优化慢性阻塞性肺病或头颈癌患者的治疗并不能提高生活质量——一项随机、试点、临床试验。

IF 1.8 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM European Clinical Respiratory Journal Pub Date : 2020-03-02 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277
Magnus Gottlieb, Anders Mellemgaard, Kristoffer Marsaa, Nina Godtfredsen
{"title":"优化慢性阻塞性肺病或头颈癌患者的治疗并不能提高生活质量——一项随机、试点、临床试验。","authors":"Magnus Gottlieb,&nbsp;Anders Mellemgaard,&nbsp;Kristoffer Marsaa,&nbsp;Nina Godtfredsen","doi":"10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: 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). <b>Methods</b>: 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. <b>Results</b>: 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. <b>Conclusion</b>: 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11872,"journal":{"name":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"1731277"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing COPD treatment in patients with lung- or head and neck cancer does not improve quality of life - a randomized, pilot, clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Magnus Gottlieb,&nbsp;Anders Mellemgaard,&nbsp;Kristoffer Marsaa,&nbsp;Nina Godtfredsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>: 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). <b>Methods</b>: 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. <b>Results</b>: 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. <b>Conclusion</b>: 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11872,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Clinical Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"1731277\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Clinical Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2020.1731277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景:慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)是肺癌和头颈癌患者的常见合并症。同时患有慢性阻塞性肺病的肺癌患者的预后比没有慢性阻塞性肺病的肺癌患者差。先前的研究表明,新诊断的肺癌或头颈癌患者合并COPD的诊断和治疗需要优化。在这项随机对照试验中,我们旨在评估旨在改善COPD治疗的干预措施是否能改善这些患者的健康相关生活质量(QoL)。方法:2014年,我们在丹麦首都地区的一家大型大学医院随机选择114例患者进行肿瘤治疗,对合并COPD进行常规护理或干预。干预包括在肿瘤部门设立的门诊诊所进行两次访问,并配备了肺病医生。在基线,第13周和第25周,所有患者分别填写癌症和copd特异性生活质量问卷CAT和EORTC。主要观察结果为对照组与干预组间cat评分的变化。次要终点为EORTC的变化。结果:第13周、第25周各组间cat评分无明显变化。对于EORTC,只有在第13周的疲劳领域有统计学意义的改善(p = 0.03),但在第25周没有。干预组呼吸困难在第13周有减少的趋势,EORTC测量(p = 0.07)。两组在第25周的死亡率相似。结论:在这组严重癌症患者中,我们没有发现这种以吸入COPD药物为主的COPD治疗干预与常规治疗相比,对患者感知生活质量有任何令人信服的积极影响。需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optimizing COPD treatment in patients with lung- or head and neck cancer does not improve quality of life - a randomized, pilot, clinical trial.

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.

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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the self evaluation of breathing questionnaire (SEBQ) into Danish. Factors behind favorable long-term lung cancer survival in Norway compared to Denmark: a retrospective cohort study. Socioeconomic status and emergency department visits in adults with a history of severe childhood asthma: a register-based study. Comorbid allergy and rhinitis and patient-related outcomes in asthma and COPD: a cross-sectional study. Lung function measurements in the Greenlandic Inuit population: results from the Greenlandic health survey 2017-2019.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1