Diana Ferreira, Magnus Ekström, Sandra Louw, Philip McCloud, Miriam Johnson, Katherine Clark, David Currow
{"title":"慢性呼吸困难患者的随机对照试验中单维呼吸困难测量和临床反应阈值的差异:一项探索性研究。","authors":"Diana Ferreira, Magnus Ekström, Sandra Louw, Philip McCloud, Miriam Johnson, Katherine Clark, David Currow","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Optimally measuring improvements in chronic breathlessness in clinical practice and research continues to evolve. The aim of this study was to consider the performance of uni-dimensional measures in <i>chronic breathlessness limiting exertion</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We report five measures of breathlessness (intensity: <i>worst, best</i> and <i>average</i> in the previous 24 hours; <i>breathlessness now</i>; and an affective component <i>unpleasantness now</i>) and two clinical thresholds over baseline on their 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (8.9 mm absolute improvement; and 15% relative improvement) collected in a multi-site, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trial of regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine for people with <i>chronic breathlessness</i> with optimally treated underlying causes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (n=284) were mostly elderly men with severe, chronic breathlessness. <i>Worst breathlessness in the previous 24 hours</i> showed improvement in people with more severe breathlessness and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. By contrast, <i>breathlessness now</i> and <i>average breathlessness in the previous 24 hours</i> generated similar patterns of response, as did <i>unpleasantness now</i> and <i>breathlessness now. Best breathles</i>sness added little value. The two clinical thresholds showed differing patterns of significance.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Consistent with other recent work, worst breathlessness may be an important uni-dimensional outcome in evaluating chronic breathlessness clinically and in research. This study does not support a differential between unpleasantness now and breathlessness now, previously observed in laboratory-generated, acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Timeframe for recall (now or the last 24 hours) and the threshold for a clinical meaningful improvement (absolute (8.9 mm) or relative (15%)) affect assessment performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11624816/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in uni-dimensional breathlessness measures and thresholds for clinical response in a randomised controlled trial in people with chronic breathlessness: an exploratory study.\",\"authors\":\"Diana Ferreira, Magnus Ekström, Sandra Louw, Philip McCloud, Miriam Johnson, Katherine Clark, David Currow\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002370\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Optimally measuring improvements in chronic breathlessness in clinical practice and research continues to evolve. The aim of this study was to consider the performance of uni-dimensional measures in <i>chronic breathlessness limiting exertion</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We report five measures of breathlessness (intensity: <i>worst, best</i> and <i>average</i> in the previous 24 hours; <i>breathlessness now</i>; and an affective component <i>unpleasantness now</i>) and two clinical thresholds over baseline on their 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (8.9 mm absolute improvement; and 15% relative improvement) collected in a multi-site, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trial of regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine for people with <i>chronic breathlessness</i> with optimally treated underlying causes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (n=284) were mostly elderly men with severe, chronic breathlessness. <i>Worst breathlessness in the previous 24 hours</i> showed improvement in people with more severe breathlessness and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. By contrast, <i>breathlessness now</i> and <i>average breathlessness in the previous 24 hours</i> generated similar patterns of response, as did <i>unpleasantness now</i> and <i>breathlessness now. Best breathles</i>sness added little value. The two clinical thresholds showed differing patterns of significance.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Consistent with other recent work, worst breathlessness may be an important uni-dimensional outcome in evaluating chronic breathlessness clinically and in research. This study does not support a differential between unpleasantness now and breathlessness now, previously observed in laboratory-generated, acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Timeframe for recall (now or the last 24 hours) and the threshold for a clinical meaningful improvement (absolute (8.9 mm) or relative (15%)) affect assessment performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11624816/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002370\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002370","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differences in uni-dimensional breathlessness measures and thresholds for clinical response in a randomised controlled trial in people with chronic breathlessness: an exploratory study.
Introduction: Optimally measuring improvements in chronic breathlessness in clinical practice and research continues to evolve. The aim of this study was to consider the performance of uni-dimensional measures in chronic breathlessness limiting exertion.
Methods: We report five measures of breathlessness (intensity: worst, best and average in the previous 24 hours; breathlessness now; and an affective component unpleasantness now) and two clinical thresholds over baseline on their 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (8.9 mm absolute improvement; and 15% relative improvement) collected in a multi-site, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trial of regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine for people with chronic breathlessness with optimally treated underlying causes.
Results: Participants (n=284) were mostly elderly men with severe, chronic breathlessness. Worst breathlessness in the previous 24 hours showed improvement in people with more severe breathlessness and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. By contrast, breathlessness now and average breathlessness in the previous 24 hours generated similar patterns of response, as did unpleasantness now and breathlessness now. Best breathlessness added little value. The two clinical thresholds showed differing patterns of significance.
Discussion: Consistent with other recent work, worst breathlessness may be an important uni-dimensional outcome in evaluating chronic breathlessness clinically and in research. This study does not support a differential between unpleasantness now and breathlessness now, previously observed in laboratory-generated, acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Timeframe for recall (now or the last 24 hours) and the threshold for a clinical meaningful improvement (absolute (8.9 mm) or relative (15%)) affect assessment performance.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.