Patients with COPD prioritise chronic symptoms and functional impact as key outcomes in exacerbation trials
Résumé fourni par la source
Introduction: Patient perspectives are essential to establish relevant outcomes in trials assessing COPD treatments. Aim: To assess which trial outcomes for exacerbation treatments are most important for patients with COPD. Methods: Patients with COPD underwent semi-structured interviews where they stated what outcomes should be prioritised in clinical trials. Comparisons were made between patients with at least one COPD hospitalisation and patients with no hospitalisations in the preceding year. Results: Semi-structured interviews were conducted for 70 patients in 11 countries across 4 continents (average age 66.7 years, 79.2% male). 45 patients had at least 1 admission in the previous year. 8 out of the 10 most frequently chosen outcomes focussed on chronic symptoms, such as dyspnoea (90.0%), and specific aspects affecting quality of life and function, such as reduced walking distance (70.0%) and impact on social life (57.1%). Patients with recent hospitalisations more frequently prioritised specific components of quality of life and function (Figure 1). Dyspnoea was most prioritised in both groups. erj;66/suppl_69/PA356/F1 F1 F1 Conclusions: COPD exacerbations trials should more consistently assess the individual outcomes which contribute to overall quality of life and function, including dyspnoea. The outcomes highlighted align with the ERS statement on a core outcome set for trials on COPD exacerbation treatments.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Patients with COPD prioritise chronic symptoms and functional impact as key outcomes in exacerbation trials
- Date Crossref
- 27/09/2025
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.