No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: The term progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) describes patients with fibrotic ILDs who, irrespective of the aetiology of the disease, show a progressive course of their disease despite current available (and non-licensed) treatment. Besides in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, little is known about management and the burden of patients with fibrotic ILD, particularly those with a progressive behaviour. Methods: Using the Delphi method, 40 European experts in ILD management delivered information on management of (progressive) fibrosing ILD and on the impact of the disease on patients' quality of life (QoL) and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU). Annual costs were calculated for progressive and non-/slow-progressive fibrosing ILD for diagnosis, follow-up management, exacerbation management, and end-of-life care based on the survey data. Results: Physicians reported that progression in fibrosing ILD worsens QoL in both patients and Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to

ObjectiveAssessing the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on disease-specific quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), compared with usual care.MethodsA pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, with 357 patients with COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7) aged ≥40 years, who could understand and read the Dutch language. Healthcare providers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group applied the ABC tool, which consists of a short validated questionnaire assessing the experienced burden of COPD, objective COPD parameter (eg, lung function) and a treatment algorithm including a visual display and treatment advice. The control group provided usual care. Researchers were blinded to group allocation during analyses. Primary outcome was the number of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score between baseline and 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC; a measurement of perceived quality of care).ResultsAt 18-month follow-up, 34% of the 146 patients from 27 healthcare providers in the intervention group showed a clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ, compared with 22% of the 148 patients from 29 healthcare providers in the control group (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.16). No difference was found on the CAT (−0.26 points (scores ranging from 0 to 40); 95% CI −1.52 to 0.99). The PACIC showed a higher improvement in the intervention group (0.32 points (scores ranging from 1 to 5); 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50).ConclusionsThis study showed that use of the ABC tool may increase quality of life and perceived quality of care.Trial registration numberNTR3788; Results.

BackgroundA key goal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care is to improve patients’ quality of life (QoL). For outcomes such as QoL, illness perceptions and coping are important determinants.AimThe primary aim was to assess the associations between illness perceptions, coping and QoL in COPD patients. A secondary aim was to compare illness perceptions and coping of patients with reference values derived from the literature.Patients and methodsA total of 100 patients were included in the study. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ), the Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence scale (UPCC), and a QoL item. Correlations and linear regression models were used to analyze the data. Student’s t-tests were used to compare patients with COPD with reference values derived from the literature.ResultsPatients with better understanding of COPD utilized more proactive coping strategies (P=0.04). A more intense emotional response to COPD was related to less proactive coping (P=0.02). Patients who reported using more proactive coping techniques also reported to have a better QoL (P<0.01). Illness perceptions were also related to QoL: more positive illness perceptions were related to a better QoL (all P<0.05). Patients with COPD reported more negative illness perceptions than people with a common cold or patients with asthma (all P<0.01), but reported similar perceptions compared with patients with diabetes.ConclusionPatients with COPD reported a moderate QoL, but appeared to be proficient in proactive coping. Illness perceptions, coping, and QoL were all associated with each other. Patients reported more strongly affected illness perceptions compared to people with a cold and patients with asthma. We postulate that a self-management intervention targeting patients’ illness perceptions leads to improved QoL.

In deciding on the treatment plan for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the burden of COPD as experienced by patients should be the core focus. It is therefore important for daily practice to develop a tool that can both assess the burden of COPD and facilitate communication with patients in clinical practice. This paper describes the development of an integrated tool to assess the burden of COPD in daily practice. A definition of the burden of COPD was formulated by a Dutch expert team. Interviews showed that patients and health-care providers agreed on this definition. We found no existing instruments that fully measured burden of disease according to this definition. However, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire meets most requirements, and was therefore used and adapted. The adapted questionnaire is called the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) scale. In addition, the ABC tool was developed, of which the ABC scale is the core part. The ABC tool is a computer program with an algorithm that visualises outcomes and provides treatment advice. The next step in the development of the tool is to test the validity and effectiveness of both the ABC scale and tool in daily practice.

The PERSEIDS study aimed to estimate incidence/prevalence of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), fibrosing Interstitial lung diseases (F-ILDs), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), systemic sclerosis-associated ILD (SSc-ILD), other non-IPF F-ILDs and their progressive-fibrosing (PF) forms in six European countries, as current data are scarce.This retrospective, two-phase study used aggregate data (2014–2018). In Phase 1, incident/prevalent cases of ILDs above were identified from clinical databases through an algorithm based on codes/keywords, and incidence/prevalence was estimated. For non-IPF F–ILDs, the relative percentage of subtypes was also determined. In Phase 2, a subset of non-IPF F-ILD cases was manually reviewed to determine the percentage of PF behaviour and usual interstitial pneumonia-like (UIP-like) pattern. A weighted mean percentage of progression was calculated for each country and used to extrapolate incidence/prevalence of progressive-fibrosing ILDs (PF–ILDs).In 2018, incidence/105 person-years ranged between 9.4–83.6(ILDs), 7.7–76.2(F-ILDs), 0.4–10.3(IPF), 6.6–71.7(non-IPF F-ILDs) and 0.3–1.5(SSc-ILD); and prevalence/105 persons ranged between 33.6–247.4(ILDs), 26.7–236.8(F-ILDs), 2.8–31.0(IPF), 22.3–205.8(non-IPF F-ILDs) and 1.4–10.1(SSc-ILD). Among non-IPF F-ILDs, sarcoidosis was the most frequent subtype. PF behaviour and UIP-like pattern were present in a third of non-IPF F-ILD cases each and hypersensitivity pneumonitis showed the highest percentage of progressive behaviour. Incidence of PF-ILDs ranged between 2.1–14.5/105 person-years, and prevalence between 6.9–78.0/105 persons.To our knowledge, PERSEIDS is the first study assessing incidence, prevalence and rate of progression of ILDs across several European countries. Still below the threshold for orphan diseases, the estimates obtained were higher and more variable than reported in previous studies, but differences in study design/population must be considered.

BackgroundChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a growing worldwide problem that imposes a great burden on the daily life of patients. Since there is no cure, the goal of treating COPD is to maintain or improve quality of life. We have developed a new tool, the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool, to assess and visualize the integrated health status of patients with COPD, and to provide patients and healthcare providers with a treatment algorithm. This tool may be used during consultations to monitor the burden of COPD and to adjust treatment if necessary. The aim of the current study is to analyse the effectiveness of the ABC tool compared with usual care on health related quality of life among COPD patients over a period of 18 months.Methods/DesignA cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in COPD patients in both primary and secondary care throughout the Netherlands. An intervention group, receiving care based on the ABC tool, will be compared with a control group receiving usual care. The primary outcome will be the change in score on a disease-specific-quality-of-life questionnaire, the Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will be a different questionnaire (the COPD Assessment Test), lung function and number of exacerbations. During the 18 months follow-up, seven measurements will be conducted, including a baseline and final measurement. Patients will receive questionnaires to be completed at home. Additional data, such as number of exacerbations, will be recorded by the patients’ healthcare providers. A total of 360 patients will be recruited by 40 general practitioners and 20 pulmonologists. Additionally, a process evaluation will be performed among patients and healthcare providers.DiscussionThe new ABC tool complies with the 2014 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines, which describe the necessity to classify patients on both their airway obstruction and a comprehensive symptom assessment. It has been developed to classify patients, but also to provide visual insight into the burden of COPD and to provide treatment advice.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NTR3788.