Introduction There is, so far, no universal definition of severe asthma. This definition usually relies on: number of exacerbations, inhaled therapy, need for oral corticosteroids, and respiratory function. The use of such parameters varies in the different definitions used. Thus, according to the parameters chosen, each patient may result in having severe asthma or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the choice of a specific definition of severe asthma can change the allocation of patients. Methods Data collected from the Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were analyzed. All the patients included were then reclassified according to the definitions of U-BIOPRED, NICE, WHO, ATS/ERS, GINA, ENFUMOSA, and TENOR. Results 540 patients, were extracted from the SANI database. We observed that 462 (86%) met the ATS/ERS criteria as well as the GINA criteria, 259 (48%) the U-Biopred, 222 (41%) the NICE, 125 (23%) the WHO, 313 (58%) the Enfumosa, and 251 (46%) the TENOR criteria. The mean eosinophil value were similar in the ATS/ERS, U-Biopred, and Enfumosa (528, 532 and 516 cells/mcl), higher in WHO and Tenor (567 and 570 cells/mcl) and much higher in the NICE classification (624 cells/mcl). Lung function tests resulted similarly in all groups, with WHO (67%) and ATS/ERS-GINA (73%), respectively, showing the lower and upper mean FEV1 values. Conclusions The present observations clearly evidence the heterogeneity in the distribution of patients when different definitions of severe asthma are used. However, the recent definition of severe asthma, provided by the GINA document, is similar to that indicated in 2014 by ATS/ERS, allowing mirror reclassification of the patients examined. This lack of homogeneity could complicate the access to biological therapies. The definition provided by the GINA document, which reflects what suggested by ATS/ERS, could partially overcome the problem.
Background and objective Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are two prevalent and complex diseases that require personalized management. Although a strategy based on treatable traits (TTs) has been proposed, the prevalence and relationship of TTs to the diagnostic label and disease severity established by the attending physician in a real‐world setting are unknown. We assessed how the presence/absence of specific TTs relate to the diagnosis and severity of ‘asthma’, ‘COPD’ or ‘asthma + COPD’. Methods The authors selected 30 frequently occurring TTs from the NOVELTY study cohort (NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY; NCT02760329), a large (n = 11,226), global study that systematically collects data in a real‐world setting, both in primary care clinics and specialized centres, for patients with ‘asthma’ (n = 5932, 52.8%), ‘COPD’ (n = 3898, 34.7%) or both (‘asthma + COPD’; n = 1396, 12.4%). Results The results indicate that (1) the prevalence of the 30 TTs evaluated varied widely, with a mean ± SD of 4.6 ± 2.6, 5.4 ± 2.6 and 6.4 ± 2.8 TTs/patient in those with ‘asthma’, ‘COPD’ and ‘asthma + COPD’, respectively (p < 0.0001); (2) there were no large global geographical variations, but the prevalence of TTs was different in primary versus specialized clinics; (3) several TTs were specific to the diagnosis and severity of disease, but many were not; and (4) both the presence and absence of TTs formed a pattern that is recognized by clinicians to establish a diagnosis and grade its severity. Conclusion These results provide the largest and most granular characterization of TTs in patients with airway diseases in a real‐world setting to date.
Background and aims Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients. Methods Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients. Results 106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945–2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06–0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15–0.24). Conclusions Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients’ improvement.
We report two cases in which we were able to diagnose bronchopleural fistula through retrograde methylene blue instillation during bronchoscopy. In the first case, methylene blue was injected through an abdominal drain, followed by air instillation and detected in the left bronchial tree, demonstrating the presence of a fistula in the lingula's bronchus. In the second case, methylene blue was injected into a pleural drain, through a breach on a surgical suture and detected in the right bronchial tree, demonstrating the presence of a fistula in the right inferior bronchus. The retrograde instillation of methylene blue, through a drain in the abdomen or the thoracic wall, is a safe, cheap, and practical method that allows the bronchoscopist to identify the presence of a fistula and, more importantly, to identify the exact point on the bronchial tree where a fistula is located. This provides the possibility of sealing the fistula with a variety of devices. It is our opinion that this procedure should be considered a primary method of diagnosis when a bronchopleural fistula is suspected and a drain on the thoracic or abdominal wall is positioned such that effusions are able to drain.
To evaluate systematically randomised clinical trials investigating non-opioid medications for the management and treatment of chronic breathlessness. Areas covered: The evidence for the role of benzodiazepines, anxiolytics, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, antihistamines, cannabinoids, nebulized furosemide and herbal-based treatments were critically reviewed. Search of the Clinical Trials Registry (Clinicaltrial.gov) identified ongoing studies expected to generate new data in the near future in several classes of non-opioid medications for their net effect on chronic breathlessness. Expert commentary: Morphine still has the best level of evidence for the symptomatic treatment of chronic breathlessness. Non-opioid treatments for chronic breathlessness are less studied than morphine and morphine-related medications although evidence is emerging in relation to some options. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend non-opioids in the routine treatment of chronic breathlessness. There is a need to find agents, new as well as re-purposed, that can be used as alternative therapies to opioids for chronic breathlessness for people who are unable to tolerate morphine.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.