No abstract

No abstract

The implications of boosting Omalizumab treatment (OT) in patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) remain unclear. The study aimed to explore and compare the 12-month effectiveness between continuous, at least 10-month OT (continuation group) and four-month boost of Omalizumab (boost group) in adult patients with SAA. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were collected for further analysis. Of all participants (n = 124), a significant reduction in annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.8 ± 1.5, follow-up = 0.5 ± 1.0, p = 0.047 *) and improvement in small airway ventilation as evaluated by forced expiratory flow at 25–75% (baseline = 55.1 ± 11.1%, follow-up = 59.4 ± 8.4%, p < 0.001 *) were found in the continuation group (n = 110). By contrast, the boost group (n = 14) had significantly increased annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.7 ± 1.4, follow-up = 2.9 ± 3.6, p = 0.031 *) and impaired small airway function (baseline = 55.3 ± 12.9, follow-up = 52.1 ± 12.5, p = 0.026 *). Furthermore, the continuation group rather than the boost group had significant decreases in the frequency of oral corticosteroid (OCS) use as controllers (baseline = 32.7%, follow-up = 20.0%, p = 0.047 *; baseline = 50.0%, follow-up = 21.4%, p = 0.237, respectively) and OCS maintenance dose (mg/month) (baseline = 85.9 ± 180.8, follow-up = 45.8 ± 106.6, p = 0.020 *; baseline = 171.4 ± 221.5, follow-up = 50.0 ± 104.3, p = 0.064, respectively), and increases in asthma control test scores (baseline = 16.0 ± 3.0, follow-up = 19.8 ± 4.4, p < 0.001 *; baseline = 14.6 ± 3.8, follow-up = 19.7 ± 4.7, p = 0.050, respectively). Continuous OT would be beneficial for adult patients with SAA, while boost of Omalizumab would worsen their long-term outcomes.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prognostic value of the Prehospital Index (PHI) for hospitalized patients with acute trauma.Materials and methodsPHI score and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) were determined in 1,802 hospitalized patients with acute trauma. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the PHI and ISS in subgroups, and corresponding prediction indicators were calculated.ResultsThere were significant differences in PHI score and ISS between the survival group and the death group (Z=2.674, P=0.007). The area under the ROC curve was 0.871 (95% CI 0.855–0.886) for PHI score and 0.792 (95% CI 0.773–0.811) for ISS. Optimal cutoff points to determine the risk of critical illness were PHI ≥4 and ISS ≥22. The sensitivity of the PHI was superior to the ISS (χ2=6.975, P=0.008), but the specificity and the accuracy of the PHI and ISS showed no significant difference (P>0.05).ConclusionThe PHI is valuable in prognostic prediction of hospitalized patients with acute trauma, and it is superior to the ISS. The PHI has such advantages as being simple in operation, easy to learn, capable of reflecting conditions timely and reliably, and suitable for dynamic evaluation and screening for critical patients with trauma.