Home-based guided hypnotherapy for children with functional abdominal pain and irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Children often present to primary care with functional abdominal pain (FAP) or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and around half still have abdominal complaints 1 year later. Hypnotherapy is an evidence-based treatment that is used in specialist care, but it lacks evidence in primary care. This study will investigate the (cost) effectiveness of home-based guided hypnotherapy for children with FAP or IBS in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We report the design of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial among children aged 7-17 years, diagnosed with FAP or IBS by their general practitioner (GP), with assessments over 12 months. The control group will receive care as usual (CAU) by their GP (eg, communication, education and reassurance), while the intervention group will receive CAU plus 3 months of home-based guided hypnotherapy via a website. The primary outcome will be the proportion of children with adequate relief from abdominal pain/discomfort at 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes will include the adequacy of pain relief at 3 and 6 months, pain/discomfort severity, pain frequency and intensity, daily functioning and impact on function, anxiety and depression, pain beliefs, sleep disturbances, school absence, somatisation, and healthcare use and costs. We must include 200 children to determine a 20% difference in those with adequate relief (55% control vs 75% intervention). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethics Review Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, approved this study (METc2020/237). The results will be disseminated to patients, GPs and other stakeholders via email, a dedicated website, peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences. We plan to collaborate with the Dutch Society of GPs to implement the results in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05636358.

Inspiratory muscle training does not improve clinical outcomes in 3-week COPD rehabilitation: results from a randomised controlled trial.

The value of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. The RIMTCORE (Routine Inspiratory Muscle Training within COPD Rehabilitation) randomised controlled trial examined the effectiveness of IMT added to pulmonary rehabilitation.In total, 611 COPD patients (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage II-IV) received a 3-week inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, of which 602 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. The intervention group (n=300) received highly intensive IMT and the control group (n=302) received sham IMT. The primary outcome was maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax). The secondary outcomes were 6-min walk distance, dyspnoea, quality of life and lung function. Outcomes were assessed pre- and post-pulmonary rehabilitation. ANCOVA was used.The intervention group showed higher effects in PImax (p<0.001) and forced inspiratory volume in 1 s (p=0.013). All other outcomes in both study groups improved significantly, but without further between-group differences. Sex and pulmonary rehabilitation admission shortly after hospitalisation modified quality of life effects.IMT as an add-on to a 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation improves inspiratory muscle strength, but does not provide additional benefits in terms of exercise capacity, quality of life or dyspnoea. A general recommendation for COPD patients to add IMT to a 3-week pulmonary rehabilitation cannot be made.

Investigating sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and Modified Medical Research Council scale according to GOLD using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire cutoff 25 (and 20) as reference.

BACKGROUND: In the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) strategy document, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale are recommended for the assessment of symptoms using the cutoff points of CCQ ≥1, CAT ≥10, and mMRC scale ≥2 to indicate symptomatic patients. The current study investigates the criterion validity of the CCQ, CAT and mMRC scale based on a reference cutoff point of St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) ≥25, as suggested by GOLD, following sensitivity and specificity analysis. In addition, areas under the curve (AUCs) of the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale were compared using two SGRQ cutoff points (≥25 and ≥20). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two data sets were used: study A, 238 patients from a pulmonary rehabilitation program; and study B, 101 patients from primary care. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the correspondence between the recommended cutoff points of the questionnaires. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥25 were: study A, 0.99, 0.43, and 0.96 for CCQ ≥1, 0.92, 0.48, and 0.89 for CAT ≥10, and 0.68, 0.91, and 0.91 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.87, 0.77, and 0.9 for CCQ ≥1, 0.76, 0.73, and 0.82 for CAT ≥10, and 0.21, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥20 were: study A, 0.99, 0.73, and 0.99 for CCQ ≥1, 0.91, 0.73, and 0.94 for CAT ≥10, and 0.66, 0.95, and 0.94 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.8, 0.89, and 0.89 for CCQ ≥1, 0.69, 0.78, and 0.8 for CAT ≥10, and 0.18, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. CONCLUSION: Based on data from these two different samples, this study showed that the suggested cutoff point for the SGRQ (≥25) did not seem to correspond well with the established cutoff points of the CCQ or CAT scales, resulting in low specificity levels. The correspondence with the mMRC scale seemed satisfactory, though not optimal. The SGRQ threshold of ≥20 corresponded slightly better than SGRQ ≥25, recently suggested by GOLD 2015, with the established cutoff points for the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale.