Abdul H Zaid, Suman B Thapamagar, James D Anholm, Laura Weaver-Carnahan, Lien Duong, Lennard Specht
{"title":"屈大麻酚对慢性阻塞性肺病患者呼吸困难和生活质量的影响","authors":"Abdul H Zaid, Suman B Thapamagar, James D Anholm, Laura Weaver-Carnahan, Lien Duong, Lennard Specht","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dyspnea is frequently a debilitating symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cannabinoid receptor agonists have the potential to alter dyspnea in these patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our objective was to determine if dronabinol, a pure cannabinoid, improves dyspnea and exercise tolerance in COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blind randomized, crossover pilot study, COPD patients received up to 20mg of oral dronabinol or placebo daily for 6 weeks with an intervening washout period. Dyspnea and fatigue were assessed using the Borg scale at rest and after an incremental shuttle walk. Functional status, mood, and depression were measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire (PFSDQ), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 participants (with mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second 50.8 ± 24.8%) completed the study with no improvement in dyspnea at rest or postexercise taking dronabinol versus placebo (Borg scale 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59 to 1.14 versus 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.07 at rest and 0.82, 95% CI -0.59 to 2.22 versus 0.36 points, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.78 post exercise; <i>p</i>=0.94 and <i>p</i>=0.69 respectively). Dronabinol compared with placebo showed no significant change in PFSDQ dyspnea scores (0.64, 95% CI -3.92 to 5.20 versus 5.0, 95% CI -6.29 to 16.29; <i>p</i>=0.43) or shuttle walk distances (20.7m, 95% CI -21.5 to 62.8 versus 13.7m, 95% CI -24.8 to 52.2; <i>p</i>=0.69). There were no significant differences in fatigue at rest and postexercise, SGRQ scores, or GDS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this pilot study, dronabinol did not significantly improve dyspnea or exercise capacity compared with placebo.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075348/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Dronabinol on Dyspnea and Quality of Life in Patients With COPD.\",\"authors\":\"Abdul H Zaid, Suman B Thapamagar, James D Anholm, Laura Weaver-Carnahan, Lien Duong, Lennard Specht\",\"doi\":\"10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dyspnea is frequently a debilitating symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cannabinoid receptor agonists have the potential to alter dyspnea in these patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our objective was to determine if dronabinol, a pure cannabinoid, improves dyspnea and exercise tolerance in COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blind randomized, crossover pilot study, COPD patients received up to 20mg of oral dronabinol or placebo daily for 6 weeks with an intervening washout period. Dyspnea and fatigue were assessed using the Borg scale at rest and after an incremental shuttle walk. Functional status, mood, and depression were measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire (PFSDQ), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 participants (with mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second 50.8 ± 24.8%) completed the study with no improvement in dyspnea at rest or postexercise taking dronabinol versus placebo (Borg scale 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59 to 1.14 versus 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.07 at rest and 0.82, 95% CI -0.59 to 2.22 versus 0.36 points, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.78 post exercise; <i>p</i>=0.94 and <i>p</i>=0.69 respectively). Dronabinol compared with placebo showed no significant change in PFSDQ dyspnea scores (0.64, 95% CI -3.92 to 5.20 versus 5.0, 95% CI -6.29 to 16.29; <i>p</i>=0.43) or shuttle walk distances (20.7m, 95% CI -21.5 to 62.8 versus 13.7m, 95% CI -24.8 to 52.2; <i>p</i>=0.69). There were no significant differences in fatigue at rest and postexercise, SGRQ scores, or GDS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this pilot study, dronabinol did not significantly improve dyspnea or exercise capacity compared with placebo.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075348/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:呼吸困难是慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)患者经常出现的一种使人衰弱的症状。大麻素受体激动剂有可能改变这些患者的呼吸困难症状:确定纯大麻素屈大麻酚是否能改善慢性阻塞性肺病患者的呼吸困难和运动耐量:在这项双盲随机交叉试验研究中,慢性阻塞性肺病患者每天口服 20 毫克屈大麻酚或安慰剂,为期六周,中间有一段冲洗期。研究人员使用博格量表评估了患者在休息时和进行增量穿梭步行后的呼吸困难和疲劳程度。使用圣乔治呼吸问卷(SGRQ)、肺功能状态和呼吸困难问卷(PFSDQ)以及老年抑郁量表(GDS)测量功能状态、情绪和抑郁程度:11 名受试者(平均 FEV1 为 50.8 ± 24.8%)完成了研究,服用屈大麻酚与安慰剂相比,休息时或运动后呼吸困难没有改善(休息时 Borg 量表 0.27,95% CI -0.59 至 1.14 vs. 0.23 点,95% CI -0.71 至 1.07;运动后 0.82,95% CI -0.59 至 2.22 vs. 0.36 点,95% CI 0.13 至 2.78;P=0.94 和 P=0.69)。与安慰剂相比,屈大麻酚在 PSFDQ 呼吸困难评分(0.64,95% CI -3.92 至 5.20 vs. 5.0,95% CI -6.29 至 16.29;p=0.43)或穿梭步行距离(20.7 米,95% CI -21.5 至 62.8 vs. 13.7 米,95% CI -24.8 至 52.2;p=0.69)方面没有显著变化。休息时和运动后的疲劳程度、SGRQ评分或GDS评分均无明显差异:在这项试点研究中,与安慰剂相比,屈大麻酚对呼吸困难或运动能力没有明显改善。
Effects of Dronabinol on Dyspnea and Quality of Life in Patients With COPD.
Background: Dyspnea is frequently a debilitating symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cannabinoid receptor agonists have the potential to alter dyspnea in these patients.
Objective: Our objective was to determine if dronabinol, a pure cannabinoid, improves dyspnea and exercise tolerance in COPD.
Methods: In this double-blind randomized, crossover pilot study, COPD patients received up to 20mg of oral dronabinol or placebo daily for 6 weeks with an intervening washout period. Dyspnea and fatigue were assessed using the Borg scale at rest and after an incremental shuttle walk. Functional status, mood, and depression were measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Pulmonary Functional Status and Dyspnea Questionnaire (PFSDQ), and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).
Results: A total of 11 participants (with mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second 50.8 ± 24.8%) completed the study with no improvement in dyspnea at rest or postexercise taking dronabinol versus placebo (Borg scale 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59 to 1.14 versus 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.07 at rest and 0.82, 95% CI -0.59 to 2.22 versus 0.36 points, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.78 post exercise; p=0.94 and p=0.69 respectively). Dronabinol compared with placebo showed no significant change in PFSDQ dyspnea scores (0.64, 95% CI -3.92 to 5.20 versus 5.0, 95% CI -6.29 to 16.29; p=0.43) or shuttle walk distances (20.7m, 95% CI -21.5 to 62.8 versus 13.7m, 95% CI -24.8 to 52.2; p=0.69). There were no significant differences in fatigue at rest and postexercise, SGRQ scores, or GDS scores.
Conclusion: In this pilot study, dronabinol did not significantly improve dyspnea or exercise capacity compared with placebo.