scholarly journals Association between long-term oxygen therapy provided outside the guidelines and mortality in patients with COPD

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e049115
Author(s):  
Francois Alexandre ◽  
Virginie Molinier ◽  
Maurice Hayot ◽  
Guillaume Chevance ◽  
Gregory Moullec ◽  
...  

IntroductionHypoxaemia is a frequent complication of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To prevent its consequences, supplemental oxygen therapy is recommended by international respiratory societies. However, despite clear recommendations, some patients receive long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), while they do not meet prescription criteria. While evidence suggests that acute oxygen supply at high oxygenation targets increases COPD mortality, its chronic effects on COPD mortality remain unclear. Thus, the study will aim to evaluate through a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA), the association of LTOT prescription outside the guidelines on survival over time in COPD.MethodsSystematic review and IPD-MA will be conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses IPD guidelines. Electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and BioRxiv/MedRxix) will be scanned to identify relevant studies (cohort of stable COPD with arterial oxygen tension data available, with indication of LTOT filled out at the moment of the study and with a survival follow-up). The anticipated search dates are January–February 2022. The main outcome will be the association between LTOT and time to all-cause mortality according to hypoxaemia severity, after controlling for potential covariates and all available clinical characteristics. Quantitative data at the level of the individual patient will be used in a one-step approach to develop and validate a prognostic model with a Cox regression analysis. The one-step IPD-MA will be conducted to study the association and the moderators of association between supplemental oxygen therapy and mortality. Multilevel survival analyses using Cox-mixed effects models will be performed.Ethics and disseminationAs a protocol for a systematic review, a formal ethics committee review is not required. Only studies with institutional approval from an ethics committee and anonymised IPD will be included. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations in conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020209823.

2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Corrado ◽  
T. Renda ◽  
S. Bertini

Long term oxygen therapy (LTOT) has been shown to improve the survival rate in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients with severe resting hypoxemia by NOTT and MRC studies, published more than 25 years ago. The improved survival was found in patients who received oxygen for more than 15 hours/day. The effectiveness of LTOT has been documented only in stable COPD patients with severe chronic hypoxemia at rest (PaO255%. In fact no evidence supports the use of LTOT in COPD patients with moderate hypoxemia (55<PaO2<65 mmHg), and in those with decreased oxygen saturation (SO2<90%) during exercise or sleep. Furthermore, it is generally accepted without evidence that LTOT in clinical practice is warranted in other forms of chronic respiratory failure not due to COPD when arterial blood gas criteria match those established for COPD patients. The prescription of oxygen in these circumstances, as for unstable patients, increases the number of patients receiving supplemental oxygen and the related costs. Comorbidities are likely to affect both prognosis and health outcomes in COPD patients, but at the moment we do not know if LTOT in these patients with complex chronic diseases and mild-moderate hypoxemia could be of any use. For these reasons a critical revision of the actual guide lines indications for LTOT in order to optimise effectiveness and costs, and future research in the areas that have not previously been addressed by NOTT and MRC studies, are mandatory.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175346662096302
Author(s):  
Sandra Cuerpo ◽  
Maria Palomo ◽  
Fernanda Hernández-González ◽  
Joel Francesqui ◽  
Nuria Albacar ◽  
...  

Background: Proper adjustment of arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) during daily activities in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) requiring long-term oxygen therapy is challenging. Given the multifactorial nature of the limited exercise tolerance in patients with ILDs, the isolated use of oxygen therapy may not be enough. As demonstrated previously in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the use of a noninvasive ventilation (NIV) device combined with oxygen therapy may prevent the falling of oxygen saturation during exercise, due to an improvement of the ventilation–perfusion ratio and a reduction of the respiratory work, thus enhancing exercise tolerance. We sought to assess in patients diagnosed with ILD who are in need of oxygen therapy, the effect of associating an NIV to improve oxygen parameters and the distance covered during the 6 min walking test (6MWT). Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study in patients with ILDs. After a clinical characterization, we performed a 6MWT in two different situations: using a portable oxygen concentrator with the regular flow used by the patient during their daily life activities and afterwards adding the additional support of a NIV. The oxygen saturation parameters were registered with a portable oximeter. Results: We included 16 patients with different ILDs who have oxygen therapy prescribed. The use of NIV associated with oxygen therapy in comparison with the use of oxygen therapy alone showed an increase of the average SaO2 [91% (88–93) versus 88% (86–90%); p = 0.0005] and a decrease in the percentage of time with oxygen saturation <90%: 36% (6–56%) versus 58% (36–77%); p < 0.0001. There were no changes in the 6MWT distance: 307 m (222–419 m) versus 316 m (228–425 m); p = 0.10. Conclusions: In our study the use of a NIV system associated with long-term oxygen therapy during exercise showed beneficial effects, especially improvement of oxygen saturation. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.


2021 ◽  
pp. 00272-2021
Author(s):  
Yves Lacasse ◽  
Sébastien Thériault ◽  
Benoît St-Pierre ◽  
Sarah Bernard ◽  
Frédéric Sériès ◽  
...  

Background and ObjectiveTranscutaneous pulse oximetry saturation (SpO2) is widely used to diagnose severe hypoxaemia and to prescribe long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This practice is not based on evidence. The primary objective of this study was to determine the accuracy (false positive and false negative rates) of oximetry for prescribing LTOT or for screening for severe hypoxaemia in patients with COPD.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, we correlated arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and SpO2 in patients with COPD and moderate hypoxaemia (n=240), and calculated the false positive and false negative rates of SaO2 at the threshold of ≤88% to identify severe hypoxaemia (PaO2 ≤55 mmHg or PaO2 <60 mmHg) in 452 patients with COPD with moderate or severe hypoxaemia.ResultsThe correlation between SaO2 and SpO2 was only moderate (intra-class coefficient of correlation: 0.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.32–0.53). LTOT would be denied in 40% of truly hypoxemic patients on the basis of a SaO2 ˃ 88% (i.e., false negative result). Conversely, LTOT would be prescribed on the basis of a SaO2≤88% in 2% of patients who would not qualify for LTOT (i.e., false positive result). Using a screening threshold of≤92%, 5% of severely hypoxemic patients would not be referred for further evaluation.ConclusionsSeveral patients who qualify for LTOT would be denied treatment using a prescription threshold of saturation ≤88% or a screening threshold of ≤92%. Prescription of LTOT should be based on PaO2 measurement.


2021 ◽  
pp. 2004613
Author(s):  
Slavica Kochovska ◽  
Diana H. Ferreira ◽  
Maja V. Garcia ◽  
Jane L. Phillips ◽  
David C. Currow

Oxygen therapy is frequently prescribed for the palliation of breathlessness, despite lack of evidence for its effectiveness in people who are not hypoxaemic. This study aimed to compare and contrast patients’, caregivers’ and clinicians’ experiences of palliative oxygen use for the relief of chronic breathlessness in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses, and how this shapes prescribing.A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative data was conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed studies in English (2000-present) reporting perspectives on palliative oxygen use for reducing breathlessness in people with advanced illnesses in any healthcare setting. After data extraction, thematic synthesis used line-by-line coding of raw data (quotes) to generate descriptive and analytical themes.Of 457 articles identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria by reporting perspectives of patients (n=337), caregivers (n=91) or clinicians (n=616). Themes common to these perspectives were: 1) benefits and burdens of palliative oxygen use; 2) knowledge and perceptions of palliative oxygen use beyond the guidelines; and 3) longitudinal trajectories of palliative oxygen use.There are differing perceptions regarding the benefits and burdens of using palliative oxygen. Clinicians should be aware that oxygen use may generate differing goals of therapy for patients and caregivers. These perceptions should be taken into consideration when prescribing oxygen for the symptomatic relief of chronic breathlessness in patients who do not quality for long term oxygen therapy.


Author(s):  
Mathias A. Christensen ◽  
Jacob Steinmetz ◽  
George Velmahos ◽  
Lars S. Rasmussen

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Catherine van der Eijk ◽  
Denise Rook ◽  
Jenny Dankelman ◽  
Bert Johan Smit

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 198.2-199
Author(s):  
L. Pupim ◽  
T. S. Wang ◽  
K. Hudock ◽  
J. Denson ◽  
N. Fourie ◽  
...  

Background:Granulocyte/macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is a cytokine both vital to lung homeostasis and important in regulating inflammation and autoimmunity1,2,3 that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.4-6 Mavrilimumab is a human anti GM-CSF receptor α monoclonal antibody capable of blocking GM-CSF signaling and downregulating the inflammatory process.Objectives:To evaluate the effect of mavrilimumab on clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.Methods:This on-going, global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled seamless transition Phase 2/3 trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mavrilimumab in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation. The Phase 2 portion comprised two groups: Cohort 1 patients requiring supplemental oxygen therapy without mechanical ventilation (to maintain SpO2 ≥92%) and Cohort 2 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, initiated ≤48 hours before randomization. Here, we report results for Phase 2, Cohort 1: 116 patients with severe COVID- 19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from USA, Brazil, Chile, Peru, and South Africa; randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single intravenous administration of mavrilimumab (10 or 6 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at Day 29. Secondary endpoints included [1] time to 2-point clinical improvement (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases COVID-19 ordinal scale), [2] time to return to room air, and [3] mortality, all measured through Day 29. The prespecified evidentiary standard was a 2-sided α of 0.2 (not adjusted for multiplicity).Results:Baseline demographics were balanced among the intervention groups; patients were racially diverse (43% non-white), had a mean age of 57 years, and 49% were obese (BMI ≥ 30). All patients received the local standard of care: 96% received corticosteroids (including dexamethasone) and 29% received remdesivir. No differences in outcomes were observed between the 10 mg/kg and 6 mg/kg mavrilimumab arms. Results for these groups are presented together. Mavrilimumab recipients had a reduced requirement for mechanical ventilation and improved survival: at day 29, the proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation was 12.3 percentage points higher with mavrilimumab (86.7% of patients) than placebo (74.4% of patients) (Primary endpoint; p=0.1224). Mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death through Day 29 (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.35; p=0.0175). Day 29 mortality was 12.5 percentage points lower in mavrilimumab recipients (8%) compared to placebo (20.5%) (p=0.0718). Mavrilimumab recipients had a 61% reduction in the risk of death through Day 29 (HR= 0.39; p=0.0726). Adverse events occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients compared to placebo, including secondary infections and thrombotic events (known complications of COVID-19). Thrombotic events occurred only in the placebo arm (5/40 [12.5%]).Conclusion:In a global, diverse population of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation receiving supplemental oxygen therapy, corticosteroids, and remdesivir, a single infusion of mavrilimumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and improved survival. Results indicate mavrilimumab, a potent inhibitor of GM-CSF signaling, may have added clinical benefit on top of the current standard therapy for COVID-19. Of potential importance is that this treatment strategy is mechanistically independent of the specific virus or viral variant.References:[1]Trapnell, Nat Rev Dis Pri, 2019[2]Wicks, Nat Rev Immunology, 2015[3]Hamilton, Exp Rev Clin Immunol, 2015[4]De Luca, Lancet Rheumatol, 2020[5]Cremer, Lancet Rheumatol, 2021[6]Zhou, Nature, 2020Disclosure of Interests:Lara Pupim Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Tisha S. Wang Consultant of: Partner Therapeutics; steering committee for Kinevant BREATHE clinical trial, Kristin Hudock: None declared, Joshua Denson: None declared, Nyda Fourie: None declared, Luis Hercilla Vasquez: None declared, Kleber Luz: None declared, Mohammad Madjid Grant/research support from: Kiniksa, Kirsten McHarry: None declared, José Francisco Saraiva: None declared, Eduardo Tobar: None declared, Teresa Zhou Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Manoj Samant Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Joseph Pirrello Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Fang Fang Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, John F. Paolini Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Arian Pano Employee of: Kiniksa, Shareholder of: Kiniksa, Bruce C. Trapnell: None declared


CHEST Journal ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 139 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael A. Evans ◽  
Roger S. Goldstein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document