Singing for lung health in COPD: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of online delivery

BACKGROUND: Singing for lung health (SLH) is an arts-based breathing control and movement intervention for people with long-term respiratory conditions, intended to improve symptoms and quality of life. Online, remotely delivered programmes might improve accessibility; however, no previous studies have assessed the effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: We conducted an assessor-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the impact of 12 weeks of once-weekly online SLH sessions against usual care on health-related quality of life, assessed using the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Health Composite (MHC) and Physical Health Composite (PHC) scores. RESULTS: We enrolled 115 people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), median (IQR) age 69 (62-74), 56.5% females, 80% prior pulmonary rehabilitation, Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale 4 (3-4), forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted 49 (35-63). 50 participants in each arm completed the study. The intervention arm experienced improvements in physical but not mental health components of RAND SF-36; PHC (regression coefficient (95% CI): 1.77 (95% CI 0.11 to 3.44); p=0.037), but not MHC (0.86 (95% CI -1.68 to 3.40); p=0.504). A prespecified responder analysis based on achieving a 10% improvement from baseline demonstrated a response rate for PHC of 32% in the SLH arm and 12.7% for usual care (p=0.024). A between-group difference in responder rate was not found in relation to the MHC (19.3% vs 25.9%; p=0.403). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A 12-week online SLH programme can improve the physical component of quality of life for people with COPD, but the overall effect is relatively modest compared with the impact seen in research using face-to-face group sessions. Further work on the content, duration and dose of online interventions may be useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04034212

Propionibacterium acnes biofilm is present in intervertebral discs of patients undergoing microdiscectomy

Background In previous studies, Propionibacterium acnes was cultured from intervertebral disc tissue of similar to 25% of patients undergoing microdiscectomy, suggesting a possible link between chronic bacterial infection and disc degeneration. However, given the prominence of P. acnes as a skin commensal, such analyses often struggled to exclude the alternate possibility that these organisms represent perioperative microbiologic contamination. This investigation seeks to validate P. acnes prevalence in resected disc cultures, while providing microscopic evidence of P. acnes biofilm in the intervertebral discs. Methods Specimens from 368 patients undergoing microdiscectomy for disc herniation were divided into several fragments, one being homogenized, subjected to quantitative anaerobic culture, and assessed for bacterial growth, and a second fragment frozen for additional analyses. Colonies were identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and P. acnes phylotyping was conducted by multiplex PCR. For a sub-set of specimens, bacteria localization within the disc was assessed by microscopy using confocal laser scanning and FISH. Results Bacteria were cultured from 162 discs (44%), including 119 cases (32.3%) with P. acnes. In 89 cases, P. acnes was cultured exclusively;in 30 cases, it was isolated in combination with other bacteria (primarily coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp.) Among positive specimens, the median P. acnes bacterial burden was 350 CFU/g (12 - similar to 20,000 CFU/g). Thirtyeight P. acnes isolates were subjected to molecular sub-typing, identifying 4 of 6 defined phylogroups: IA1, IB, IC, and II. Eight culture-positive specimens were evaluated by fluorescence microscopy and revealed P. acnes in situ. Notably, these bacteria demonstrated a biofilm distribution within the disc matrix. P. acnes bacteria were more prevalent in males than females (39% vs. 23%, p = 0.0013). Conclusions This study confirms that P. acnes is prevalent in herniated disc tissue. Moreover, it provides the first visual evidence of P. acnes biofilms within such specimens, consistent with infection rather than microbiologic contamination

Development and evaluation of an international teleproctoring program for bronchoscopic procedures

Summary: Medical procedures often require proctoring that is traditionally done face-to-face, but this poses a significant carbon footprint and logistical challenges. Little is known about the safety and efficacy of remote “tele”proctoring, particularly in the respiratory field. The aim was to develop, implement, and evaluate a teleproctoring program for bronchoscopy procedures. Seventy-eight targeted lung denervation procedures were performed at UK hospitals; 20 with teleproctoring, with real-time multimodality data streaming to an off-site proctor; and 58 with on-site proctoring. Procedure completion, procedure duration (bronchoscopy, anesthetic, and fluoroscopy), and safety outcomes (adverse events and device deficiencies) were compared between groups. Teleproctoring offered a safe alternative to on-site proctoring, with little difference in completion rates, procedure durations or safety outcomes. Teleproctoring could be a cost-effective, sustainable and efficient alternative to face-to-face proctoring in appropriate centers. Further work could expand this system to allow remote expert advice to facilitate procedures in clinical practice, and for procedural teaching

Favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (PIONEER trial): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial of early intervention versus standard care

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733. FINDINGS: Between May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89–1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06–1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87). INTERPRETATION: Favipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19. FUNDING: LifeArc and CW+

Singing for lung health in COPD: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of online delivery

Background Singing for lung health (SLH) is an arts-based breathing control and movement intervention for people with long-term respiratory conditions, intended to improve symptoms and quality of life. Online, remotely delivered programmes might improve accessibility; however, no previous studies have assessed the effectiveness of this approach. Methods We conducted an assessor-blind randomised controlled trial comparing the impact of 12 weeks of once-weekly online SLH sessions against usual care on health-related quality of life, assessed using the RAND 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Health Composite (MHC) and Physical Health Composite (PHC) scores. Results We enrolled 115 people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), median (IQR) age 69 (62–74), 56.5% females, 80% prior pulmonary rehabilitation, Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale 4 (3–4), forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted 49 (35–63). 50 participants in each arm completed the study. The intervention arm experienced improvements in physical but not mental health components of RAND SF-36; PHC (regression coefficient (95% CI): 1.77 (95% CI 0.11 to 3.44); p=0.037), but not MHC (0.86 (95% CI −1.68 to 3.40); p=0.504). A prespecified responder analysis based on achieving a 10% improvement from baseline demonstrated a response rate for PHC of 32% in the SLH arm and 12.7% for usual care (p=0.024). A between-group difference in responder rate was not found in relation to the MHC (19.3% vs 25.9%; p=0.403). Discussion and conclusion A 12-week online SLH programme can improve the physical component of quality of life for people with COPD, but the overall effect is relatively modest compared with the impact seen in research using face-to-face group sessions. Further work on the content, duration and dose of online interventions may be useful. Trial registration number NCT04034212