Project description:Rationale: Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control).Measurements and Main Results: The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups-between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060-0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048-0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax.Conclusions: In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

| S-EPMC6884033 | biostudies-literature

The REACH Trial: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing the Safety and Effectiveness of the Spiration® Valve System in the Treatment of Severe Emphysema.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has become a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China, with tobacco smoke, air pollution, and occupational biohazards being the major risk factors. OBJECTIVES:The REACH trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial undertaken in China to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Spiration® Valve System (SVS) compared to standard medical care in COPD patients with severe emphysema. METHODS:Patients with severe airflow obstruction, hyperinflation, and severe dyspnea with interlobar fissure integrity were evaluated for enrollment. A total of 107 subjects were randomized in a 2: 1 allocation ratio to either the treatment group (SVS valves and medical management) or the control group (medical management alone). RESULTS:The 3-month primary endpoint showed statistically significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s in the treatment group compared to the control group (0.104 ± 0.18 vs. 0.003 ± 0.15 L, p = 0.001), with the difference being durable through 6 months. Statistically significant target lobe volume reduction was achieved at 3 months (mean change 684.4 ± 686.7 mL) and through 6 months (757.0 ± 665.3 mL). Exercise function and quality of life measures improved in the treatment group, but showed a deterioration in the control group. The serious adverse event (SAE) rate was 33% in the treatment group and 24.2% in the control group. The predominance of SAEs were acute exacerbations of COPD in both groups. There was 1 death in the control group and no deaths in the treatment group. CONCLUSION:The SVS represents a novel approach for the treatment of severe emphysema with a clinically acceptable risk-benefit profile.

| S-EPMC6549456 | biostudies-literature

Patient Preferences for Endobronchial Valve Treatment of Severe Emphysema.

Project description:Background: Patients with severe emphysema have limited treatment options. Little is known about patients' willingness to accept risks for new treatments that offer meaningful benefits. Methods: We determined treatment preferences of patients with severe emphysema using a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey. Respondents answered 9 questions that offered choices between 2 hypothetical interventional treatments or continuing current medical management. Variations in 5 attributes defined the 2 interventional treatments: improvement in ability to breathe and carry out day-to-day activities, frequency of hospitalized exacerbations, treatment type, risk of pneumothorax within 30 days of procedure, and risk of death within 3 months. Respondents were recruited through the COPD Foundation's COPD Patient-Powered Research Network and had a self-reported emphysema diagnosis and 2+ score on the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. The relative importance of the attributes and the percentage of respondents who would select different treatment options was modeled using random-parameters logit. Results: Among 294 respondents, 51% always chose an interventional treatment option, while 19% always selected continued medical management. The most important change on average was moving from continued medical management (with no improvement in breathlessness) to an interventional treatment with improvement in breathlessness. The model predicted 71% of respondents would select a treatment option similar to removable endobronchial valve implants, 6% would select lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), and 23% continued medical management. Conclusion: Patients with severe emphysema perceive that a procedure with risks and benefits similar to the Zephyr® endobronchial valve implants is desirable over continued medical management or LVRS.

| S-EPMC6373586 | biostudies-literature

Lung volume reduction for severe emphysema: do we need a scalpel or a scope?

Project description:Resectional lung volume reduction has proven to be superior to medical treatment in reducing dyspnoea and in increasing lung function, survival and quality of life in a very well selected, low risk group of hyperinflated patients with heterogeneous emphysema predominantly in the upper lobe. Nevertheless, this intervention is hampered by an important pulmonary (30%) and cardiovascular (20%) morbidity, mainly as a result of prolonged (>7 days) air leak, and a 5% risk of death as a result of the surgical intervention. Results from ongoing randomised trials are awaited in order to determine whether less invasive, non-resectional lung volume treatment of emphysema via the bronchoscope using endobronchial valves, airway bypass stents or biological adhesives/heated water vapour will yield similar improvement with less morbidity and reduced mortality, compared with surgical resection. Furthermore, it is hoped that endoscopic lung volume reduction techniques may help patients with homogeneous emphysema currently excluded by most teams for the resectional procedure.

| S-EPMC9487290 | biostudies-literature

Long-term follow up after endoscopic valve therapy in patients with severe emphysema.

Project description:Background and objectiveEndoscopic valve therapy is a treatment modality in patients with advanced emphysema and absent interlobar collateral ventilation (CV). So far, long-term outcome following valve implantation has been insufficiently evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate the real-world efficacy of this interventional therapy over 3 years.MethodsFrom 2006 to 2013, 256 patients with severe emphysema in whom absent CV was confirmed underwent valve therapy. The 3-year effectiveness was evaluated by pulmonary function testing (VC, FEV1, RV, TLC), 6-minute-walk test (6-MWT) and dyspnea questionnaire (mMRC). Long-term outcome was also assessed according to the radiological outcome following valve placement.ResultsOf 256 patients treated with valves, 220, 200, 187, 100 and 66 patients completed the 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year and 3-year follow-up (FU) visit, respectively. All lung function parameters, 6-MWT and mMRC were significantly improved at 3- and 6-month FU. At 1-year FU, patients still experienced a significant improvement of all outcome parameters expect VC (L) and TLC (%). At 2 years, RV (L and %) and TLC (L and %) remained significantly improved compared to baseline. Three years after valve therapy, sustained significant improvement in mMRC was observed and the proportion of patients achieving a minimal clinically important difference from baseline in RV and 6-MWT was still 71% and 46%, respectively. Overall, patients with complete lobar atelectasis exhibited superior treatment outcome with 3-year responder rates to FEV1, RV and 6-MWT of 10%, 79% and 53%, respectively.ConclusionsPatients treated by valves experienced clinical improvement over 1 year following valve therapy. Afterwards, clinical benefit gradually declines more likely due to COPD progression.

| S-EPMC6681249 | biostudies-literature

A multicenter pilot study of a bronchial valve for the treatment of severe emphysema.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects millions of people and has limited treatment options. Surgical treatments for severe COPD with emphysema are effective for highly selected patients. A minimally invasive method for treating emphysema could decrease morbidity and increase acceptance by patients. OBJECTIVE:To study the safety and effectiveness of the IBV(R) Valve for the treatment of severe emphysema. METHODS:A multicenter study treated 91 patients with severe obstruction, hyperinflation and upper lobe (UL)-predominant emphysema with 609 bronchial valves placed bilaterally into ULs. RESULTS:Valves were placed in desired airways with 99.7% technical success and no migration or erosion. There were no procedure-related deaths and 30-day morbidity and mortality were 5.5 and 1.1%, respectively. Pneumothorax was the most frequent serious device-related complication and primarily occurred when all segments of a lobe, especially the left UL, were occluded. Highly significant health-related quality of life (HRQL) improvement (-8.2 +/- 16.2, mean +/- SD change at 6 months) was observed. HRQL improvement was associated with a decreased volume (mean -294 +/- 427 ml, p = 0.007) in the treated lobes without visible atelectasis. FEV(1), exercise tests, and total lung volume were not changed but there was a proportional shift, a redirection of inspired volume to the untreated lobes. Combined with perfusion scan changes, this suggests that there is improved ventilation and perfusion matching in non-UL lung parenchyma. CONCLUSION:Bronchial valve treatment of emphysema has multiple mechanisms of action and acceptable safety, and significantly improves quality of life for the majority of patients.

| S-EPMC7068788 | biostudies-literature

Intrabronchial stents in heterogenous emphysema: a highly selected material followed 5 years.

Project description:BackgroundEndobronchial lung volume reduction (EBVR) with one-way valves introduced into the most diseased lobe of the lung is a non-invasive method to improve lung function in patients with severe heterogenous emphysema. The problem is to select the right patients for the procedure. Furthermore, the long-term effects have not been reported in most studies.MethodsEBVR was performed in 35 patients with severely handicapping emphysema and with one radiologically clearly enlarged (at least 125%) target lung lobe and clearly visible and complete interlobar fissures on CT. Most of the successful survivors have then been followed for five years.ResultsFive (14%) were primary failures (defined as less than 15% increase of FEV1sec) and 10 (28%) were secondary failures (the valves were coughed up or removed for some reason). In the 21 successful l patients, the improvement of FEV1sec was in the mean 59%. Over the years, FEV1sec gradually decreased but was still higher 5 years later than initially. Of the successful group, 76% were still alive after 5 years, while only 50% were in the refused or failed groups.ConclusionsWith careful selection of patients remarkably good results in lung function can be achieved, and these improvements will last for years though slowly decrease. In addition, the results indicate an improvement in survival with successful EBVR procedure.

| S-EPMC7399418 | biostudies-literature

Endobronchial valves for severe emphysema.

Project description:The results of the randomised controlled trials investigating the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment using endobronchial valves (EBV) are promising, and have led to their inclusion in treatment guidelines, US Food and Drug Administration approval and inclusion in routine care in an increasing number of countries. The one-way valve treatment has advanced and is now a regular treatment option. However, this new phase will lead to new challenges in terms of implementation. We believe that key issues in future research concern advanced patient selection, improved methods for target lobe selection, increased knowledge on the predictive risk of a pneumothorax, positioning of pulmonary rehabilitation in conjunction with the EBV treatment, the positioning of lung volume reduction surgery versus EBV treatment, and the long-term efficacy, adverse events, impact on exacerbations and hospitalisations, costs and survival. Hopefully, the increasing number of patients treated, the setup of (inter)national registries and future research efforts will further optimise all aspects of this treatment.

| S-EPMC9488629 | biostudies-literature

Does the World Still Need New Covid-19 Vaccines?

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC9093715 | biostudies-literature