RESUMEN
Airway deposition of aerosol drugs is highly dependent on the breathing manoeuvre of the patients. Though incorrect exhalation before the inhalation of the drug is one of the most common mistakes, its effect on the rest of the manoeuvre and on the airway deposition distribution of aerosol drugs is not explored in the open literature. The aim of the present work was to conduct inhalation experiments using six dry powder inhalers in order to quantify the effect of the degree of lung emptying on the inhalation time, inhaled volume and peak inhalation flow. Another goal of the research was to determine the effect of the exhalation on the aerodynamic properties of the drugs emitted by the same inhalers. According to the measurements, deep exhalation before drug inhalation increased the volume of the inhaled air and the average and maximum values of the inhalation flow rate, but the extent of the increase was patient and inhaler specific. For different inhalers, the mean value of the relative increase in peak inhalation flow due to forceful exhalation was between 15.3 and 38.4% (min: Easyhaler®, max: Breezhaler®), compared to the case of normal (tidal) exhalation before the drug inhalation. The relative increase in the inhaled volume was between 36.4 and 57.1% (min: NEXThaler®, max: Turbuhaler®). By the same token, forceful exhalation resulted in higher emitted doses and smaller emitted particles, depending on the individual breathing ability of the patient, the inhalation device and the drug metered in it. The relative increase in the emitted dose varied between 0.2 and 8.0% (min: Foster® NEXThaler®, max: Bufomix® Easyhaler®), while the relative enhancement of fine particle dose ranged between 1.9 and 30.8% (min: Foster® NEXThaler®, max: Symbicort® Turbuhaler®), depending on the inhaler. All these effects and parameter values point toward higher airway doses due to forceful exhalation before the inhalation of the drug. At the same time, the present findings highlight the necessity of proper patient education on the importance of lung emptying, but also the importance of patient-specific inhaler-drug pair choice in the future.
RESUMEN
An 81-year-old woman presented to our hospital due to an abnormal shadow on a chest X-ray and a 4-week-old persistent cough. Laboratory examination revealed increased serum eosinophils and immunoglobulin E. The Asthma Control Test (ACT) score and forced expiratory volume in 1 sec indicated airway obstruction. Chest computed tomography (CT) revealed mucoid impaction in the dilated left-lingular lobar bronchus. She was diagnosed with bronchial asthma and treated with a high-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2 agonist. Two months later, her mucoid impaction in the CT image worsened; moreover, bronchoscopy revealed the white mucus plug with Charcot-Leyden crystals and filamentous fungi. The patient was diagnosed with Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and treatment with 30 mg/day prednisolone was started. Both the blood eosinophil count and the chest image improved almost substantially, and the steroid was discontinued after a year. Sixteen months after cessation of prednisolone treatment, peripheral eosinophilia and mucoid impaction in the left B3b recurred. For the treatment of bronchial asthma and recurrent ABPA, administration of mepolizumab was initiated. Subsequently, although her peripheral eosinophils count decreased, chest CT showed expansion of the mucoid impaction and IgE increased despite mepolizumab treatment. Alternative subcutaneous injection therapy with dupilumab improved chest image, serum IgE level, and her ACT score. After changing from mepolizumab to dupilumab, her ABPA, asthma, and pulmonary function improved remarkably. This case illustrates the potential utility of dupilumab for ABPA without re-administration of oral prednisolone. Additional research is needed to identify an effective therapy for ABPA with asthma.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Data from the 2009 influenza pandemic suggested asthma might protect from severe disease in hospitalized patients. Asthma does not appear to increase risk for hospitalization or mortality with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to see if atopy actually protected those hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective chart review on all patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 over 2 months at a major adult and pediatric tertiary referral center hospital. Charts were evaluated for history of atopic disease, as were the need for ICU admission, requirement for supplemental oxygen and/or intubation, and in hospital mortality. RESULTS: No significant differences in outcomes for patients (n = 275) based on atopic disease were noted: ICU admission, 43% versus 44.7% (atopic versus no atopic disease, respectively; p = 0.84); supplemental oxygen use, 79.1% versus 73.6% (p = 0.36); intubation rate, 35.8% versus 36.5% (p = 0.92); and mortality rate, 13.4% versus 20.7% (p = 0.19). More patients with atopic disease had COPD listed as a diagnosis in their chart (38.8% versus 17.3%, p < 0.001). COPD was associated with an increased rate of ICU admission (aOR = 2.22 (1.15, 4.30) p = 0.02) and intubation (aOR = 2.05 (1.07, 3.92) p = 0.03). After adjusting for COPD, patients with atopic disease had a trend for reduced mortality (aOR 0.55 (0.23, 1.28), p = 0.16), but those with asthma did not (p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: Severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients does not differ based on atopic status. However, adjusting for presence of COPD led to a suggestion of possible reduced severity in patients with atopy but not asthma.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In April 2017 the Mexican Asthma Guidelines (GUIMA) were published. Before the launch, physicians' knowledge was explored related to key issues of the guideline. METHODS: A SurveyMonkey® survey was sent out to board-certified physicians of 5 medical specialties treating asthma. Replies were analyzed per specialty against the GUIMA evidence-based recommendations. We present the treatment part here. RESULTS: A total of 364 allergists (ALLERG), 161 pulmonologists (PULM), 34 ENTs, 239 pediatricians (PED) and 62 general practitioners (GPs) replied to the survey and 247-83-14-135-37 respectively finished it. Spirometry is not routinely indicated when asthma is very probable by ALLERG 54%, PULM 47%, ENT 39%, PED 65%, GP 64%. A fictitious case proposed to the physicians with intermittent asthma was erroneously treated with ICS by ALLERG 9%, PULM 11%, ENT 28%, PED 10%, GP 11%. The mild persistent case received mistakenly ICS-LABA by ALLERG 25%, PULM 26%, ENT 33%, PED 27%, GP 23%. The first-line option for moderate persistent asthma was ICS(median dose) instead of ICS(low)+LABA for ALLERG 29%, PULM 25%, ENT 17%, PED 27%, GP 23% and in severe asthma maintenance treatment PULM20%, ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 22-34% failed to indicate LABA. Concerning the guidelines' recommendation to use one inhaler for maintenance & rescue in moderate-to-severe asthma, PULM45%, ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 56-80% (p < 0.00001), erroneously indicated ICS-salmeterol could be used, instead of ICS-formoterol. Oral ß2 or theophylline are no longer recommended, but PULM 37% and ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 42-62% (p < 0.01) still indicate their use. In severe asthma 61-73% of physicians consider adding LTRA to the treatment; only PULM38%, OTHERS12-25% consider adding tiotropium (p < 0.001) and 3-17% consider adding omalizumab, both guideline recommended add-ons. As for asthma in pregnancy, most surveyed are not aware budesonide is the 1st line option ICS. Finally, 81-97% of the group-members recognized allergen immunotherapy, as a viable add-on, in line with GINA/GEMA/GUIMA recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: An online survey could detect knowledge-gaps related to asthma treatment. Interestingly, surveyed physicians tended to over-treat the milder asthma cases, thus clearly leaving room for cost-savings. Caution should be taken in the promotion of the SMART (single-maintenance-and-reliever-treatment) approach, which can only be done with ICS-formoterol. Many physicians opt for other combinations not apt for this approach. Among all surveyed specialties there is ample room for improvement in mild and severe asthma management.
RESUMEN
We described three severe asthmatics whose asthma symptoms were rapidly improved by benralizumab following favorable response to mepolizumab. Benralizumab-induced eosinophil depletion contributed to clinical improvement of severe asthma after mepolizumab-induced eosinophil reduction; thus, prior favorable responses to mepolizumab may predict benralizumab efficacy.