Multiple Breath Washout (MBW) in bronchiectasis clinical trials – Is it feasible?
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background: Evaluation of Multiple Breath Washout (MBW) set-up including staff training, certification and central “over-reading” for data quality control is essential to determine the feasibility of MBW in future bronchiectasis studies. Aims: To assess the outcomes of a MBW training, certification and central over-reading programme.
Methods: MBW training and certification was conducted in European sites collecting LCI data in the BronchUK clinimetrics and/or i-BEST-1 studies. The blended training programme included the use of an eLearning tool and a 1-day face-to-face session. Sites submitted MBW data to trained central over-readers who determined validity and quality. Results: Thirteen training days were delivered to 56 participants from 22 sites. 18/22 (82%) were MBW naïve. Participant knowledge and confidence increased significantly (p<0.001). By the end of the study recruitment, 15/22 sites (68%) had completed certification with a mean (range) time since training of 6.2 (3-14) months. In the BronchUK clinimetrics study, 468/589 (79%) tests met45 the quality criteria following central over-reading, compared with 137/236 (58%) tests in the i-BEST-1 study. Conclusions: LCI is feasible in a bronchiectasis multicentre clinical trial setting however, consideration of site experience in terms of training as well as assessment of skill drift and the need for re-training may be important to reduce time to certification and optimise data quality. Longer times to certification, a higher percentage of naive sites and patients with worse lung function may have contributed to the lower success rate in the i-BEST-1 study.
Methods: MBW training and certification was conducted in European sites collecting LCI data in the BronchUK clinimetrics and/or i-BEST-1 studies. The blended training programme included the use of an eLearning tool and a 1-day face-to-face session. Sites submitted MBW data to trained central over-readers who determined validity and quality. Results: Thirteen training days were delivered to 56 participants from 22 sites. 18/22 (82%) were MBW naïve. Participant knowledge and confidence increased significantly (p<0.001). By the end of the study recruitment, 15/22 sites (68%) had completed certification with a mean (range) time since training of 6.2 (3-14) months. In the BronchUK clinimetrics study, 468/589 (79%) tests met45 the quality criteria following central over-reading, compared with 137/236 (58%) tests in the i-BEST-1 study. Conclusions: LCI is feasible in a bronchiectasis multicentre clinical trial setting however, consideration of site experience in terms of training as well as assessment of skill drift and the need for re-training may be important to reduce time to certification and optimise data quality. Longer times to certification, a higher percentage of naive sites and patients with worse lung function may have contributed to the lower success rate in the i-BEST-1 study.
Date Issued
2020-10-13
Date Acceptance
2020-07-19
Citation
European Respiratory Journal, 2020, 6 (4), pp.1-10
ISSN
0903-1936
Publisher
European Respiratory Society
Start Page
1
End Page
10
Journal / Book Title
European Respiratory Journal
Volume
6
Issue
4
Copyright Statement
©ERS 2020. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.
Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.
License URL
Identifier
https://openres.ersjournals.com/content/6/4/00363-2019.article-info
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2020-10-13