| 1. |
- Ahmadi, Zainab, et al.
(author)
-
Agreement of the modified Medical Research Council and New York Heart Association scales for assessing the impact of self-rated breathlessness in cardiopulmonary disease
- 2022
-
In: ERJ Open Research. - : European Respiratory Society. - 2312-0541. ; 8:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ekström, Magnus, et al.
(author)
-
Minimal clinically important differences for Dyspnea-12 and MDP scores are similar at 2 weeks and 6 months : follow-up of a longitudinal clinical study
- 2021
-
In: The European respiratory journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 1399-3003 .- 0903-1936. ; 57:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Chronic breathlessness is a dominating symptom that restricts daily life for many people with cardiorespiratory disease [1]. Different dimensions of the symptom, such as the intensity, sensory qualities and emotional responses, can be assessed using the instruments Dyspnea-12 (D-12) [2] and the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP) [3], which share similarities in the underlying constructs of what is measured [4] and have emerged as widely used instruments for multi-dimensional measurement of breathlessness
|
|
| 3. |
- Ekström, Magnus P., et al.
(author)
-
Minimal Clinically Important Differences and Feasibility of Dyspnea-12 and the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile in Cardiorespiratory Disease
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. - : Elsevier. - 0885-3924 .- 1873-6513. ; 60:5, s. 968-975
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Context: Breathlessness is a cardinal symptom in cardiorespiratory disease and consists of multiple dimensions that can be measured using the instruments Dyspnea-12 (D12) and the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP). Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of all D12 and MDP summary and subdomain scores as well as the instruments' feasibility in patients with cardiorespiratory disease. Methods: Prospective multicenter cohort study of outpatients with diagnosed cardiorespiratory disease and breathlessness in daily life. D12 and MDP were assessed at baseline, after 30-90 minutes and two weeks. MCIDs were calculated using anchor-based and distributional methods for summary and subdomain scores. Feasibility was assessed as rate of missing data, help required, self-reported difficulty, and completion time. Results: A total 182 outpatients (53.3% women) were included; main diagnoses were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 25%), asthma (21%), heart failure (19%), and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (19%). Anchor-based MCIDs were for D12 total score 2.83 (95% CI 1.99-3.66); D12 physical 1.81 (1.29-2.34); D12 affective 1.07 (0.64-1.49); MDP A1 unpleasantness 0.82 (0.56-1.08); MDP perception 4.63 (3.21-6.05), and MDP emotional score 2.37 (1.10-3.64). The estimates were consistent with small-to-moderate effect sizes using distributional analysis, and MCIDs were similar between COPD and non-COPD patients. The instruments were generally feasible and quick to use. Conclusion: D12 and MDP are responsive to change and feasible for use for assessing multidimensional breathlessness in outpatients with cardiorespiratory disease. MCIDs were determined for use as endpoints in clinical trials.
|
|
| 4. |
- Tegelberg, Åke, et al.
(author)
-
Respiratory outcomes after a 1-year treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea with bibloc versus monobloc oral appliances : a multicentre, randomized equivalence trial
- 2020
-
In: Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0001-6357 .- 1502-3850. ; 78:6, s. 401-408
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.
|
|
