DiPALS: Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis - a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease resulting in death, usually from respiratory failure, within 2-3 years of symptom onset. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a treatment that when given to patients in respiratory failure leads to improved survival and quality of life. Diaphragm pacing (DP), using the NeuRx/4(®) diaphragm pacing system (DPS)™ (Synapse Biomedical, Oberlin, OH, USA), is a new technique that may offer additional or alternative benefits to patients with ALS who are in respiratory failure. OBJECTIVE: The Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (DiPALS) trial evaluated the effect of DP on survival over the study duration in patients with ALS with respiratory failure. DESIGN: The DiPALS trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic analyses and a qualitative longitudinal substudy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants had a diagnosis of ALS (ALS laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable or clinically definite according to the World Federation of Neurology revised El Escorial criteria), had been stabilised on riluzole for 30 days, were aged ≥ 18 years and were in respiratory failure. We planned to recruit 108 patients from seven UK-based specialist ALS or respiratory centres. Allocation was performed using 1 : 1 non-deterministic minimisation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either standard care (NIV alone) or standard care (NIV) plus DP using the NeuRX/4 DPS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. Secondary outcomes were patient quality of life [assessed by European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three levels (EQ-5D-3L), Short Form questionnaire-36 items and Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index questionnaire]; carer quality of life (EQ-5D-3L and Caregiver Burden Inventory); cost-utility analysis and health-care resource use; tolerability and adverse events. Acceptability and attitudes to DP were assessed in a qualitative substudy. RESULTS: In total, 74 participants were randomised into the trial and analysed, 37 participants to NIV plus pacing and 37 to standard care, before the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee advised initial suspension of recruitment (December 2013) and subsequent discontinuation of pacing (on safety grounds) in all patients (June 2014). Follow-up assessments continued until the planned end of the study in December 2014. The median survival (interquartile range) was 22.5 months (lower quartile 11.8 months; upper quartile not reached) in the NIV arm and 11.0 months (6.7 to 17.0 months) in the NIV plus pacing arm, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.27 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.25; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Diaphragmatic pacing should not be used as a routine treatment for patients with ALS in respiratory failure. FUTURE WORK: It may be that certain population subgroups benefit from DP. We are unable to explain the mechanism behind the excess mortality in the pacing arm, something the small trial size cannot help address. Future research should investigate the mechanism by which harm or benefit occurs further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53817913. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 45. See the HTA programme website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Motor Neurone Disease Association of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society.

DESCRIPTION: This guideline is an official statement of the American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and European Respiratory Society (ERS). It represents an update of the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is intended for clinicians who manage patients with COPD. This guideline addresses the value of history and physical examination for predicting airflow obstruction; the value of spirometry for screening or diagnosis of COPD; and COPD management strategies, specifically evaluation of various inhaled therapies (anticholinergics, long-acting ß-agonists, and corticosteroids), pulmonary rehabilitation programs, and supplemental oxygen therapy. METHODS: This guideline is based on a targeted literature update from March 2007 to December 2009 to evaluate the evidence and update the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable COPD. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that spirometry should be obtained to diagnose airflow obstruction in patients with respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Spirometry should not be used to screen for airflow obstruction in individuals without respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) between 60% and 80% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that treatment with inhaled bronchodilators may be used (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) <60% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend treatment with inhaled bronchodilators (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians prescribe monotherapy using either long-acting inhaled anticholinergics or long-acting inhaled ß-agonists for symptomatic patients with COPD and FEV(1) <60% predicted. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinicians should base the choice of specific monotherapy on patient preference, cost, and adverse effect profile. RECOMMENDATION 5: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that clinicians may administer combination inhaled therapies (long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, long-acting inhaled ß-agonists, or inhaled corticosteroids) for symptomatic patients with stable COPD and FEV(1)<60% predicted (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe pulmonary rehabilitation for symptomatic patients with an FEV(1) <50% predicted (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinicians may consider pulmonary rehabilitation for symptomatic or exercise-limited patients with an FEV(1) >50% predicted. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 7: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (Pao(2) ≤55 mm Hg or Spo(2) ≤88%) (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Pulmonary rehabilitation and the COPD exacerbation.

Patients who experience frequent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are known to have a higher mortality, reduced exercise capacity, and muscle atrophy. The next key challenges for the implementation of effective pulmonary rehabilitation are to reverse these changes and enable patients to recover from an exacerbation without serial decline in their functional capacity with each subsequent exacerbation. Current evidence suggests that early rehabilitation following an exacerbation may prove beneficial, although this has been described in a variety of guises and needs further evidence to identify the exact form that it should take. Other additional interventions such as the use of noninvasive ventilation, quadriceps muscle training, early ambulation with rollator frames, and inspiratory muscle training have been shown to demonstrate positive outcomes in these patients and may well complement outcomes achieved through early pulmonary rehabilitation programs. It is clear that further research into early pulmonary rehabilitation is required to identify the point at which it should start, what form it should take, how long programs should be to produce positive outcomes, and what the inclusion and exclusion criteria should be.