Background Patients with severe asthma are at increased risk of exacerbations and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). Severe asthma is heterogeneous, encompassing eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic (mainly neutrophilic) phenotypes. Patients with neutropilic airway diseases may benefit from macrolides. Methods We performed a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in subjects with exacerbationprone severe asthma. Subjects received low-dose azithromycin (n=55) or placebo (n=54) as add-on treatment to combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β 2 agonists for 6 months. The primary outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations and LRTI requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 26-week treatment phase. Secondary efficacy outcomes included lung function and scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Results The rate of primary endpoints (PEPs) during 6 months was not significantly different between the two treatment groups: 0.75 PEPs (95% CI 0.55 to 1.01) per subject in the azithromycin group versus 0.81 PEPs (95% CI 0.61 to 1.09) in the placebo group (p=0.682). In a predefined subgroup analysis according to the inflammatory phenotype, azithromycin was associated with a significantly lower PEP rate than placebo in subjects with noneosinophilic severe asthma (blood eosinophilia ≤200/ml): 0.44 PEPs (95% CI 0.25 to 0.78) versus 1.03 PEPs (95% CI 0.72 to 1.48) (p=0.013). Azithromycin significantly improved the AQLQ score but there were no significant between-group differences in the ACQ score or lung function. Azithromycin was well tolerated, but was associated with increased oropharyngeal carriage of macrolide-resistant streptococci. Conclusions Azithromycin did not reduce the rate of severe exacerbations and LRTI in patients with severe asthma. However, the significant reduction in the PEP rate in azithromycin-treated patients with non-eosinophilic severe asthma warrants further study. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00760838.

Although there is no agreement on the optimal treatment of patients presenting with a first episode of primary spontaneous pneumothorax, the majority of physicians prefer chest tube drainage for air evacuation. Manual aspiration of air has been proposed by some, but lack of sound comparative data and safety data has limited its use. In this first randomized, prospective, multicenter pilot study, 60 patients with a first episode of primary spontaneous pneumothorax were randomly allocated to manual aspiration (n = 27) or chest tube drainage (n = 33). Immediate success was obtained in 16 out of 27 (59.3%) in the manual aspiration group, and in 21 out of 33 (63.6%) in the chest tube drainage group (p = 0.9). One-week success rates were 25 out of 27 (93%) in the intention-to-treat manual aspiration group and 28 out of 33 (85%) in the chest tube drainage group (p = 0.4). Fourteen of 27 manual aspiration patients (52%) were hospitalized, versus 100% of the chest tube drainage patients (p < 0.0001). Recurrence rates with at least 1-year follow-up were 7 out of 26 (26%) in the manual aspiration group, and 9 out of 33 (27.3%) in the chest tube drainage group (p = 0.9). There were no complications associated with manual aspiration. Although statistical power is insufficient to formally confirm therapeutic equality, this pilot study suggests that in first episodes of primary spontaneous pneumothorax, manual aspiration seems equally effective as chest tube drainage and is safe, well tolerated, and feasible as an outpatient procedure in the majority of patients.

IntroductionPROOF (a Prospective Observational Registry to Describe the Disease Course and Outcomes of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis) is an ongoing, observational registry initiated in 2013 with the aim of collecting real-world data from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Here, we present comprehensive baseline data, which were collected from patients on registry inclusion.MethodsPatients with IPF were enrolled across eight centres in Belgium and Luxembourg. Baseline data collected included demographics, diagnostic information and clinical characteristics, including lung function and health-related quality of life. Data on comorbidities and prescribed medication were also collected.ResultsA total of 277 patients were enrolled in the PROOF registry. At inclusion, 92.8% and 6.5% of patients had a definite or probable diagnosis of IPF, respectively. Mean per cent predicted forced vital capacity and carbon monoxide diffusing capacity were 80.6% and 46.9%, respectively. Mean St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score was 47.0, and mean Cough-Visual Analogue Scale score was 30.5 mm. The most prevalent comorbidities reported at inclusion were gastrointestinal disorders (50.2%), including gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (47.3%) and metabolism and nutrition disorders (39.7%). At inclusion, 67.2% and 2.2% of patients were prescribed pirfenidone and nintedanib, respectively, with treatment initiated either prior to, or at the time of, inclusion. Medication prescribed concomitantly with pirfenidone included antihypertensives (54.8%), statins (37.1%) and prophylactic antithrombotics/anticoagulants (36.6%).ConclusionThe PROOF registry provides valuable demographic and clinical data from a real-world population of patients with IPF in Belgium and Luxembourg, demonstrating the high burden of comorbidities and prescribed medication in these patients. Longitudinal data from this patient population will be investigated in future analyses.Trial registrationPROOF is registered with the relevant authorities in Belgium and Luxembourg, with registration to Comité National d’Éthique et de Recherché (CNER) N201309/03 – 12 September 2013 and a notification to Comité National de Protection des Données (CNDP).

Augustinus-A Debrock (PI), P Ardies (Coordinator). Imelda ziekenhuis-T Lauwerier (PI), A Delbaere (Coordinator). UZ Brussel-W Vincken (PI), S Hanon (Co-I), D Schuermans, K Van Eeckhoudt (Coordinators). CHU St.-Pierre-V Ninane (PI), M Gabrovska (Co-I), F De Cock, S Carlier (Coordinators).

Eosinopenia was frequently encountered in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We describe a case of a 59-year-old man who was treated with high-dose corticosteroids and anti-interleukin 1 receptor antagonist therapy because of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to a so-called cytokine storm in COVID-19. He had chronic eosinophilia for many years due to an unknown Strongyloides stercoralis infection, proven by serology and a positive polymerase chain reaction test on a stool sample. COVID-19 led to a complete resolution of eosinophilia, even before immunosuppressive treatment was started. Eosinophilia returned after recovery from COVID-19 and started to decline under treatment with ivermectin. Our case confirms previous reports of eosinopenia in COVID-19, as it appears even in patients with chronic eosinophilia. Presence of eosinophilia should prompt screening for strongyloidiasis in all patients eligible for immunosuppressive therapy because of the risk of Strongyloides hyperinfection syndrome, especially if this treatment is empirical.