Background Nationwide, unbiased, and unselected data of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 are scarce. Our aim was to provide a detailed account of case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Germany, where the health-care system has not been overwhelmed by the pandemic. Methods In this observational study, adult patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, who were admitted to hospital in Germany between Feb 26 and April 19, 2020, and for whom a complete hospital course was available (ie, the patient was discharged or died in hospital) were included in the study cohort. Claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds were analysed. The data set included detailed information on patient characteristics, duration of hospital stay, type and duration of ventilation, and survival status. Patients with adjacent completed hospital stays were grouped into one case. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had received any form of mechanical ventilation. To account for comorbidities, we used the Charlson comorbidity index. Findings Of 10 021 hospitalised patients being treated in 920 different hospitals, 1727 (17%) received mechanical ventilation (of whom 422 [24%] were aged 18–59 years, 382 [22%] were aged 60–69 years, 535 [31%] were aged 70–79 years, and 388 [23%] were aged ≥80 years). The median age was 72 years (IQR 57–82). Men and women were equally represented in the non-ventilated group, whereas twice as many men than women were in the ventilated group. The likelihood of being ventilated was 12% for women (580 of 4822) and 22% for men (1147 of 5199). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (5575 [56%] of 10 021), diabetes (2791 [28%]), cardiac arrhythmia (2699 [27%]), renal failure (2287 [23%]), heart failure (1963 [20%]), and chronic pulmonary disease (1358 [14%]). Dialysis was required in 599 (6%) of all patients and in 469 (27%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The Charlson comorbidity index was 0 for 3237 (39%) of 8294 patients without ventilation, but only 374 (22%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The mean duration of ventilation was 13·5 days (SD 12·1). In-hospital mortality was 22% overall (2229 of 10 021), with wide variation between patients without ventilation (1323 [16%] of 8294) and with ventilation (906 [53%] of 1727; 65 [45%] of 145 for non-invasive ventilation only, 70 [50%] of 141 for non-invasive ventilation failure, and 696 [53%] of 1318 for invasive mechanical ventilation). In-hospital mortality in ventilated patients requiring dialysis was 73% (342 of 469). In-hospital mortality for patients with ventilation by age ranged from 28% (117 of 422) in patients aged 18–59 years to 72% (280 of 388) in patients aged 80 years or older. Interpretation In the German health-care system, in which hospital capacities have not been overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality has been high for patients receiving mechanical ventilation, p...

This review demonstrates that incorrect DPI technique with established DPIs is common among patients with asthma and COPD, and suggests that poor inhalation technique has detrimental consequences for clinical efficacy. Regular assessment and reinforcement of correct inhalation technique are considered by health professionals and caregivers to be an essential component of successful asthma management. Improvement of asthma and COPD management could be achieved by new DPIs that are easy to use correctly and are forgiving of poor inhalation technique, thus ensuring more successful drug delivery.

Although the principles of asthma management are well established in Europe, the available data indicate that asthma in patients is not well controlled. Many patients derive incomplete benefit from their inhaled medication because they do not use inhaler devices correctly and this may compromise asthma control. The Aerosol Drug Management Improvement Team (ADMIT), incorporating clinicians from the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and The Netherlands, reviewed published evidence to examine ways to improve the treatment of reversible airways disease in Europe. Data indicate that there is a clear need for specific training of patients in correct inhalation technique for the various devices currently available, and this should be repeated frequently to maintain correct inhalation technique. Devices which provide reassurance to patients and their physicians that inhalation is performed correctly should help to improve patient compliance and asthma control. Educational efforts should also focus on primary prescribers of inhaler devices. ADMIT recommends dissemination of information on the correct inhalation technique for each model of device by the use of an accessible dedicated literature base or website which would enable to match the appropriate inhaler to the individual patient. There is also a need for standardisation of prescribing practices throughout Europe. Regular checking of inhalation technique by prescribers is crucial as correct inhalation is one of the keystones of successful asthma management.

No abstract

Against the background of the pandemic caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the German Respiratory Society has appointed experts to develop therapy strategies for CO-VID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Here we present key position statements including observations about the pathophysiology of (ARF). In terms of the pathophysiology of pulmonary infection with SARS-CoV-2, COV-ID-19 can be divided into 3 phases. Pulmonary damage in advanced COVID-19 often differs from the known changes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Two types (type L and type H) are differentiated, corresponding to early-and late-stage lung damage. This differentiation should be taken into consideration in the respiratory support of ARF. The assessment of the extent of ARF should be based on arterial or This is the translation of a German article "Positionspapier zur praktischen Umsetzung der apparativen Differenzialtherapie der akuten respiratorischen Insuffizienz bei COVID-19" by Pfeifer et al. [Pneumologie. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2020]. Translated by: Dipl. Dol. G. M. Mundt.

ObjectivesThe long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrronium (NVA237) has recently been approved as a once-daily treatment for COPD. The objectives of this study were to determine the dose delivery characteristics of glycopyrronium and compare them with those of the LAMA tiotropium, both delivered by their respective capsule-based dry-powder inhalers (DPIs).Research design and methodsSeven inhalation profiles derived from patients with moderate and severe COPD were reproduced to determine the aerodynamic particle size distribution of glycopyrronium delivered by the Breezhaler device, a low-resistance DPI†Breezhaler is a registered trade name of Novartis Pharma AG, Basel. Theoretical respiratory tract deposition was estimated using a semi-empirical model for healthy lungs. These results were compared with those of tiotropium delivered by the high-resistance HandiHaler‡HandiHaler is a registered trade name of Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany device obtained in a previous study using the same set of inhalation profiles. Study limitations are that fine particle fraction (FPF) and particle size are generated by the inhalers are not a direct measure of lung deposition, and the bronchodilator effect of inhaled drugs does not depend solely upon the percentage of the total dose that reaches the lung.ResultsThe mean FPF (≤4.7 µm) was 42.6% of the nominal dose (which refers to the content of the capsule) for glycopyrronium and 9.8% for tiotropium while the mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) was 2.8 µm and 3.9 µm for glycopyrronium and tiotropium, respectively. The mean estimated intrathoracic drug deposition as a percentage of the mean dose delivered to the Next Generation Impactor was 39% for glycopyrronium and 22% for tiotropium.ConclusionsThe glycopyrronium capsule-based DPI delivered a higher FPF and greater and more consistent intrathoracic deposition irrespective of age and disease severity compared to the tiotropium capsule-based DPI, suggesting that it may be suitable for use by patients with a wide range of COPD severities.

The aim of these studies was to compare the efficacy and the safety of tiotropium, delivered via Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI), a novel multi-dose, propellant-free inhaler, with ipratropium pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Two identical, 12-week, multi-national, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled studies were performed. COPD patients were randomized to treatment with either inhaled tiotropium (5 or 10 microg) via Respimat SMI administered once daily, ipratropium (36 microg) pMDI QID or placebo. The primary endpoint was the mean trough forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) response after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included other spirometry measures and rescue medication use. A total of 719 patients were randomized; the majority were male (69%) with a mean pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) (% predicted) of 40.7%. The mean treatment differences between tiotropium 5 and 10 microg and placebo for the primary endpoint (mean trough FEV(1) response at week 12) were 0.118 and 0.149L, respectively (both P<0.0001). Treatment differences between tiotropium 5 and 10 microg and ipratropium were 0.064L (P=0.006) and 0.095L (P<0.0001). The increases in peak FEV(1), FEV(1) AUC((0-6h)) and FVC for both tiotropium doses were statistically superior to placebo (P<0.01) and higher than ipratropium. All active treatments significantly reduced the rescue medication use compared with placebo, but only tiotropium 10 microg was statistically superior to ipratropium (P=0.04). The incidence of adverse events was comparable across groups. In conclusion, tiotropium 5 and 10 microg daily, delivered via Respimat SMI, significantly improved lung function compared with ipratropium pMDI and placebo.

Background: Inhaler mishandling is a common issue among patients suffering from asthma and is associated with poor clinical outcomes and greater consumption of health-care resources. Ease of use can improve inhaler technique and, possibly, patients' preference for their inhaler device, which in turn may lead to better adherence to therapy. Methods: This study investigated usability characteristics of NEXThaler Ò versus two other dry powder inhalers (DPIs; Diskus Ò and Turbuhaler