Anna Bornefalk-Hermansson

Background: The functional impact of breathlessness is assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale for chronic respiratory disease and with the New York Heart Association Functional Classification (NYHA) scale for heart failure. We evaluated agreement between the scales and their concurrent validity with other clinically relevant patient-reported outcomes in cardiorespiratory disease.Methods: Outpatients with stable chronic respiratory disease or heart failure were recruited. Agreement between the mMRC and NYHA scales was analysed using Cramér's V and Kendall's tau B tests. Concurrent validity was evaluated using correlations with clinically relevant measures of breathlessness, anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life. Analyses were conducted for all participants and separately in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure.Results: In a total of 182 participants with cardiorespiratory disease, the agreement between the mMRC and NYHA scales was moderate (Cramér's V: 0.46; Kendall's tau B: 0.57) with similar results for COPD (Cramér's V: 0.46; Kendall's tau B: 0.66) and heart failure (Cramér's V: 0.46; Kendall's tau B: 0.67). In the total population, the scales correlated in similar ways to other patient-reported outcomes.Conclusion: In outpatients with cardiorespiratory disease, the mMRC and NYHA scales show moderate to strong correlations and similar associations with other patient-reported outcomes. This supports that the scales are comparable when assessing the impact of breathlessness on function and patient-reported outcomes.

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective. Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units. Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of −16.7 (95% CI −19.4 to −14.1) in the bibloc and −11.8 (−14.9 to −8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group. Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) during 15 h/day or more prolongs survival in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and severe hypoxemia. No randomized controlled trial has evaluated the net effects (benefits or harms) from LTOT 24 h/day compared with 15 h/day or the effect in conditions other than COPD. We describe a multicenter, national, phase IV, non-superiority, registry-based, randomized controlled trial (R-RCT) of LTOT prescribed 24 h/day compared with 15 h/day. The primary endpoint is all-cause-mortality at 1 year. Secondary endpoints include cause-specific mortality, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, symptoms, and outcomes in interstitial lung disease. Patients qualifying for LTOT are randomized to LTOT 24 h/day versus 15 h/day during 12 months using the Swedish Register for Respiratory Failure (Swedevox). Planned sample size in this pragmatic study is 2126 randomized patients. Clinical follow-up and concurrent treatments are according to routine clinical practice. Mortality, hospitalizations, and incident diseases are assessed using national Swedish registries with expected complete follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes are assessed using postal questionnaire at 3 and 12 months. The R-RCT approach combines the advantages of a prospective randomized trial and large clinical national registries for enrollment, allocation, and data collection, with the aim of improving the evidence-based use of LTOT. Clinical Trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov , Title: REgistry-based Treatment Duration and Mortality in Long-term OXygen Therapy (REDOX); ID: NCT03441204.

The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA and caused adverse events of similar magnitude. Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT02148510).

Breathlessness is a cardinal symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is given to improve survival time in people with COPD and severe chronic hypoxaemia at rest. The efficacy of oxygen therapy for breathlessness and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people with COPD and mild or no hypoxaemia who do not meet the criteria for LTOT has not been established. To determine the efficacy of oxygen versus air in mildly hypoxaemic or non-hypoxaemic patients with COPD in terms of (1) breathlessness; (2) HRQOL; (3) patient preference whether to continue therapy; and (4) oxygen-related adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, to 12 July 2016, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We handsearched the reference lists of included articles. We included RCTs of the effects of non-invasive oxygen versus air on breathlessness, HRQOL or patient preference to continue therapy among people with COPD and mild or no hypoxaemia (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) > 7.3 kPa) who were not already receiving LTOT. Two review authors independently assessed articles for inclusion in the review. Two review authors independently collected and analysed data. We assessed risk of bias by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias tool'. We pooled effects recorded on different scales as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Lower SMDs indicated decreased breathlessness and reduced HRQOL. We performed subanalyses and sensitivity analyses and assessed the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Compared with the previous review, which was published in 2011, we included 14 additional studies (493 participants), excluded one study and included data for meta-analysis of HRQOL. In total, we included in this review 44 studies including 1195 participants, and we included 33 of these (901 participants)in the meta-analysis. We found that breathlessness during exercise or daily activities was reduced by oxygen compared with air (32 studies; 865 participants; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.20; I² = 29%; low-quality evidence). This translates to a decrease in breathlessness of about 0.7 points on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. In contrast, we found no effect of short-burst oxygen given before exercise (four studies; 90 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.22; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Oxygen reduced breathlessness measured during exercise tests (30 studies; 591 participants; SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.22; I² = 29%; moderate-quality evidence), whereas evidence of an effect on breathlessness measured in daily life was limited (two studies; 274 participants; SMD -0.13, 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.11; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Oxygen did not clearly affect HRQOL (five studies; 267 participants; SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.28; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Patient preference and adverse events could not be analysed owing to insufficient data. We are moderately confident that oxygen can relieve breathlessness when given during exercise to mildly hypoxaemic and non-hypoxaemic people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who would not otherwise qualify for home oxygen therapy. Most evidence pertains to acute effects during exercise tests, and no evidence indicates that oxygen decreases breathlessness in the daily life setting. Findings show that oxygen does not affect health-related quality of life.

Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) ≥ 15 h/day improves survival in hypoxemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). LTOT 24 h/day is often recommended but may pose an unnecessary burden with no clear survival benefit compared with LTOT 15 h/day. The aim was to test the hypothesis that LTOT 24 h/day decreases all-cause, respiratory, and cardiovascular mortality compared to LTOT 15 h/day in hypoxemic COPD. This was a prospective, observational, population-based study of COPD patients starting LTOT between October 1, 2005 and June 30, 2009 in Sweden. Overall and cause-specific mortality was analyzed using Cox and Fine-Gray regression, controlling for age, sex, prescribed oxygen dose, PaO₂ (air), PaCO₂ (air), Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV₁), WHO performance status, body mass index, comorbidity, and oral glucocorticoids. A total of 2,249 included patients were included with a median follow-up of 1.1 years (interquartile range, 0.6–2.1). 1,129 (50%) patients died and no patient was lost to follow-up. Higher LTOT duration analyzed as a continuous variable was not associated with any change in mortality rate (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.02) per 1 h/day increase above 15 h/day. LTOT exactly 24 h/day was prescribed in 539 (24%) patients and LTOT 15–16 h/day in 1,231 (55%) patients. Mortality was similar between the groups for all-cause, respiratory and cardiovascular mortality. In hypoxemic COPD, LTOT 24 h/day was not associated with a survival benefit compared with treatment 15–16 h/day. A design for a registry-based randomized trial (R-RCT) is proposed.

Background and objective: Severe idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and gastro‐oesophageal reflux, which may influence prognosis. We evaluated associations between cardiovascular and antacid medications, and mortality, in oxygen‐dependent pulmonary fibrosis (PF) of unknown cause.Methods: Prospective population‐based study of adults starting long‐term oxygen therapy (LTOT) for PF in Sweden 2005–2009. PF of unknown cause was defined by excluding patients with known or probable secondary PF. Time‐dependent associations between medications and all‐cause mortality were analysed using extended Cox regression, adjusting for potential confounders including age, sex, vital capacity, blood gases, body mass index, performance status, comorbidity and concurrent medications.Results: Of 462 included patients, 329 (71%) died under observation. No patient was lost to follow‐up. Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) were associated with reduced adjusted mortality (HR 0.63; 0.47–0.85) and antiplatelet drugs with increased mortality (HR 1.49; 1.11–2.00), largely driven by higher mortality in women. There were no associations with mortality for antacid treatments, β‐blockers, diuretics or statins.Conclusion: In oxygen‐dependent PF, treatment with ACEI/ARB was associated with improved survival, antiplatelet drugs with decreased survival, whereas there was no association between antacid, β‐blocker, diuretic or statin treatment and survival.

The main finding of the study should be emphasised: treatment with regular, low-dose opioids (≤30 mg oral morphine equivalents per day) was not associated with increased rates of hospitalisation or death in people with severe, oxygen-dependent COPD.