managed with bronchodilators (odds ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 6.82) and with prednisolone, antibiotics, or both (3.98, 1.10 to 15.58).

Conclusions

Comprehensive self management or routine monitoring did not show long term benefits in terms of quality of life or self efficacy over usual care alone in COPD patients in general practice. Patients in the self management group seemed to be more capable of appropriately managing exacerbations than did those in the usual care group.

Trial registration

Clinical trials NCT00128765.

SUBMITTER: Bischoff EW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3514071 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested that monitoring the levels of both hypnosis and antinociception could reduce periods of inadequate anaesthesia. However, the evidence regarding associated benefits of this monitoring is still limited.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to confirm that guidance of anaesthesia by depth of hypnosis and antinociception monitoring decreases the number of inadequate anaesthesia events in comparison with standard clinical practice.DesignA multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.SettingThe study was conducted in four European University hospitals in four different countries between December 2013 and November 2016.PatientsThe study population consisted of a total of 494 adult patients undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation.InterventionsThe patients were allocated to one of two groups. The first group was treated using Entropy for depth of hypnosis and surgical pleth index to determine depth of antinociception (adequacy of anaesthesia group; AoA group). The second group was monitored using standard monitoring alone (control group). Anaesthesia was conducted with target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome of the study was the number of total unwanted events for example signs of inadequately light or unintentionally deep anaesthesia.ResultsEvidence of inadequate anaesthesia had an incidence of around 0.7 events per patient in both groups with no difference between groups (P?=?0.519). In the AoA group, the overall consumption of propofol was significantly reduced (6.9 vs. 7.5?mg?kg?h, P?=?0.008) in comparison with the control group. The consumption of remifentanil was equal in both groups. The times to emergence [8.0 vs. 9.6?min (P?=?0.005)] and full recovery in the postanaesthesia care unit (P?=?0.043) were significantly shorter in the AoA group. No differences were seen in postoperative pain scores or in the use of analgesics.ConclusionIn the current study, the guidance of total intravenous anaesthesia by Entropy and surgical pleth index in comparison with standard monitoring alone was not able to validate reduction of unwanted anaesthesia events. However, there was a reduction in the use of propofol, and shorter times for emergence and time spent in the postanaesthesia care unit.Trial registrationat ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01928875.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of mortality and leads to frequent hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits. COPD exacerbations are an important patient outcome, and reducing their frequency would result in significant cost savings. Remote monitoring and self-monitoring could both help patients manage their symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but they have different resource implications and have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to compare the effectiveness of implementing a technology-enabled self-monitoring program versus a technology-enabled remote monitoring program in patients with COPD compared with a standard care group. METHODS:We conducted a 3-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a remote monitoring and a self-monitoring program relative to standard care. Patients with COPD were recruited from outpatient clinics and a pulmonary rehabilitation program. Patients in both interventions used a Bluetooth-enabled device kit to monitor oxygen saturation, blood pressure, temperature, weight, and symptoms, but only patients in the remote monitoring group were monitored by a respiratory therapist. All patients were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after program initiation. Outcomes included self-management skills, as measured by the Partners in Health (PIH) Scale; patient symptoms measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); and the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ). Patients were also asked to self-report on health system use, and data on health use were collected from the hospital. RESULTS:A total of 122 patients participated in the study: 40 in the standard care, 41 in the self-monitoring, and 41 in the remote monitoring groups. Although all 3 groups improved in PIH scores, BCKQ scores, and SGRQ impact scores, there were no significant differences among any of the groups. No effects were observed on the SGRQ activity or symptom scores or on hospitalizations, ED visits, or clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS:Despite regular use of the technology, patients with COPD assigned to remote monitoring or self-monitoring did not have any improvement in patient outcomes such as self-management skills, knowledge, or symptoms, or in health care use compared with each other or with a standard care group. This may be owing to low health care use at baseline, the lack of structured educational components in the intervention groups, and the lack of integration of the action plan with the technology. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03741855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03741855.

Project description:Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised mainly by exertional dyspnoea, which may lead to activity reduction. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is considered capable of mitigating these impairments. However, access to PR is limited to specialised centres, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Moreover, low-cost home rehabilitation programmes have non-individualised prescriptions, which might lead to inconsistent clinical effects in patients with COPD. Therefore, it is important to develop new, low-cost protocols involving individualised prescriptions and staff supervision.MethodsThis is a descriptive protocol for a randomised controlled study at the Grade III A Hospital in Tianjin. The sample size was calculated according to a described formula. Fifty-six participants will be selected and randomly allocated into two groups: (I) control (traditional PR training, medication, and nursing interventions); and (II) intervention [PR training in the hospital and at home by the Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System Management Platform (CSM)]. The protocol will be performed twice a week for 8 consecutive weeks in the outpatient clinic, and the training will be performed by the application of the CSM system in the final 6 months of the trial. The study will assess lung function and physical fitness and analyse the scores of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale, the COPD assessment test, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, and the 6-minute walk test before and after the training protocol. Comparison of differences will be performed using repeated measures analysis of variance, a linear mixed effects analysis, or a non-parametric test, which will include only participants who completed all outcome measures and followed the intervention protocol. The study results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.DiscussionThe new, low-cost supervised rehabilitation programmes are expected to present positive results, making PR programmes more accessible and effective for patients with COPD.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040723.