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。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:在临床实践和研究中,慢性呼吸困难的最佳测量改善在不断发展。本研究的目的是考虑单维测量在慢性呼吸困难限制运动中的表现。方法:报告5项呼吸困难指标(强度:前24小时最差、最佳和平均;现在呼吸困难;和一个情感成分不愉快)和两个临床阈值在0-100毫米视觉模拟量表(8.9毫米绝对改善;和15%的相对改善)收集在一个多地点,随机,双盲,平行,安慰剂对照试验,定期,低剂量,持续释放吗啡的人慢性呼吸困难的潜在原因的最佳治疗。结果:参与者(n=284)大多是患有严重慢性呼吸困难的老年男性。严重呼吸困难和慢性阻塞性肺病患者在过去24小时内出现最严重呼吸困难的情况有所改善。相比之下,此时此刻的呼吸困难和过去24小时内的平均呼吸困难会产生类似的反应模式,此时此刻的不愉快和此时此刻的呼吸困难也会产生类似的反应模式。最好的屏气也没什么价值。两种临床阈值表现出不同的意义模式。讨论:与其他近期工作一致,最严重的呼吸困难可能是临床和研究中评估慢性呼吸困难的重要单向度结果。这项研究不支持现在不愉快和现在呼吸困难之间的区别,之前在实验室产生的急性慢性呼吸困难中观察到。召回的时间范围(现在或过去24小时)和临床有意义改善的阈值(绝对(8.9 mm)或相对(15%))影响评估绩效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信