The benefit of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) combined with a pulmonary rehabilitation programme (PRP) is uncertain. We aimed to demonstrate that, in severe and very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, IMT performed during a PRP is associated with an improvement of dyspnoea.In a single-blind randomised controlled trial, 150 severe or very severe COPD patients were allocated to follow PRP+IMT PRP alone. The evaluations were performed at inclusion and after 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in dyspnoea using the Multidimensional Dyspnoea Profile questionnaire at the end of a 6-min walk test (6MWT) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes were changes in dyspnoea using the Borg (end of the 6MWT) and modified Medical Research Council scales and in functional parameters (maximal inspiratory pressure (), inspiratory capacity, 6MWT and quality of life). All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.Dyspnoea decreased significantly in both groups; however, the improvement of dyspnoea was not statistically different between the two groups. We only found a statistically significant greater increase of after IMT+PRP than after PRP alone.In this trial including severe or very severe COPD patients, we did not find a significant benefit of IMT during PRP+IMT as compared to PRP alone on dyspnoea, despite a significantly higher improvement of in the IMT group.

The decrease in HPT in patients with SSS compared with controls suggests the presence of hyperalgesia, probably due to the damage of C-fibres. These findings, as well as the increased DN4 and NPSI scores, strengthen the neuronal hypothesis of SSS and are new arguments for consideration of SSS as small fibre neuropathy.

From a prospective and multicentric French cohort, we proposed an external validation study for the expanded criteria donor (ECD), based on 4833 kidney recipients transplanted for the first time between 2000 and 2014. We estimated the subject-specific effect from a multivariable Cox model. We confirmed a 1.75-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-2.00, P < .0001) increase in graft failure risk if a given patient received an ECD graft compared to a graft from a donor with standard criteria (standard criteria donor [SCD]). Complementarily, we estimated the population-average effect using propensity scores. We estimated a 1.34-fold (95% CI 1.09-1.64, P = .0049) increase in graft failure risk among ECD patients receiving an ECD graft compared to receiving a SCD graft. With a 10-year follow-up, it corresponded to a decrease of 8 months of the mean time to graft failure due to ECD transplantation (95% CI 2-14 months). The population-average relative risk due to ECD transplantation and the corresponding absolute effect seem finally not so high. Regarding the increase of quality of life in transplantation, our study constitutes an argument to extend the definition of marginality by considering more grafts at high risk and thereby enlarging the pool of kidney grafts.