European Clinical Respiratory Journal最新文献

Background: The Swedish National Airway Register (SNAR) was initiated in 2013 to ensure and improve the quality of care for patients with asthma and COPD.

Aim: To describe the development and design of SNAR, and to study the 2019 data to evaluate its potential utility related to improvement of quality of care.

Methods: SNAR includes data from patients with asthma (both children and adults) and COPD from primary, secondary and tertiary care, and also, for COPD inpatient care. Data on diagnostic investigations (e.g. spirometry, blood sample, skin prick test), symptom-scores, comorbidities and prescribed treatments are registered. The registrations are entered manually by healthcare professionals, or directly transferred from electronic medical records to a web-based platform.

Results: In 2019, 1000 clinics participated and data were directly transferred by about 88% of them. The register included data on 205,833 patients with asthma and 80,372 with COPD (of these, 5% had both diagnoses). Registrations of new patients and follow-up visits from primary and secondary/tertiary care in 2019 were completed for 75,707 patients with asthma (11,818 children <12 yr, 6545 adolescents 12-17 yr, and 57,344 adults >17 yr) and 38,117 with COPD. Depending on age and disease group, 43-77% had performed spirometry, 36-65% Asthma Control Test, and 60% COPD Assessment Test. The prevalence of current smoking was about 2% in adolescents, 10% in adults with asthma, and 34% in COPD. For these, smoking cessation support was offered to 27%, 38% and 51%, respectively. Overall, limited data were available on investigation of allergy, 6-min walk test, patient education and written treatment plans. Regarding asthma, sex-differences in disease management were evident.

Conclusion: SNAR has cumulatively registered data from over 270,000 individuals, and the register is important for patients, caregivers, authorities, politicians and researchers to evaluate the effect of treatment and to ensure high and equal quality of care nationwide.

While poor inhaler technique in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can compromise the effectiveness of inhaled medications, identifying and quantifying these errors may suggest ways to improve inhalation technique and patient outcomes. The objective of this international, multicentre care improvement programme was to investigate errors in inhaler use (handling errors and inhalation errors) made by patients in handling two dry powder inhalers; DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. Patients with asthma or COPD aged between 18 and 80 years attending the allergology/pneumology departments of 14 hospitals in Spain and Portugal were included. All assessments were performed during one regular scheduled visit to the study clinic. Among 161 eligible patients (138 with asthma; 23 with COPD), inhalation errors were the most common type of error, with no significant difference between devices in overall total error rate, handling error rate or inhalation error rate. Significantly fewer total errors per patient (1.4 vs. 1.9; p < 0.001) and handling errors per patient (0.5 vs. 0.8; p < 0.001) were observed with DuoResp® Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The mean number of attempts for patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® to perform two correct procedures was 1.9 (0.6) compared with 2.1 (0.9) attempts for patients using Symbicort® Turbuhaler® (p = 0.016). Compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®, DuoResp® Spiromax® was found to be easy to learn how to use (p < 0.001), easy to prepare (p < 0.001), easy to use (p < 0.001), comfortable in terms of weight and size (p = 0.001), and patients felt that they were using the device correctly (p < 0.001). Overall, 79.5% of patients stated that they preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® as their first option over Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The findings of this study may be useful in developing effective inhaler training programmes and thus improve outcomes in asthma and COPD.

Introduction: Patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and pneumonitis often have hypoxemic respiratory failure and a need of supplementary oxygen. Guidelines recommend controlled oxygen, for most patients with a recommended interval of SpO₂ between 92 and 96%. We aimed to determine if closed-loop control of oxygen was feasible in patients with COVID-19 and could maintain SpO₂ in the specified interval.

Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled in an observational study on a medical ward dedicated to patients with COVID-19. Closed-loop controlled oxygen was delivered by O2matic® which can deliver 0-15 liters/min and adjusts flow every second based on 15 seconds averaging of SpO₂ measured by pulse oximetry. Lung function parameters were measured at admission.

Results: Fifteen patients (six women, nine men) participated in the study. Average age was 72 years. Lung function was severely impaired with FEV₁, FVC and PEF reduced to approximately 50%. The average stay on the ward was 3.2 days and O2matic was used on average for 66 hours, providing 987 hours of observation. O2matic maintained SpO₂ in the desired interval for 82.9% of the time. Time with SpO₂ > 2% below interval was 5.1% and time with SpO₂ > 2% above interval was 0.6%.

Conclusion: Closed-loop control of oxygen to patients with COVID-19 is feasible and can maintain SpO₂ in the specified interval in the majority of time. Closed-loop automated control could be of particular benefit for patients in isolation with decreased visibility, surveillance and monitoring. Further studies must examine the clinical benefits.

In 1960s, cromolyn sodium (CS) has been introduced as the first non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of allergic and mast-cell driven diseases. Its applicability has been limited due to a poor bioavailability. Here we present pharmacokinetic data of a novel high concentration formulation of CS (PA101) delivered via a high-efficiency nebulizer (eFlow®) in healthy volunteers (HVs), allergic asthmatics and patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM). In HVs, PA101 40 mg and 80 mg (30 L) and PA101 40 mg (40 L), Intal^TM (via LC® Plus) 20 mg and Nalcrom® (oral suspension) 200 mg showed maximum measured plasma concentration (C_max) of 156, 236, 88.6, 17.8 and 5.23 ng/mL, respectively, with respective areas under the plasma time-concentration curve (AUC) of 338, 526, 212, 40.6 and 33.3 h·ng/mL. Systemic exposure (AUC) to CS with PA101 40 mg was approximately 8-fold and 11-fold higher compared to Intal^TM and Nalcrom® in HVs, respectively. PA101 via eFlow® yielded comparable PK profiles in HVs and patients. Systemic bioavailability of PA101 was approximately 25% compared to approximately 1% for Nalcrom® and approximately 10% for Intal^TM, respectively. These data warrant further research on the therapeutic potential of PA101 (via eFlow®) in allergic and mast-cell driven diseases.

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a serious interstitial lung disease (ILD) with a median survival of 3-5 years. The aim of the present study was to evaluate disease severity and survival in patients diagnosed with IPF in the era of antifibrotic therapies compared with an earlier IPF cohort.

Methods: We identified all patients with fibrotic ILD in the hospital electronic case record system between 2011 and 2016, and reviewed each case in order to identify incident patients with IPF. We used the GAP-index to compare disease severity and mortality to previous findings in patients with IPF diagnosed at our center between 2003 and 2009.

Results: 260 patients were diagnosed with IPF between 2011 and 2016. Mean age was 72.6 years, 79% were male, mean forced vital capacity (FVC) was 80%, and mean diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLco) was 44%. Age, FVC and DLco were significant predictors of mortality, but the presence of a typical usual interstitial pneumonia pattern on HRCT was not. Eighty percent of patients in GAP stage I received antifibrotic therapy, 73% in GAP stage II, and 29% in GAP stage III.The median survival was four years in the 2011-2016 cohort compared with three years in the 2003-2009 cohort. The distribution of patients between GAP stages was unchanged in 2011-2016 compared with 2003-2009, (stage I 34% vs. 32%, stage II 49% vs. 48% and stage III 20% vs. 16%). One-year mortality was 13% in 2011-2016 and 26% in 2003-2009. In severe disease (GAP stage III), one-year mortality was 26% and 54%, respectively, (p=0.019).

Conclusion: Short-term mortality was significantly lower in the 2011-2016 cohort compared with 2003-2009. This improvement may be linked to changes in treatment strategies towards limited use of corticosteroids. Although early diagnosis of IPF still needs increased focus, the improvement is encouraging.

Rationale: There is limited knowledge on the effect of acute exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) on lung cancer risk in COPD patients with and without a history of asthma. This study aims to examine whether AECOPD is associated with risk of lung cancer, and whether the effect depends on a history of asthma.

Methods: In the GenKOLS study of 2003-2005, 852 subjects with COPD performed spirometry, and filled out questionnaires on smoking habits, symptoms and disease history. These data were linked to lung cancer data from the Cancer Registry of Norway through 2013. AECOPD, measured at baseline was the main predictor. To quantify differences in lung cancer risk, we performed Cox-proportional hazards regression. We adjusted for sex, age, smoking variables, body mass index, and lung function.

Measurements and results: During follow-up, 8.8% of the subjects with, and 5.9% of the subjects without exacerbations were diagnosed with lung cancer. Cox regression showed a significant increased risk of lung cancer with one or more exacerbations in COPD patients without a history of asthma, HRR = 2.77 (95% CI 1.39-5.52). We found a significant interaction between a history of asthma and AECOPD on lung cancer.

Conclusions: AECOPD is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer in COPD patients without a history of asthma.

Background: Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide without any known cure. Despite remarkable improvement in asthma treatment, better education and guideline implementation strategies, there is growing interest in using complementary and alternative medicine, like reflexology and homeopathy. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of homeopathy and reflexology in asthma treatment is not available.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of reflexology and homeopathy as adjunctive therapies in asthma.

Methods: In a single centre, randomised, investigator blinded, controlled study 86 asthma patients were enrolled. They were assigned to one of three study groups (conventional treatment alone or conventional treatment with addition of either homeopathy or reflexology). All patients received their asthma treatment during the study and were followed as usual by their general practitioner. The study assignment group of individual patients were blinded to the investigators, who made the clinical evaluation of asthma control. The primary outcome was the change in the asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) scores after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes included asthma control questionnaire, EuroQol, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, morning and evening peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and total medication score.

Results: Minor improvements in the AQLQ score were observed in all three groups. However, no statistically significant changes in AQLQ scores were seen within or between groups. Likewise, secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.

Conclusions: In this study, the addition of homeopathy or reflexology to conventional treatment did not result in improved quality of life in asthma.

Background: Treatment of patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is challenged by the low priority of the disease by patients and general practitioners (GPs) affecting the extent of self-management. The aim of this study was to explore (i) attitudes to COPD self-management in patients with moderate COPD, (ii) perceptions of GP commitment to pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with moderate COPD, and (iii) COPD knowledge in patients with moderate COPD.

Methods: The study had a qualitative design using semi-structured interviews to explore the views of 14 patients diagnosed with moderate COPD. We applied strategic sampling to obtain maximum variation and conducted a thematic analysis of the data.

Results: Our main findings were that the degree of COPD self-management was linked to the resources of the informants. Further, the patients experienced that GPs only availed themselves of selected parts of the recommendations for COPD treatment by focusing on medical treatment and smoking cessation rather than physical activity and diet. Many patients lacked knowledge regarding the tolerated level of physical activity and therefore avoided activity increasing their heart rate. Finally, many patients were reluctant to accept the diagnosis because the disease is known to be self-inflicted.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that patients with moderate COPD need more information, especially regarding the positive effects of physical activity. GPs might need to devote more time to the three main elements of COPD treatment, smoking cessation, medical treatment, and physical activity, to promote self-management and a healthier lifestyle in patients with COPD.

Introduction: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has presented health-care systems worldwide with novel challenges and experiences and evidence is emerging during the pandemic. Patients requiring hospitalization frequently suffer from respiratory failure of different severities.

Aim: The aim of this guideline is the treatment of patients with SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) in hospital; in particular, it addresses the treatment of respiratory failure treated in general Internal Medical- and Pulmonary Medical wards.

Results: Elderly patients and patients with chronic disease are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Target oxygen saturation should be between 92% and 96% in patients without chronic lung diseases. Treatment with >5 L oxygen/min should be in close collaboration with intensive care colleagues and >15 l/min preferably in intensive care units. High-flow nasal canula (HFNC) and long-term Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) are recommended for patients not responding to conventional oxygen therapy. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is only recommended for selected patients, such as those with a ceiling of treatment or patients presenting with hypercapnic failure. With the use of humidification protective equipment as FFP2-3 masks should be used. Nebulized medication should be avoided, and spacers should be used instead.

Conclusion: Respiratory failure is frequently the cause of hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 and should be monitored closely.