Most patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis can be cured with the use of appropriate, intensive treatment regimens.

BackgroundCOPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization increase morbidity and mortality. Although most COPD exacerbations are neutrophilic, approximately 10%–25% of exacerbations are eosinophilic.AimWe aimed to evaluate mortality and outcomes of eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic COPD exacerbations and identify new biomarkers that predict survival.MethodsA retrospective observational cohort study was carried out in a tertiary teaching hospital from January 1, 2014 to November 1, 2014. All COPD patients hospitalized with exacerbations were enrolled in the study at their initial hospitalization and followed-up for 6 months after discharge. Electronic data were collected from the hospital database. Subjects’ characteristics, hemogram parameters, CRP levels, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-mean platelet volume ratio on admission and discharge, length of hospital stay (days), readmissions, and mortality were recorded. Patients were grouped according to peripheral blood eosinophil (PBE) levels: Group 1, >2% PBE, eosinophilic; Group 2, non-eosinophilic ≤2%. Patient survival after hospital discharge was evaluated by Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.ResultsA total of 1,704 patients hospitalized with COPD exacerbation were included. Approximately 20% were classified as eosinophilic. Six-month mortality was similar in eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic groups (14.2% and 15.2%, respectively); however, the hospital stay length and readmission rate were longer and higher in the non-eosinophilic group (P<0.001 and P<0.01, respectively). CRP and NLR were significantly higher in the non-eosinophilic group (both P<0.01). The platelet-to-mean platelet volume ratio was not different between the two groups. Cox regression analysis showed that survival was negatively influenced by elevated CRP (P<0.035) and NLR (P<0.001) in the non-eosinophilic group.ConclusionNon-eosinophilic patients with COPD exacerbations with high CRP and NLR values had worse outcomes than eosinophilic patients. PBE and NLR can be helpful markers to guide treatment decisions.

PurposeThis study was designed to evaluate errors in inhaler technique in COPD vs asthma patients and to investigate the association of poor inhaler technique with patient demographics and clinical variables.Patients and methodsA total of 509 adult patients with COPD (n=328) or asthma (n=181) who were currently using an inhaler device were included in this study. Data on patient demographics, duration of disease, type and duration of inhaler therapy, and assessment of inhaler technique were recorded.ResultsMetered dose inhaler (MDI) was the most common type of inhaler used by a similarly high percentage of patients in both COPD (83.2%) and asthma (77.3%) groups. Failure to exhale before inhaling through device (75.8% and 68.5% for MDIs; 73.2% and 71.8% for Aerolizer®/Handihaler®; 53.1% and 66.7% for Turbuhaler®) was the most common error in inhaler technique, in both COPD and asthma groups. Device-specific errors in inhaler techniques were more common in asthma patients as compared with COPD patients, particularly for MDIs (P-values ranged from 0.046 to 0.0005), as associated with female gender (failure to press the buttons on both sides of Aerolizer®/Handihaler®, P=0.006), shorter duration of disease (failure to hold MDI or head in a vertical position, P<0.001, and to keep Turbuhaler® upright, P=0.005), and shorter duration of inhaler usage (failure to hold head in a vertical position during MDI usage, P=0.006, and to keep Turbuhaler® upright, P=0.012).ConclusionIn conclusion, our findings revealed that errors in inhaler technique in terms of inhalation maneuvers and device handling were similarly common in COPD and asthma patients. Errors in certain device handling maneuvers, particularly with MDIs, were more common among asthma patients than among COPD patients and associated with female gender and shorter durations of disease and inhaler therapy.

OBJECTIVES:The choice of treatment according to the inflammation type in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) has been of recent interest. This study investigated the role of novel biomarkers, hospital outcomes, and readmission rates in the first month in patients with eosinophilic or neutrophilic AECOPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study in a Chest Teaching Hospital with hospitalized AECOPD patients. Subjects' characteristics, hemogram results, C-reactive protein (CRP), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/ lymphocyte ratio (PLR), platelet/mean platelet volume (PLT/MPV), length of hospital stay, mortality, and steroid use were recorded. Eosinophilic AECOPD defined as peripheral blood eosinophilia (PBE) was >2% and neutrophilic AECOPD as PBE ≤2%. Readmission within 28 days of discharge was recorded. RESULTS:Of 2727(31.5% females) patients, eosinophilic AECOPD was found in 510 (18.7%) patients. Leucocytes, CRP, NLR, and PLR were significantly higher in neutrophilic AECOPD than in eosinophilic AECOPD (p<0.001). Steroid use and mortality rate were 45% and 0.6% in eosinophilic AECOPD and 71%, and 1.4% in neutrophilic AECOPD, respectively (p=0.001, p=0.19). Age >75 years, albumin <2.5 g/dL, CRP >50 mg/dL, and PLT/MPV <20×103 were found to be risks factors for hospital mortality (p<0.05 each). Readmission rates within 28 days of discharge were 5% (n=136), and this rate was higher in eosinophilic AECOPD patients not taking steroids (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: NLR, PLR, and CRP levels were higher in neutrophilic AECOPD compared with eosinophilic AECOPD. These markers decreased with treatment in neutrophilic AECOPD. A PLT/MPV ratio of <20×103 resulted in an increased mortality rate. Thus, appropriate steroid therapy may reduce readmission rates in the first 28 days after discharge in eosinophilic AECOPD.

BackgroundComplete blood count parameters provide novel inflammatory markers, namely neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR). We aimed to assess any differences in these novel inflammatory markers according to exacerbation severity in patients with COPD in both eosinophilic and neutrophilic endotypes.MethodThis retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary education hospital. Previously diagnosed COPD patients admitted to the hospital with acute COPD exacerbation (AECOPD) were enrolled into the study. Patients were grouped according to COPD endotype, eosinophilic (peripheral blood eosinophil rate ≥2%) and neutrophilic (peripheral blood eosinophil rate <2%), and further subdivided according to place of admission (outpatient clinic, ward, or intensive care unit [ICU]) as an indicator of disease severity. Complete blood count, biochemistry, C-reactive protein (CRP), NLR, PLR, and platelet to mean platelet volume values were recorded from an electronic hospital database system and compared among all groups.ResultsOf the 10,592 patients included in the study, 7,864 were admitted as outpatients, 2,233 to the wards, and 495 to ICU. Neutrophilic COPD patients (n=6,536, 62%) had increased inflammatory markers compared with eosinophilic COPD patients (n=4,056, 38%); median NLR was 5.11 vs 2.62 (P<0.001), PLR was 175.66 vs 130.00 (P<0.001), and CRP was 11.6 vs 7.7 (P<0.001). All values increased relative to admission to the outpatient clinic, ward, or ICU: median NLR was 3.20, 6.33, and 5.94, respectively, median PLR was 140.43, 208.46, and 207.39, respectively, and median CRP was 6.4, 15.0, and 22.8, respectively. The median NLR values of patients in outpatients/ward/ICU increased in neutrophilic and eosinophilic endotypes: 4.21/7.57/8.60 (P<0.001) and 2.50/3.43/3.42 (P=0.81), respectively. CRP showed a similar increased pattern according to severity of AECOPD endotypes.ConclusionIn COPD exacerbation, the inflammatory markers show different increases in each COPD endotypes. These findings may be crucial for defining exacerbation endotypes, the severity of exacerbation, and treatment response during follow-up in COPD patients.

PurposeNoninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) usage outside of intensive care unit is not recommended in patients with COPD for severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). We assessed the factors associated with failure of NIMV in patients with ARF and severe acidosis admitted to the emergency department and followed on respiratory ward.Patients and methodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital specialized in chest diseases and thoracic surgery between June 1, 2013 and May 31, 2014. COPD patients who were admitted to our emergency department due to ARF were included. Patients were grouped according to the severity of acidosis into two groups: group 1 (pH=7.20–7.25) and group 2 (pH=7.26–7.30).ResultsGroup 1 included 59 patients (mean age: 70±10 years, 30.5% female) and group 2 included 171 patients (mean age: 67±11 years, 28.7% female). On multivariable analysis, partial arterial oxygen pressure to the inspired fractionated oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio <200, delta pH value <0.30, and pH value <7.31 on control arterial blood gas after NIMV in the emergency room and peak C-reactive protein were found to be the risk factors for NIMV failure in COPD patients with ARF in the ward.ConclusionNIMV is effective not only in mild respiratory failure but also with severe forms of COPD patients presenting with severe exacerbation. The determination of the failure criteria of NIMV and the expertise of the team is critical for treatment success.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of exposure to biomass smoke vs cigarette smoke on serum inflammatory markers and pulmonary function parameters in patients with chronic respiratory failure (CRF).Patients and methodsA total of 106 patients with CRF divided into age and gender-matched groups of cigarette-smoke exposure (n=55, mean [SD] age: 71.0 [12.0] years, 92.7% were females) and biomass smoke exposure (n=51, mean [SD] age: 73.0 [11.0] years, 94.1% were females) were included in this retrospective study. Data on patient demographics (age and gender), inflammatory markers, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, platelet/mean platelet volume ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, and pulmonary function test findings, including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC were obtained from medical records.ResultsCarbon dioxide partial pressure levels were significantly higher in the biomass smoke exposure than in the cigarette smoke exposure group (mean [SD] 51.0 [8.0] vs 47.0 [8.0] mmHg, p=0.026, respectively). Spirometry revealed similarly low levels for FEV1 (%) (38.0 [16.0] vs 40.0 [12.0]%) and FVC (%) (45.0 [19.0] vs 39.0 [19.0]%) in cigarette-smoke and biomass smoke exposure groups, whereas biomass smoke exposure was associated with significantly higher FEV1/FVC (75.0 [14.0] vs 58.0 [12.0]%, p=0.001), lower FVC (mL) (mean [SD] 744.0 [410.0] vs 1,063.0 [592.0] mL, p=0.035) and lower percentage of patients with FEV1/FVC <70% (36.8% vs 82.0%, p<0.001) than cigarette smoke exposure.ConclusionOur findings indicate similarly increased inflammatory markers and abnormally low pulmonary function test findings in both biomass smoke exposure and cigarette smoke exposure groups, emphasizing the adverse effects of biomass smoke exposure on lungs to be as significant as cigarette smoke exposure. Association of biomass smoke exposure with higher likelihood of FEV1/FVC ratio of >70% and more prominent loss of vital capacity than cigarette smoke exposure seems to indicate the likelihood of at least 18 years of biomass exposure to be sufficiently high to be responsible for both obstructive and restrictive pulmonary diseases.

OBJECTIVE:Physicians do not adequately use their unique professional privilege to prevent patients from smoking. The aim of this study was to investigate the type and extent of advice given to patients by physicians of different medical specialties regarding smoking cessation.METHODS:In total, 317 volunteer physicians were included in this study. The participants rated their attitudes toward the smoking habits of their patients by completing a questionnaire. The approaches used to address the smoking habits of patients significantly differed among physicians working at polyclinics, clinics and emergency service departments (p<0.001). Physicians working at clinics exhibited the highest frequency of inquiring about the smoking habits of their patients, while physicians working at emergency service departments exhibited the lowest frequency.RESULTS:Physicians from different medical specialties significantly differed in their responses. Physicians specializing in lung diseases, thoracic surgery, and cardiology were more committed to preventing their patients from cigarette smoking.CONCLUSIONS:The role of physicians, particularly pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons, is critical in the fight against cigarette smoking. Promoting physician awareness of this subject is highly important in all other branches of medicine.