Does Age Affect Care Outcomes in Patients With COPD on NIV?
Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) did not differ significantly between younger and older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffering from chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure receiving long-term noninvasive ventilation (NIV), despite a higher comorbidity burden in older patients.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a prospective, observational study to investigate the differences in HRQOL between younger and older patients with COPD and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure receiving long-term NIV.
They enrolled 237 patients between June 2015 and October 2021, with 41.8% enrolled as inpatients and 58.2% as outpatients, categorized into two age groups: younger (< 65 years) and older (≥ 65 years).
HRQOL was assessed using the severe respiratory insufficiency (SRI) questionnaire, and factors affecting HRQOL — including anemia, autonomy impairment, exacerbation history, and comorbidities — were evaluated.
A five-tier scale categorized autonomy impairments by severity with level 1 denoting minor impairments and level 5 indicating the most severe loss of independence or ability, which pose substantial challenges for nursing care.
TAKEAWAY:
No significant differences were found in SRI summary scores between age groups, despite older patients having a significantly higher burden of comorbidities (P = .014).
Exacerbation frequency had a significant negative impact on SRI scores in both younger and older patients.
Anemia was linked to a significant reduction in SRI scores only in younger patients, in whom it was more prevalent (29.1% vs 17.5%; P = .045).
Any level of autonomy impairment negatively affected HRQOL in younger patients, whereas only higher levels (level of care ≥ 2) affected HRQOL in older patients.
IN PRACTICE:
'Understanding of COPD with comprehensive care plans that address both medical and functional aspects, patient outcomes, and HRQOL might be improved,' the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Maximilian Zimmermann, Department of Pneumology, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. It was published online on June 7, 2025, in BMC Pulmonary Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The heterogeneity of the study cohort, due to inclusion of both inpatients and outpatients, may have led to variability in clinical status and care settings. Additionally, patients were eligible after 1 month of NIV, most had been on long-term therapy prior to inclusion, which could have influenced the assessment of HRQOL. Because the study was conducted at a single center, the results may not be applied to broader populations.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any research funding. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Clinical Evaluation of Medical Devices: The Clinical Evaluation Report (2-Day Online Training Course with 12 CPD Hours: November 25-26, 2025)
Join this comprehensive course on clinical evaluation aligned with European MDR, offering tools to craft high-quality Clinical Evaluation Reports (CER) for medical devices. Gain expertise in data collection, analysis, and regulatory compliance. Includes case studies and templates. Dublin, July 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Clinical Evaluation of Medical Devices: The Clinical Evaluation Report Training Course" has been added to offering. This introductory course will cover all aspects of clinical evaluation in line with the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and applicable guidance documents. The programme will provide you with the tools and skills you will need to produce a high-quality clinical evaluation report (CER) for all your medical devices. You will understand the detail of what clinical data is needed, how to collect it, analyse it and receive direction on producing a CER that is acceptable to the regulatory authorities and Notified Bodies. You will learn how the process fits into the development of a medical device and also the post-market aspects of clinical evidence. The programme includes case studies and template documents which you will be able to utilise to produce your own clinical data evidence documentation. Benefits of attending: Gain a detailed overview of the clinical evaluation process Understand the concepts involved in conducting a clinical evaluation Learn how to utilise information gathered during a clinical evaluation Take away skills in conducting systematic literature searches Understand where clinical evaluation fits into the development and marketing of medical devices Explore how to appraise data Know how to assemble clinical evidence acceptable for review by regulatory authorities or Notified Bodies Certifications: CPD: 12 hours for your records Certificate of completion Who Should Attend: CROs Medical writers Clinical staff Those who conduct clinical evaluations/investigations/post-market follow-up studies Those moving from pharmaceuticals to medical devices And personnel involved in: Gathering clinical evidence and conducting clinical evaluations R&D Regulatory affairs Key Topics Covered What is a clinical evaluation? Explanation of the terminology used in clinical evaluations Overview of a clinical evaluation The importance of clinical evidence in medical device development Why and when is it necessary to conduct a clinical evaluation? Where does clinical evaluation sit within the medical device process? Why is clinical evidence important? Who are the stakeholders in the process? Who and what is involved in the clinical evaluation process? Overview of each step Use of equivalent products Workshop: bringing it together An interactive exercise on what has been learnt so far What regulations govern clinical evaluations and what guidance documents should clinical evaluations be conducted to? An in-depth review of the available regulatory and guidance documents which can be utilised during the process and how to interpret these Documentation necessary for conducting a clinical evaluation The clinical evaluation plan The literature review process Selecting databases and conducting searches How to source data and review it How to clarify the question on which you need to find literature, including devising the most comprehensive literature search strategy and selecting keywords The Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) What is it and what is included? Who should write it? How to write it What is state of the art and how to conduct a risk benefit assessment of the data? Performance and safety analysis State-of-the-art analysis Risk-benefit analysis Impact of the Medical Device Regulations (MDR) For more information about this training visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Medscape
27 minutes ago
- Medscape
Ovarian Cancer Risk Rises Soon After IBS Diagnosis
TOPLINE: Women with a new diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have a significantly higher risk for ovarian cancer at 3 months and 6 months post-diagnosis, but this risk is no longer elevated beyond 8 months. METHODOLOGY: Ovarian cancer often presents with nonspecific symptoms overlapping those of IBS. The frequency of misdiagnosis remains unknown, and not all IBS guidelines recommend screening for ovarian cancer. Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using US administrative claims data to compare ovarian cancer incidence in adult women with and without a new IBS diagnosis. Diagnostic codes were used to identify cases of IBS and ovarian cancer. TAKEAWAY: The cohort comprised 9804 women with IBS and 79,804 women without IBS, identified between January 2017 and December 2020. Women with IBS had a significantly higher risk for ovarian cancer at 3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; P = .02) and 6 months (HR, 1.43; P = .02), but not beyond 8 months post-diagnosis. Women with both IBS and endometriosis had an even greater risk for ovarian cancer at 3 months (HR, 4.20; P = .01), 6 months (HR, 3.52; P = .01), and after 1 year (HR, 2.67; P = .04). Increasing age was significantly associated with higher ovarian cancer incidence only in women younger than 50 years (HR, 1.07; P < .01), regardless of IBS status. IN PRACTICE: 'Identifying patient-specific risk factors, such as chronic pelvic pain or endometriosis, could help develop tailored risk profiles and improve the approach to personalized care in women with IBS-type symptoms,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Andrea Shin, Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. LIMITATIONS: The use of diagnostic codes for identifying IBS may have led to misclassification or reflected symptoms rather than confirmed and validated diagnosis. DISCLOSURES: This study received support from the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported serving as consultants, advisors, and/or receiving research support from pharmaceutical and healthcare companies; one author reported having stock options. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Forbes
28 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Ambient AI A Commodity In Healthcare?
CHINA - 2025/02/11: In this photo illustration, a doximity logo is displayed on the screen of a ... More smartphone. (Photo Illustration by Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) Ambient AI is one of the most prominent trends in healthcare technology, particularly among frontline healthcare providers. Tools that can listen in the background and auto-generate clinical notes are reshaping how physicians, NPs, and PAs manage documentation. Until recently, most of these solutions came with steep price tags or complex integrations. Now, Doximity has entered the game with Doximity Scribe, its own AI-powered ambient listening tool—and it's offering it completely free to verified U.S. clinicians. Of course, nothing in this world is truly free. However, in this case, there are no subscriptions, no hidden fees, and no audio data retention—just a strategic move by Doximity to establish itself as the go-to digital platform for clinicians. How It Works Users can access Doximity Scribe on both desktop and mobile. Open the Doximity app and look under the "AI Tools" tab, or go to on your browser. Start Scribe at the beginning of a patient visit. With one tap, it begins to listen securely like a second set of clinically trained ears. As the clinician speaks with the patient, the Scribe captures the clinical conversation in real-time. It filters out small talk and focuses on medically relevant information, such as new symptoms, changes in medication, and key historical points. When the clinician uses Doximity Dialer, Doximity's HIPAA-compliant telehealth tool that allows clinicians to call or video chat with patients from their devices while hiding their number, Scribe integrates directly into the workflow (currently in beta). This setup allows the clinician to conduct the visit and document it on the same screen, eliminating the need to switch between apps or devices. After the encounter, stop or pause the Scribe. It will instantly generate a draft clinical note based on what it heard. Reviewing the note is crucial. Scribe offers a solid first draft, but clinicians must ensure accuracy and completeness. Ultimately, the clinician is the final editor before copying it into their EMR. Final Thoughts Doximity Scribe doesn't replace clinical judgment, but it is free, and it will be interesting to see whether this "free" product will increase adoption. The biggest hurdle is simple: Scribe doesn't integrate with the EMR. Clinicians have to copy and paste notes, which is a challenge. How will the clinician transfer the final note, which is text data from their personal phone or laptop, to a hospital laptop or desktop? It is not an open network where files can be easily air-dropped or connected within the enterprise. The lack of EMR integration remains the most significant hurdle, which is precisely why large health systems tend to opt for fully integrated solutions. Still, smaller healthcare organizations could see real value in using Scribe to save costs without sacrificing quality. The bigger question now is who's next. As Doximity sets the bar by offering a free ambient AI tool, it's only a matter of time before other vendors follow suit.
