Background The efficacy of mepolizumab is well documented in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), although the stringent selection criteria adopted by SEA clinical trials limits the generalizability of results. Objective Our study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in patients with SEA in Spain. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations 12 months after starting mepolizumab compared to the baseline rate in the 12 months prior to treatment. Patients were stratified by baseline blood eosinophil counts. Methods We conducted a multicentric observational cohort study of SEA patients treated with mepolizumab across 24 specialized hospital asthma units in Spain. Severe exacerbation rate, lung function, oral corticosteroid use (OCS) and asthma control test (ACT) were retrospectively collected and compared during the 12-month pre-and post-mepolizumab treatment. Adverse events were also investigated. Results A total of 318 patients with SEA were included (mean age: 56.6 years, 69.2% female). Exacerbation rates decreased by 77.5%, and 50.6% of patients did not suffer any exacerbations during the 12 months of treatment. The difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) pre-and post-bronchodilator after starting mepolizumab was 0.21 (0.46) L (95% CI 0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001). Exacerbations and lung function significantly improved across all eosinophil subgroups. Among the 98 patients on OCS, 47.8% were able to discontinue this treatment and the mean daily dose was decreased by 59.9%. The baseline ACT score was 14.1, increasing by a mean (SD) of 6.7 points (1.9) at 12 months. Adverse events related to mepolizumab were uncommon. Conclusions This real-world study of SEA patients confirms that mepolizumab is effective in reducing clinically meaningful exacerbations, improving lung function, and decreasing OCS dependence and mean OCS dose at 12 months, irrespective of baseline eosinophil counts.The members of "on behalf of the REDES Study group" is present in the Acknowledgements section.
Foreign body aspiration is relatively infrequent in adults. Airway foreign bodies (AFBs) can be removed by flexible bronchoscopy (FB) or rigid bronchoscopy (RB). We performed a retrospective analysis of FBs performed in our centre over a 25 year period, focusing on the procedures that revealed an AFB during the examination stage. We recorded demographic data, clinical characteristics and radiological and bronchoscopic findings. During the study period, 12,588 FBs were performed in adults. Airway foreign bodies were identified in 32 of these cases, giving a prevalence of 0.25%. The most frequent clinical presentation was cough, sputum and fever. The most frequent radiological findings were alveolar infiltrates and atelectasis. In 94% of cases, AFBs were removed successfully by FB; RB was necessary in only 6% of cases. There were no FB-related complications. The most common AFB location was the right bronchial tree (69%). We classified AFBs as organic (85%: animal 57%; vegetable 28%), inorganic (6%) and iatrogenic (9%). Bronchial infection occurred in 51% of cases, and Actinomyces spp. was the most common causal microorganism. In conclusion, AFBs are a rare entity with nonspecific clinical presentation, most AFBs were organic, and FB is a safe and effective method for AFB removal.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been associated with thrombotic phenomena in the early stages of the disease, but also, less frequently, with major bleeding between the second and third week after onset, particularly in patients treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. This article describes four cases of patients admitted to the hospital with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who had arterial bleeding as a complication while on low-molecular-weight heparin at therapeutic doses. Half of the patients were women.
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
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.