Search

Introduction: Just under half of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) also have gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). These conditions appear to be inter-related and continual positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, the gold standard treatment for OSA to prevent airway collapse, has been shown to reduce GORD. As the impact of mandibular advancement devices, a second-line therapy for OSA, on GORD has yet to be investigated, a feasibility study is needed prior to a definitive trial., Methods: This will be a single-centre, single-blinded, tertiary-care based, interdisciplinary, parallel randomised controlled study. Potential OSA participants presenting to the sleep department will be pre-screened for GORD using validated questionnaires, consented and invited to receive simultaneous home sleep and oesophageal pH monitoring. Those with confirmed OSA and GORD (n=44) will be randomly allocated to receive either CPAP (n=22) or MAD therapy (n=22). Following successful titration and 3 weeks customisation period, participants will repeat the simultaneous sleep and oesophageal pH monitoring while wearing the device. The number of patients screened for recruitment, drop-out rates, patient feedback of the study protocol, costs of interventions and clinical information to inform a definitive study design will be investigated., Ethics and Dissemination: Health Research Authority approval has been obtained from the Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, ref:22/EM/0157 and the trial has been registered on ISRCTN (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16013232). Definitive findings about the feasibility of doing 24 hour pH oesophageal monitoring while doing a home sleep study will be disseminated via clinical and research networks facilitating valuable insights into the simultaneous management of both conditions., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN Reg No: 16013232., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We compared 2 sociocultural cohorts with different duration of exposure to graphic health warning labels (GHWL), to investigate a possible desensitisation to their use. We further studied how a differing awareness and emotional impact of smoking-associated risks could be used to prevent this., Setting: Structured interviews of patients from the general respiratory department were undertaken between 2012 and 2013 in 2 tertiary hospitals in Singapore and London., Participants: 266 participants were studied, 163 Londoners (35% smokers, 54% male, age 52±18 years) and 103 Singaporeans (53% smokers, p=0.003; 78% male, p<0.001; age 58±15 years, p=0.012)., Main Outcomes and Measures: 50 items assessed demographics, smoking history, knowledge and the deterring impact of smoking-associated risks. After showing 10 GHWL, the impact on emotional response, cognitive processing and intended smoking behaviour was recorded., Results: Singaporeans scored lower than the Londoners across all label processing constructs, and this was consistent for the smoking and non-smoking groups. Londoners experienced more 'disgust' and felt GHWL were more effective at preventing initiation of, or quitting, smoking. Singaporeans had a lower awareness of lung cancer (82% vs 96%, p<0.001), despite ranking it as the most deterring consequence of smoking. Overall, 'blindness' was the least known potential risk (28%), despite being ranked as more deterring than 'stroke' and 'oral cancer' in all participants., Conclusions: The length of exposure to GHWL impacts on the effectiveness. However, acknowledging the different levels of awareness and emotional impact of smoking-associated risks within different sociocultural cohorts could be used to maintain their impact., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: According to National Health Service England (NHSE) specialist respiratory commissioning specification for complex home ventilation, patients with weaning failure should be referred to a specialist centre. However, there are limited data reporting the clinical outcomes from such centres., Setting: Prospective observational cohort study of patients admitted to a UK specialist weaning, rehabilitation and home mechanical ventilation centre between February 2005 and July 2013., Participants: 262 patients admitted with a median age of 64.2 years (IQR 52.6-73.2 years). 59.9% were male., Results: 39.7% of patients had neuromuscular and/or chest wall disease, 21% were postsurgical, 19.5% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 5.3% had obesity-related respiratory failure and 14.5% had other diagnoses. 64.1% of patients were successfully weaned, with 38.2% weaned fully from ventilation, 24% weaned to nocturnal non-invasive ventilation (NIV), 1.9% weaned to nocturnal NIV with intermittent NIV during the daytime. 21.4% of patients were discharged on long-term tracheostomy ventilation. The obesity-related respiratory failure group were most likely to wean (relative risk (RR) for weaning success=1.48, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.77; p<0.001), but otherwise weaning success rates did not significantly vary by diagnostic group. The median time-to-wean was 19 days (IQR 9-33) and the median duration of stay was 31 days (IQR 16-50), with no difference observed between the groups. Weaning centre mortality was 14.5%, highest in the COPD group (RR=2.15, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.91, p=0.012) and lowest in the neuromuscular and/or chest wall disease group (RR=0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.75, p=0.007). Of all patients discharged alive, survival was 71.7% at 6 months and 61.8% at 12 months postdischarge., Conclusions: Following NHSE guidance, patients with weaning delay and failure should be considered for transfer to a specialist centre where available, which can demonstrate favourable short-term and long-term clinical outcomes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objectives: There is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of graphic health warning labels (GHWL) in different individuals, including patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Investigating knowledge and attitudes may allow better implementation of future public health policies. We hypothesised that differences in the impact of GHWL exist between non-smokers, smokers and patients with COPD, with decreased efficacy in those groups who are longer and more frequently exposed to them., Participants and Setting: 163 participants (54% male, aged 21-80) including 60 non-smokers, 53 smokers and 50 patients with COPD (Gold stage II-IV), attending London respiratory outpatient clinics, participated in case-controlled surveys (50 items)., Outcome Measures: Ten different GHWL were shown and demographics, smoking history, plans to quit, smoking-risk awareness, emotional response, processing and impact of GHWL on behaviour were recorded. Patients were further asked to prioritise the hypothetical treatment or prevention of five specific smoking-related diseases., Results: Smokers, in particular those with COPD, were less susceptible to GHWL than non-smokers; 53.4% of all participants expressed fear when looking at GHWL, non-smokers (71.9%) more so than smokers (39.8%, p<0.001). COPD participants were less aware of the consequences than non-COPD participants (p<0.001), including an awareness of lung cancer (p=0.001). Lung cancer (95%), oral cancer (90.2%), heart disease (84.7%) and stroke (71.2%) were correctly associated with smoking, whereas blindness was least associated (23.9%). However, blindness was prioritised over oral cancer, stroke and in patients with COPD also over heart disease when participants were asked about hypothetical treatment or prevention., Conclusions: GHWL are most effective in non-smokers and a desensitisation effect was observed in smokers and patients with COPD. As a consequence, a tailored and concerted public health approach to use such messages is required and 'blindness' deserves to be mentioned in this context because of an unexpectedly high-deterring impact., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To determine the implementation of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (NICE CG83) for posthospital discharge critical illness follow-up and rehabilitation programmes., Design: Closed-question postal survey., Setting: Adult intensive care units (ICUs) across the UK, identified from national databases of organisations. Specialist-only and private ICUs were not included., Participants: Senior respiratory critical care physiotherapy clinicians., Results: A representative sample of 182 surveys was returned from the 240 distributed (75.8% (95% CI 70.4 to 81.2)). Only 48 organisations (27.3% (95% CI 20.7 to 33.9)) offered a follow-up service 2-3 months following hospital discharge, the majority (n=39, 84.8%) in clinic format. 12 organisations reported posthospital discharge rehabilitation programmes (6.8% (95% CI 3.1 to 10.5)), albeit only 10 of these operated on a regular basis. Lack of funding was reported as the most frequent (n=149/164, 90%) and main barrier (n=99/156, 63.5%) to providing services. Insufficient resources (n=71/164, 43.3%) and lack of priority by the clinical management team (n=66/164, 40.2%) were also highly cited barriers to service delivery., Conclusions: NICE CG83 has been successful in profiling the importance of rehabilitation for survivors of critical illness. However, 4 years following publication of CG83 there has been limited development of this clinical service across the UK. Strategies to support delivery of such quality improvement programmes are urgently required to enhance patient care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)