Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT04169282 |
Other study ID # |
Pro00102498 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
August 30, 2021 |
Est. completion date |
August 15, 2022 |
Study information
Verified date |
September 2023 |
Source |
Duke University |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
This study aims to determine if an expiratory resistance device that delivers non-invasive
positive expiratory pressure (nPEP) will reduce or stop coughing, reduce airway resistance
and improve quality of life in patients with tracheobronchomalacia (TBM) who are not
candidates for tracheal stenting.
Description:
PROSPECTIVE:
Twenty subjects with chronic cough and TBM diagnosed by bronchoscopy or computed tomography
(CT) scan will be recruited to enroll 12 participants. Comorbid conditions that can cause
chronic cough, such as asthma, COPD, and GERD, must be treated if present, for subjects to
qualify. At the pre-baseline visit (V0), after obtaining verbal informed consent, each
subject will complete validated cough questionnaires to quantify their cough severity and
cough-related QOL at baseline. The baseline visit (V1) will occur in-person approximately two
weeks later, after a run-in period to minimize observation bias related to the cough
questionnaires. Written consent will be performed at this visit. At V1, the cough
questionnaires will be repeated and subjects' airway resistance and reactance will be
measured with impulse oscillometry (IOS). A study physician will perform a physical exam and
determine eligibility. Eligible subjects will then be given the nPEP device by the study team
and instructed on its use. Approximately four to six weeks after device delivery, at the
follow-up visit (V3), cough questionnaires and IOS will be repeated and they will be asked
for feedback regarding device design and user experience. Subjects may then be entered into a
cohort for up to six additional months, during which there will be no study visits or
procedures, but subjects may be contacted by investigators for additional narrative feedback
on the device and its use.
Study subjects will be given an nPEP device to use for four to six weeks. During this time
participants will be asked to remain on their current medical regimen and not to make any
dose changes or add new drugs, unless indicated by their primary care provider. Impulse
oscillometry will be measured at V1 and 4-6 weeks later at V3 to assess effect of the nPEP
device on airway physiology. A lung CT scan will be performed at V2.
RETROSPECTIVE:
This device was tried on two individuals and it was initiative and was beneficial. Many
patients are not candidates for tracheobronchoplasty itself due to medical comorbidities,
prefer to avoid the associated risks, or are not candidates for the required tracheal
stenting due to trachea size or anatomy. These patients are left without a viable therapeutic
option for their severe cough.
Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices have been reported to stop or prevent
cough in TBM, presumably through pneumatic stenting the large airways to maintain their
patency during exhalation. CPAP devices, however, are not labeled for this indication and
their functional utility is very limited given size of the device, need for a power source,
and multiple steps to don the equipment that are not easily completed while actively and
uncontrollably coughing.
The physicians aimed to provide positive airway pressure at a low cost and through readily
accessible means, in order to abort coughing paroxysms in patients who were not candidates
for tracheal stenting and did not have access to commercial CPAP devices. Patients at Duke
University Hospital referred to the Interventional Pulmonary service for evaluation of
severe, debilitating TBM-related cough and possible tracheal stenting, but who were not
candidates for tracheal stenting given their airway anatomy, were given positive end
expiratory pressure (PEEP) masks assembled using existing hospital supplies. Specifically, a
standard, adjustable (5-20 cm H2O) positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) valve manufactured
for attachment to a manual resuscitation (commonly known as bag-valve-mask) device was
attached directly to a flexible face mask, also from a manual resuscitation device. Patients
were instructed by their physicians how to use the PEEP masks. The patients used the PEEP
mask immediately during their clinical encounter and were given a mask to take home. (The
device was created by fellow, Lindsay Boole.)
This was a limited intervention for a very small number of patients (two), specifically
identified as being referred to Duke Interventional Pulmonary service with severe cough
related to TBM, but with anatomy that ruled them out as candidates for tracheal stenting.
There were no formal data collected and no separate follow-up for the purpose of this project
(though patients had ongoing clinical follow-up per standard of care). The patients'
subjective improvement with the masks was submitted as a case report abstract and poster at
the American College of Chest Physician meeting in 2017.
Other physicians asked Dr. Boole about the mask and if it could be used for their patients.
Therefore, the investigators would like to request a retrospective review of all patients
that used the PEEP mask between January 1, 2009 and August 20, 2019 to be included in this
pilot study. Approximately 15 records will be reviewed.