ERJ Open Research (Oct 2020)

Multiple breath washout in bronchiectasis clinical trials: is it feasible?

  • Katherine O'Neill,
  • Kathryn Ferguson,
  • Denis Cosgrove,
  • Michael M. Tunney,
  • Anthony De Soyza,
  • Mary Carroll,
  • James D. Chalmers,
  • Timothy Gatheral,
  • Adam T. Hill,
  • John R. Hurst,
  • Christopher Johnson,
  • Michael R. Loebinger,
  • Gerhild Angyalosi,
  • Charles S. Haworth,
  • Renee Jensen,
  • Felix Ratjen,
  • Clare Saunders,
  • Christopher Short,
  • Jane C. Davies,
  • J. Stuart Elborn,
  • Judy M. Bradley

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00363-2019
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

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 lung clearance index (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. Of 22 sites, 18 (82%) were MBW naïve. Participant knowledge and confidence increased significantly (p<0.001). By the end of the study recruitment, 15 of 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 of 589 (79%) tests met the quality criteria following central over-reading, compared with 137 of 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 naïve sites and patients with worse lung function may have contributed to the lower success rate in the i-BEST-1 study.