BMC pulmonary medicine
-
BMC pulmonary medicine · Feb 2016
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative StudyA randomised controlled trial of supplemental oxygen versus medical air during exercise training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: supplemental oxygen in pulmonary rehabilitation trial (SuppORT) (Protocol).
Oxygen desaturation during exercise is common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of the study is to determine, in people with COPD who desaturate during exercise, whether supplemental oxygen during an eight-week exercise training program is more effective than medical air (sham intervention) in improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life both at the completion of training and at six-month follow up. ⋯ Exercise training is an essential component of pulmonary rehabilitation for people with COPD. This study will determine whether supplemental oxygen during exercise training is more effective than medical air in improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in people with COPD who desaturate during exercise.
-
BMC pulmonary medicine · Oct 2015
Randomized Controlled TrialShort-term effects of a nicotine-free e-cigarette compared to a traditional cigarette in smokers and non-smokers.
A few studies have assessed the short-term effects of low-dose nicotine e-cigarettes, while data about nicotine-free e-cigarettes (NF e-cigarettes) are scanty. Concerns have been expressed about the use of NF e-cigarettes, because of the high concentrations of propylene glycol and other compounds in the e-cigarette vapor. ⋯ The short-term use of the specific brand of NF e-cigarette assessed in this study had no immediate adverse effects on non-smokers and only small effects on FEV1 and FEF25 in smokers. The long-term health effects of NF e-cigarette use are unknown but worthy of further investigations.
-
BMC pulmonary medicine · Aug 2015
Randomized Controlled TrialUmeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in COPD: a randomised trial.
Umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist) plus vilanterol (VI; long-acting beta2 agonist [LABA]) and the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy study compared the efficacy and safety of these treatments in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with no exacerbations in the year prior to enrolment. ⋯ Once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg over 12 weeks resulted in significant and sustained improvements in lung function versus twice-daily FP/SAL 500/50 mcg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and with no exacerbations in the year prior to enrolment.
-
BMC pulmonary medicine · Nov 2014
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative StudyEfficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combinations compared with individual components and placebo in patients with COPD (ACLIFORM-COPD): a multicentre, randomised study.
Aclidinium/formoterol is a twice-daily (BID) fixed-dose combination (FDC) in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapy and placebo in patients with COPD was assessed. ⋯ Both aclidinium/formoterol BID doses significantly improved bronchodilation versus monotherapy, and dyspnoea versus placebo, with no increase in safety risk. Aclidinium/formoterol may be an effective treatment for patients with COPD.
-
BMC pulmonary medicine · Oct 2014
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyDoes the 2013 GOLD classification improve the ability to predict lung function decline, exacerbations and mortality: a post-hoc analysis of the 4-year UPLIFT trial.
The 2013 GOLD classification system for COPD distinguishes four stages: A (low symptoms, low exacerbation risk), B (high symptoms, low risk), C (low symptoms, high risk) and D (high symptoms, high risk). Assessment of risk is based on exacerbation history and airflow obstruction, whatever results in a higher risk grouping. The previous system was solely based on airflow obstruction. Earlier studies compared the predictive performance of new and old classification systems with regards to mortality and exacerbations. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of both classifications to predict the number of future (total and severe) exacerbations and mortality in a different patient population, and to add an outcome measure to the comparison: lung function decline. ⋯ The new classification system is a modest step towards a phenotype approach. It is probably an improvement for the prediction of exacerbations, but a deterioration for predicting mortality and lung function decline.