0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Optimizing COPD treatment in patients with lung- or head and neck cancer does not improve quality of life – a randomized, pilot, clinical trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in patients with lung and head- and neck cancer. Patients with lung cancer who also suffer from COPD have a worse prognosis than patients with lung cancer and no COPD. It has previously been shown that diagnosis and treatment of concomitant COPD in patients with newly diagnosed lung- or head and neck cancer need optimization. In this randomized, controlled trial we aimed to assess if intervention directed at improving treatment for COPD in these patients improved health-related quality of life (QoL).

          Methods: During 2014, we randomized 114 patients referred for oncological treatment at a large university hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark, to either usual care or intervention regarding concomitant COPD. The intervention consisted of two visits in an out-patient clinic established at the oncological department and staffed with a pulmonary physician. At baseline, week 13 and week 25, all patients filled out the cancer- and COPD-specific QoL questionnaires CAT and EORTC, respectively. The primary outcome was change in CAT-score between control- and intervention group. The secondary outcome was change in EORTC.

          Results: There was no change in CAT-score by week 13 or 25 between the groups. For the EORTC there was a statistically significant improvement only in the fatigue domain at week 13 (p = 0.03), but not at week 25. There was a trend towards less dyspnea in the intervention group at week 13, measured by EORTC (p = 0.07). Mortality by week 25 was similar in both groups.

          Conclusion: In this population of severely ill cancer patients, we did not find that this intervention, focusing on inhaled COPD medication, for the management of COPD had any convincing positive impact on the patients’ perceived quality of life compared with usual care. Further studies are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

          Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Understanding the impact of symptoms on the burden of COPD

            Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) imposes a substantial burden on individuals with the disease, which can include a range of symptoms (breathlessness, cough, sputum production, wheeze, chest tightness) of varying severities. We present an overview of the biomedical literature describing reported relationships between COPD symptoms and disease burden in terms of quality of life, health status, daily activities, physical activity, sleep, comorbid anxiety, and depression, as well as risk of exacerbations and disease prognosis. In addition, the substantial variability of COPD symptoms encountered (morning, daytime, and nighttime) is addressed and their implications for disease burden considered. The findings from this narrative review, which mainly focuses on real-world and observational studies, demonstrate the impact of COPD symptoms on the burden of disease and that improved recognition and understanding of their impact is central to alleviating this burden.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The COPD assessment test (CAT): response to pulmonary rehabilitation. A multicentre, prospective study.

              The COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) assessment test (CAT) is a recently introduced, simple to use patient-completed quality of life instrument that contains eight questions covering the impact of symptoms in COPD. It is not known how the CAT score performs in the context of clinical pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes or what the minimum clinically important difference is. The introduction of the CAT score as an outcome measure was prospectively studied by PR programmes across London. It was used alongside other measures including the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression score, the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and a range of different walking tests. Patients completed a 5-point anchor question used to assess overall response to PR from 'I feel much better' to 'I feel much worse'. Data were available for 261 patients with COPD participating in seven programmes: mean (SD) age 69.0 (9.0) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) 51.1 (18.7) % predicted, MRC score 3.2 (1.0). Mean change in CAT score after PR was 2.9 (5.6) points, improving by 3.8 (6.1) points in those scoring 'much better' (n=162), and by 1.3(4.5) in those who felt 'a little better' (n=88) (p=0.002). Only eight individuals reported no difference after PR and three reported feeling 'a little worse', so comparison with these smaller groups was not possible. The CAT score is simple to implement as an outcome measure, it improves in response to PR and can distinguish categories of response.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Clin Respir J
                Eur Clin Respir J
                ZECR
                zecr20
                European Clinical Respiratory Journal
                Taylor & Francis
                2001-8525
                2020
                2 March 2020
                : 7
                : 1
                : 1731277
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Amager and Hvidovre Hospital , Denmark
                [b ]Department of Medicine and Oncology, Bornholms Hospital , Denmark
                [c ]Palliative Unit, Copenhagen University Herlev and Gentofte Hospital , Denmark
                [d ]Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen , Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author notes
                CONTACT Nina Godtfredsen Nina.Skavlan.Godtfredsen@ 123456regionh.dk Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Amager and Hvidovre Hospital
                Article
                1731277
                10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277
                7067155
                32194927
                cbaa7c9c-64d6-4d8d-a99b-b4b121489747
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 03 July 2019
                : 12 February 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, References: 26, Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funded by: Boehringer-Ingelheim Danmark A/S
                Award ID: 071-SOP-059-00481_RD01
                This work was supported by the Boehringer-Ingelheim Danmark A/S [071-SOP-059-00481_RD01].
                Categories
                Research Article

                copd,lung cancer,comorbidity
                copd, lung cancer, comorbidity

                Comments

                Comment on this article