Introduction: Besides dyspnoea and cough, patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or sarcoidosis may experience distressing non-respiratory symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle weakness. However, whether and to what extent symptom burden differs between patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and individuals without respiratory disease remains currently unknown. Objectives: To study the respiratory and non-respiratory burden of multiple symptoms in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and to compare the symptom burden with individuals without impaired spirometric values, FVC and FEV1 (controls). Methods: Demographics and symptoms were assessed in 59 patients with IPF, 60 patients with sarcoidosis and 118 controls (age ≥18 years). Patients with either condition were matched to controls by sex and age. Severity of 14 symptoms was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale. Results: 44 patients with IPF (77.3% male; age 70.6±5.5 years) and 44 matched controls, and 45 patients with sarcoidosis (48.9% male; age 58.1±8.6 year) and 45 matched controls were analyzed. Patients with IPF scored higher on 11 symptoms compared to controls (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, cough, fatigue, muscle weakness and insomnia. Patients with sarcoidosis scored higher on all 14 symptoms (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, fatigue, cough, muscle weakness, insomnia, pain, itch, thirst, micturition (night, day). Conclusions: Generally, respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden is significantly higher in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis compared to controls. This emphasizes the importance of awareness for respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden in IPF or sarcoidosis and the need for additional research to study the underlying mechanisms and subsequent interventions.
DOCUMENT
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) [i.e. progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms (ECGs), haemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms] and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: (i) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), (ii) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiological mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and (iii) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown aetiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making.1
DOCUMENT
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) (ie, progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms [ECG], hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms) and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: 1) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), 2) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiologic mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and 3) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown etiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making
DOCUMENT
