Search

Rationale: Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) have a high prevalence of depression, which is associated with increased COPD hospitalizations and readmissions. Objectives:...

RATIONALE: Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have a high prevalence of depression, which is associated with increased COPD hospitalizations and readmissions. OBJECTIVES: Examine the impact of depressive symptoms compared with FEV(1)% on COPD morbidity. METHODS: Using longitudinal data from individuals with COPD in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study, longitudinal growth analysis was performed to assess COPD morbidity by assessing differences in baseline 6-minute walk distance and patient reported outcomes (PROs) and their rate of change over time explained by depressive symptoms or lung function, as measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale or FEV(1)% respectively. PROs consisted of in-person completion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue, and Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale measures. RESULTS: Of the individuals analyzed (n = 1,830), 43% were female, 81% Caucasian with mean ± SD age of 65.1 ± 8.1, and 52.7 ± 27.5 pack-years smoking. Mean ± SD FEV(1)% was 60.9 ± 23.0% and 20% had clinically significant depressive symptoms. Adjusted models showed higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores and lower FEV(1)% each were associated with worse PROs at baseline (P ⩽ 0.001). Depression accounted for more baseline variance in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue than FEV(1)%, explaining 30–67% of heterogeneity. FEV(1)% accounted for more baseline variance in Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale and 6-minute walk distance than depression, explaining 16–32% of heterogeneity. Depressive symptoms accounted for 3–17% variance in change over time in PROs. In contrast, FEV(1)% accounted for 1–4% variance over time in PROs. CONCLUSIONS: Depression is more strongly associated with many PROs at baseline and their change over time compared with FEV(1)%. Recognizing and incorporating the impact of depressive symptoms into individualized care may improve COPD outcomes.

The adoption of prone positioning for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been poor. However, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS, proning has increased. Understanding the factors influencing this change is important for further expanding and sustaining the use of prone positioning in appropriate clinical settings.To characterize factors influencing the implementation of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS.We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 40 intensive care unit (ICU) team members (physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists) working at two academic hospitals. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a widely used implementation science framework outlining important features of implementation, to structure the interview guide and thematic analysis of interviews.ICU clinicians reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic proning is viewed as standard early therapy for COVID-19 ARDS, rather than salvage therapy for refractory hypoxemia. By caring for large volumes of proned patients, clinicians gained increased comfort with proning and now view proning as a low-risk high-benefit intervention. Within ICUs, adequate numbers of trained staff, increased team agreement around proning, and the availability of specific equipment (e.g., to limit pressure-injuries), facilitated greater proning use. Hospitals level supports included proning teams, centralized educational resources specific to the management of COVID-19 (including a recommendation for prone positioning), and an electronic medical record proning order. Important implementation processes included informal dissemination of best practices through on-the-job learning and team interactions during routine bedside care.The implementation of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS took place in the context of evolving clinician viewpoints and ICU team cultures. Proning was facilitated by hospital support, and buy-in and leadership from bedside clinicians. The successful implementation of prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a model for the implementation of other evidence-based therapies in critical care.

Rationale: Increasingly, patients are surviving acute respiratory failure (ARF), prompting the need to better understand standardized outcome measures commonly used during ARF follow-up studies. Objectives: Investigate standardized outcome measures (patient-reported physical and mental health measures, and cognitive testing) compared with findings from semistructured, qualitative interviews. Methods: As part of two ARF multicenter follow-up studies, standardized outcome measures were obtained, followed by qualitative evaluation via an in-depth, semistructured interview conducted and coded by two independent researchers. Qualitative interviews revealed the following post-ARF survivorship themes: physical impairment; anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; and cognitive impairment. Scores from standardized measures related to these themes were compared for ARF survivors reporting versus not reporting these themes in their qualitative interviews. Results: Of 59 invited ARF survivors, 48 (81%) completed both standardized outcome measures and qualitative interviews. Participants’ median (interquartile range) age was 53 (43–64) years; 54% were female, and 88% were living independently before hospitalization. The two independent reviewers classifying the presence or absence of themes from the qualitative interviews had excellent agreement (κ = 0.80). There were significantly worse scores on standardized outcome measures for survivors reporting (vs. not reporting) physical and mental health impairments in their qualitative interviews. However, standardized cognitive test scores did not differ between patients reporting versus not reporting cognitive impairments in their qualitative interviews. Conclusions: These findings support the use of recommended, commonly used standardized outcome measures for physical and mental health impairments in ARF survivorship research. However, caution is needed in interpreting self-reported cognitive function compared with standardized cognitive testing.

Rationale: Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to address in public care settings with limited resources. Objectives: To determine the benefit of health coaching for patients with moderate to severe COPD relative to usual care. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 9 months of health coaching versus usual care for English- or Spanish-speaking patients at least 40 years of age with moderate to severe COPD. Primary outcomes were COPD-related quality of life and the dyspnea subscale of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy for managing COPD, exercise capacity (6-min walk test), and number of COPD exacerbations. Additional outcomes were COPD symptoms, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted), smoking status, bed days owing to COPD, quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), COPD knowledge, and symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire). Outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed by review of medical records. Generalized linear modeling was used to adjust for baseline values and account for clustering by clinic. Results: Of 192 patients enrolled, 158 (82%) completed 9 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences between study arms for the primary or secondary outcomes. At 9 months, patients in the coached group reported better quality of care (mean Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score, 3.30 vs. 3.18; adjusted P = 0.02) and were less likely to report symptoms of moderate to severe depression (Patient Health Questionnaire score, ≥15) than those in the usual care arm (6% vs. 20%; adjusted P = 0.01). During the study, patients in the coaching arm had 48% fewer hospitalizations related to COPD (0.27/patient/yr vs. 0.52/patient/yr), but this difference was not significant in the adjusted analysis. Conclusions: These results help inform expectations regarding the limitations and benefits of health coaching for patients with COPD. They may be useful to health policy experts in assessing the potential value of reimbursement and incentives for health coaching–type activities for patients with chronic disease. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02234284).

Rationale: Anxiety is a common comorbidity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We evaluated three anxiety screening questionnaires: the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale (GAD-7), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety subscale (HADS-A), and the Anxiety Inventory for Respiratory Disease (AIR). Objectives: To evaluate and compare the test performance characteristics of three anxiety screening questionnaires, using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), version 7.0, as the “gold standard.” Methods: Individuals with COPD were recruited at 16 centers. The MINI and questionnaires were administered by trained research coordinators at an in-person visit and readministered by telephone 2–4 weeks later. A composite score for the presence of any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-V) anxiety disorder was computed, based on the MINI as the gold standard, compared with a participant screening positive on self-report measures for these analyses. Results: Two hundred and twenty eligible individuals with COPD were enrolled; 219 completed the study. Eleven percent were identified as having a DSM-V anxiety disorder, based on the MINI. Elevated anxiety symptoms based on questionnaires were 38% for the AIR, 30% for the GAD-7, and 20% for the HADS-A. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was highest for the GAD-7 (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.87), followed by the HADS-A (0.74; 95% CI, 0.64–0.84) and the AIR (0.66; 95% CI, 0.56–0.76). The AUC for the GAD-7 was significantly greater than for the AIR (P = 0.014). Sensitivity was not statistically different among the questionnaires: 77% for the GAD-7, 63% for the HADS-A, and 66% for the AIR. The HADS-A had the highest specificity, 85%, which was significantly higher than that of the GAD-7 (77%; P