Shepherd, Ray W.

Abstract Rationale Follow-up of patients with emphysema treated with endobronchial valves is limited to 3–12 months after treatment in prior reports. To date, no comparative data exist between treatment and control subjects with a longer follow-up. Objectives To assess the durability of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema over a 24-month period. Methods EMPROVE, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, presents a rigorous comparison between treatment and control groups for up to 24 months. Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures were assessed. Results A significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was maintained at 24 months in the SVS treatment group versus the control group. Similarly, significant improvements were maintained in several QOL measures, including the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the COPD Assessment Test. Patients in the SVS treatment group experienced significantly less dyspnea than those in the control group, as indicated by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score. Adverse events at 24 months did not significantly differ between the SVS treatment and control groups. Acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 13.7% (14 of 102) and 15.6% (7 of 45), respectively. Pneumothorax rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 1.0% (1 of 102) and 0.0% (0 of 45), respectively. Conclusions SVS treatment resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful durable improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and QOL, as well as a statistically significant reduction in dyspnea, for at least 24 months while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Abstract 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).

Abstract Rationale Patients with malignant pleural effusions have significant dyspnea and shortened life expectancy. Indwelling pleural catheters allow patients to drain pleural fluid at home and can lead to autopleurodesis. The optimal drainage frequency to achieve autopleurodesis and freedom from catheter has not been determined. Objectives To determine whether an aggressive daily drainage strategy is superior to the current standard every other day drainage of pleural fluid in achieving autopleurodesis. Methods Patients were randomized to either an aggressive drainage (daily drainage; n = 73) or standard drainage (every other day drainage; n = 76) of pleural fluid via a tunneled pleural catheter. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was the incidence of autopleurodesis following the placement of the indwelling pleural catheters. The rate of autopleurodesis, defined as complete or partial response based on symptomatic and radiographic changes, was greater in the aggressive drainage arm than the standard drainage arm (47% vs. 24%, respectively; P = 0.003). Median time to autopleurodesis was shorter in the aggressive arm (54 d; 95% confidence interval, 34–83) as compared with the standard arm (90 d; 95% confidence interval, 70 to nonestimable). Rate of adverse events, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were not significantly different between the two arms. Conclusions Among patients with malignant pleural effusion, daily drainage of pleural fluid via an indwelling pleural catheter led to a higher rate of autopleurodesis and faster time to liberty from catheter. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00978939).