Search

Background: There is increasing interest in the use of home-based monitoring in people with chronic lung diseases to improve access to care, support patient self-management, and facilitate the collection of information for clinical care and research. However, integration of home-based monitoring into clinical and research settings requires careful consideration of test performance and other attributes. There is no published guidance from professional respiratory societies to advance the science of home-based monitoring for chronic lung disease. Methods: An international multidisciplinary panel of 32 clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers developed a multidimensional framework for the evaluation of home-based monitoring in chronic lung disease developed through consensus using a modified Delphi survey. We also present an example of how the framework could be used to evaluate home-based monitoring using spirometry and pulse oximetry in adults with asthma, bronchiectasis/cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease. Results: The PANACEA framework includes seven domains (test Performance, disease mANAgement, Cost, patient Experience, clinician Experience, researcher Experience, and Access) to assess the degree to which home-based monitoring assessments meet the conditions for clinical and research use in chronic lung disease. Knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research of home spirometry and pulse oximetry in asthma, bronchiectasis/cystic fibrosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were identified. Conclusions: The development of the PANACEA framework allows standardized evaluation of home-based monitoring in chronic lung diseases to support clinical application and future research.

Background: AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677)., Methods: In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline at week 24 in 1-hour morning post-dose FEV 1 (AB/FF vs AB) and in pre-dose (trough) FEV 1 (AB/FF vs FF). Non-inferiority of AB vs TIO in pre-dose FEV 1 was also an objective. Normalized area under the curve (AUC) 0-3/3 h FEV 1 and nighttime and early morning symptoms were also assessed. A subgroup participated in a 24-hour serial spirometry sub-study., Results: A total of 1,594 patients were randomized; 566 entered the sub-study. At week 24, 1-hour post-dose FEV 1 significantly improved with AB/FF vs AB, FF, and TIO (84, 84, and 92 mL; all P <0.0001). AB/FF significantly improved trough FEV 1 vs FF (55 mL, P <0.001) and AB was non-inferior to TIO. AB/FF significantly improved AUC 0-3/3 h FEV 1 vs all comparators ( P <0.0001) and provided significant improvements in early morning symptoms vs TIO. The 24-hour spirometry demonstrated significantly greater improvements with AB/FF in AUC 12-24/12 h vs all comparators, and in AUC 0-24/24 h vs FF or TIO at week 24., Conclusion: In patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD, twice-daily AB/FF significantly improved lung function vs monocomponents and TIO, and early morning symptom control vs TIO., Competing Interests: Disclosure SS has received grants from AstraZeneca, Dey, and Pearl Therapeutics. He has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cempra, CSL Behring, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pearl Therapeutics, Pulmonx, Reckitt Benckiser, Sunovion, and Theravance. EK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels, or received travel reimbursement from Amphastar, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Oriel, Pearl Therapeutics, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance. He has conducted multicenter clinical trials for ~ 40 pharmaceutical companies. HW has received honoraria for consultancies, lectures, and travel support to attend scientific congresses from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Takeda. His institution received investigator fees for participation in clinical trials from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Takeda. GTF reports consulting and advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forest Laboratories, Novartis, Pearl Therapeutics, Sunovion, and Verona Pharma; consulting fees from Receptos; speaking engagements for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Pearl Therapeutics, and Sunovion; and research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pearl Therapeutics, Sanofi, Sunovion, and Theravance Biopharma. RMM has received consulting fees, speaker’s fees, and travel expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim and has also received compensation for participating in advisory boards for Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Furthermore, RMM has received compensation for participation in multicenter clinical trials in the past 5 years from several companies including Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pearl, Roche, and Takeda. RS, EM, DJ, and EGG are employees of AstraZeneca PLC, Barcelona, Spain. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.