Search

BackgroundPatients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions.ResultsIn the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p ConclusionsIn real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use. Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Background: Inhaled medications are central to treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), yet critical inhaler technique errors are made by up to 90% of patients. In the clinical research setting, recruitment of subjects with poor inhaler technique may give a false impression of both the benefits and the necessity of add-on treatments such as biologic therapies.Objective: To assess the frequency with which inhaler technique is assessed and reliably optimized before and during patient enrollment into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the efficacy of topical therapy, and the escalation of therapy for asthma and COPD.Methods: Systematic searches were conducted of PubMed and Embase for RCTs published in the past 10 years involving patients with a diagnosis of asthma or COPD undergoing escalation of baseline inhaled therapy (stepping up, changing, adding, switching, increasing, etc) or the introduction of biologic agents.Results: Searches highlighted 1,014 studies, 118 of which were eligible after the removal of duplicates as well as screening and full text review. Of these, only 14 (11.9%) included accessible information in the methods section or referred to such information in online supplements or protocols concerning assessment of participants’ inhaler technique. We therefore developed the proposed Best Practice Inhaler Technique Assessment and Reporting Checklist.Conclusions: Our study identifies a concerning lack of checking and correcting inhaler technique, or at least reporting that this was undertaken, before enrollment in asthma and COPD RCTs, which may affect the conclusions drawn. Mandating the use of a standardized checklist in RCT protocols and ensuring all published RCTs report checking and correcting inhaler technique before enrollment are important next steps.

Background Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of severe adult asthma patients eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult severe asthma patients from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance and hospital admissions. Results In the matched analysis (n=350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥ 4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/μL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p< 0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p< 0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics

Introduction Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with frequent exacerbations (ExCOPD) are commonly treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and are at risk of infections caused by potential pathogenic bacteria (PPB) including Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PsA). Objectives To investigate the association between the use of ICS and PsA infection among ExCOPD. Methods Case–control study with longitudinal follow-up that recruited ExCOPD after a hospitalisation due to exacerbation between 2012 and 2020. Patients with isolation of PsA (COPD-PsA) in sputum either during admission or follow-up were compared with those with other or no PPB. Clinical, functional characteristics, DDD, use of ICS and survival were evaluated. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors associated to PsA infection and mortality. Results 358 patients (78% male, mean age 73±9 years) were enrolled and followed up for a median of 4 years (IQR=3–8). 173 patients (48.3%) had at least a positive culture for PsA. COPD-PsA had more frequent exacerbations, more severe airflow limitation and higher mortality (69.4% vs 46.5%, p

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1 Claire McBrien,2 Bindhu Unni,3 Celeste M Porsbjerg,4 Mona Al-Ahmad,5 Christopher S Ambrose,6 Karin Dahl Assing,7 Anna von Bülow,4 John Busby,8 Borja G Cosio,9 J Mark FitzGerald,10 Esther Garcia Gil,11 Susanne Hansen,12 Liam G aHeaney,8 Mark Hew,13,14 David J Jackson,15,16 Maria Kallieri,17 Stelios Loukides,17 Njira L Lugogo,18 Andriana I Papaioannou,17 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,19 Wendy C Moore,20 Luis A Perez-de-Llano,21 Linda M Rasmussen,22 Johannes M Schmid,23 Salman Siddiqui,24 Marianna Alacqua,25 Trung N Tran,6 Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,26 John W Upham,27 Eileen Wang,28,29 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,3,30 Victoria A Carter,3,30 Isha Chaudhry,3,30 Neva Eleangovan,3,30 Ruth B Murray,3,30 Chris A Price,3,30 David B Price3,30,31 1UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 2Kingston Hospital, London, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait; 6AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 7Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 8UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 9Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 10The Centre for Lung Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, UBC, Vancouver, Canada; 11AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 12Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 14Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 15UK Severe Asthma Network andNational Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 16School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 17 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 18Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 19Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 20Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 21Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain; 22Allergy Clinic, Department of Dermato-Allergology, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 23University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark; 24University of Leicester, Department of Respiratory Sciences & NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory Theme), Leicester, UK; 25AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 26Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 27Diamantina Institute & PA-Southside Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 28Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 29Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 30Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 31Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06 Midview City, Singapore, 573969 Tel +65 3105 1489Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors.Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015– 2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018– 2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups.Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti–IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti–IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization.Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, prescribing, cohort study, management, international

Background: Clinical control in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been completely characterized. A proposal of clinical control criteria (CCC) has been recently defined and validated as a tool for determining control, but there is scarce information on patients with severe COPD. Objective: To evaluate clinical control in severe COPD using the CCC. Patients and Methods: The study design was observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study involving 4801 patients with severe COPD in Spain. Clinical control was defined according to clinical impact (dyspnea grade, use of rescue treatment in last week, sputum color, and daily physical activity) and stability (exacerbations in last 3 months and patient's perception about health status). Clinical control of COPD was alternatively evaluated with the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the presence of exacerbations in the last 3 months. Results: According to CCC, 61.0% of patients had low clinical impact, and 41.4% showed clinical stability. Overall, 29.9% of patients had both low clinical impact and stability (controlled), whereas 70.1% showed high clinical impact and/or no clinical stability (non-controlled). COPD control was also assessed by using only the definition of CAT, The study described within the paper was sponsored by Chiesi Espana SAU.

BACKGROUND Hospital workers have been the most frequently and severely affected professional group during the COVID-19 pandemic, and have a big impact on transmission. In this context, innovative tools are required to measure the symptoms compatible with COVID-19, the spread of infection, and testing capabilities within hospitals in real time. OBJECTIVE We aimed to develop and test an effective and user-friendly tool to identify and track symptoms compatible with COVID-19 in hospital workers. METHODS We developed and pilot tested Hospital Epidemics Tracker (HEpiTracker), a newly designed app to track the spread of COVID-19 among hospital workers. Hospital staff in 9 hospital centers across 5 Spanish regions (Andalusia, Balearics, Catalonia, Galicia, and Madrid) were invited to download the app on their phones and to register their daily body temperature, COVID-19–compatible symptoms, and general health score, as well as any polymerase chain reaction and serological test results. RESULTS A total of 477 hospital staff participated in the study between April 8 and June 2, 2020. Of note, both health-related (n=329) and non–health-related (n=148) professionals participated in the study; over two-thirds of participants (68.8%) were health workers (43.4% physicians and 25.4% nurses), while the proportion of non–health-related workers by center ranged from 40% to 85%. Most participants were female (n=323, 67.5%), with a mean age of 45.4 years (SD 10.6). Regarding smoking habits, 13.0% and 34.2% of participants were current or former smokers, respectively. The daily reporting of symptoms was highly variable across participating hospitals; although we observed a decline in adherence after an initial participation peak in some hospitals, other sites were characterized by low participation rates throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS HEpiTracker is an already available tool to monitor COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in hospital workers. This tool has already been tested in real conditions. HEpiTracker is available in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. It has the potential to become a customized asset to be used in future COVID-19 pandemic waves and other environments. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04326400; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04326400

Background Prediction models and prognostic scores have been increasingly popular in both clinical practice and clinical research settings, for example to aid in risk-based decision making or control for confounding. In many medical fields, a large number of prognostic scores are available, but practitioners may find it difficult to choose between them due to lack of external validation as well as lack of comparisons between them. Methods Borrowing methodology from network meta-analysis, we describe an approach to Multiple Score Comparison meta-analysis (MSC) which permits concurrent external validation and comparisons of prognostic scores using individual patient data (IPD) arising from a large-scale international collaboration. We describe the challenges in adapting network meta-analysis to the MSC setting, for instance the need to explicitly include correlations between the scores on a cohort level, and how to deal with many multi-score studies. We propose first using IPD to make cohort-level aggregate discrimination or calibration scores, comparing all to a common comparator. Then, standard network meta-analysis techniques can be applied, taking care to consider correlation structures in cohorts with multiple scores. Transitivity, consistency and heterogeneity are also examined. Results We provide a clinical application, comparing prognostic scores for 3-year mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using data from a large-scale collaborative initiative. We focus on the discriminative properties of the prognostic scores. Our results show clear differences in performance, with ADO and eBODE showing higher discrimination with respect to mortality than other considered scores. The assumptions of transitivity and local and global consistency were not violated. Heterogeneity was small. Conclusions We applied a network meta-analytic methodology to externally validate and concurrently compare the prognostic properties of clinical scores. Our large-scale external validation indicates that the scores with the best discriminative properties to predict 3 year mortality in patients with COPD are ADO and eBODE. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0433-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Asthma-COPD ovelap (ACO) is an umbrella term that encompasses patients with COPD and eosinophilic inflammation (e-COPD) and smoking asthmatics with non-fully reversible airflow obstruction (SA). We compared the clinical characteristics and the inflammatory profile of e-COPD and SA. Patients classified as e-COPD were older and more often male and showed significantly impaired pulmonary function (likely explained by a heavier smoking habit). On the contrary, SA had more atopic features, more reversibility of airflow obstruction and higher IgE levels. The concentrations of IL-5, IL-13, IL-8, IL-6, TNF-alpha, IL17 in serum were similar between the 2 groups. However, Th2-related biomarkers (periostin, FeNO and blood eosinophils) shower higher median values in e-COPD patients. Our findings reinforce the notion that ACO is a heterogeneous disorder and, as a consequence, it might be unacceptable to offer the same treatment for two related but different conditions., The project was endorsed by the COPD and Asthma Research Board (PII de EPOC y asma) of the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR). The project was partially funded by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (FIS 15/01263) and by an unrestricted grant from Chiesi Espana S.A.U.

Background and Aims A recent study evaluated the use of spirometry in primary (PC) and secondary care (SC) in Spain. In the present study, we aimed to analyze the determinants of use of the bronchodilator test (BDT) with a special emphasis in the type of drugs used, waiting times and positive test criteria followed. Methods Cross-sectional trial surveying 605 PC and 200 SC centers in Spain. Regarding the BDT, variables collected were: name of the drugs available for the BDT, name of the drug normally used, number of inhalations, waiting time for the second spirometry, staff involved and criteria used for a positive test. Adherence to actual guidelines according to five quality criteria was evaluated. Results Although a range of short-acting bronchodilators were used, only 25.9% of centers used a correct dose. The waiting time was correct in 63.7% and 72.8% of PC and SC, respectively (P = 0.023). A threshold higher than 12% and 200 mL to consider a positive test was fulfilled in 55.8% and 52.8% of PC and SC, respectively. Altogether, only 7.6% of PC and 6.0% of SC fulfilled all five quality criteria. Factors identified to be associated with this fulfillment were the number of spirometries per week, not being conducted by a nurse, periodical retraining, training for interpreting and daily calibration. Conclusion The present study identifies determinants of the performance of the BDT in Spain identifying strengths and weaknesses. Health managers should use this information to improve the quality of spirometries in chronic respiratory patients.

Background: To validate the Test of Adherence to Inhalers' (TAI), a 12-item questionnaire designed to assess the adherence to inhalers in patients with COPD or asthma. Methods: A total of 1009 patients with asthma or COPD participated in a cross-sectional multicenter study. Patients with electronic adherence 80% were defined as adherents. Construct validity, internal validity, and criterion validity were evaluated. Self-reported adherence was compared with the Morisky-Green questionnaire. Results: Factor analysis study demonstrated two factors, factor 1 was coincident with TAI patient domain (items 1 to 10) and factor 2 with TAI health-care professional domain (items 11 and 12). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.860 and the test-retest reliability 0.883. TAI scores correlated with electronic adherence (=0.293, p=0.01). According to the best cut-off for 10 items (score 50, area under the ROC curve 0.7), 569 (62.5%) patients were classified as non-adherents. The non-adherence behavior pattern was: erratic 527 (57.9%), deliberate 375 (41.2%), and unwitting 242 (26.6%) patients. As compared to Morisky-Green test, TAI showed better psychometric properties. Conclusions: The TAI is a reliable and homogeneous questionnaire to identify easily non-adherence and to classify from a clinical perspective the barriers related to the use of inhalers in asthma and COPD., This study was funded by the Integrated Research Asthma Program (PII Asthma) together with the Integrated Research COPD Program (PII COPD) of the Spanish Respiratory Society (SEPAR). Unconditional funding was provided by Chiesi, who did not participate in data collection, interpretation of the results, or writing of the manuscript.

Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) is a novel technique that provides in vivo microscopic imaging of the distal lung. We hypothesized that the intra-alveolar exudates characterizing Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) can be identified by pCLE in vivo and help in its diagnosis.We aimed to assess the usefulness of pCLE for the in vivo diagnosis of PJP.Thirty-two human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients with new pulmonary infiltrates and fever were studied using pCLE. Real-time alveolar images were recorded during the bronchoscopy for off-line analysis by two independent observers. Bronchoalveolar lavage samples were also obtained and processed for microbiology and cytological evaluation, including Grocott stain for P. jirovecii. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of pCLE for the diagnosis of PJP in these patients were calculated.Fourteen patients (44%) were confirmed to have PJP by cultures/staining. pCLE was well tolerated in all patients. It identified intra-alveolar exudates in 13 of them (41%), where 11 of them (85%) had positive Grocott stain for P. jirovecci, with 93% concordance between observers. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of pCLE for the diagnosis of PJP were 79, 89, 85 and 84%, respectively. In smokers, these figures improved to be 92, 88, 85 and 94%.pCLE is a quick and safe procedure for on-site diagnosis of PJP in HIV+ patients with excellent specificity and sensitivity mainly in smokers.

Eduardo Márquez-Martín,1 Joan B Soriano,2 Myriam Calle Rubio,3 Jose Luis Lopez-Campos1,4 On behalf of the 3E project 1Unidad Médico-Quirúrgica de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, 2Instituto de Investigación Hospital Universitario de la Princesa (IISP), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cátedra UAM-Linde, 3Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, 4Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Instituto de Salud CarlosIII, Madrid, Spain Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability and practice of spirometry, training of technicians, and spirometry features in primary care centers in Spain, evaluating those located in a rural environment against those in urban areas.Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in 2012 by a telephone survey in 970 primary health care centers in Spain. The centers were divided into rural or urban depending on the catchment population. The survey contacted technicians in charge of spirometry and consisted of 36 questions related to the test that included the following topics: center resources, training doctors and technicians, using the spirometer, bronchodilator test, and the availability of spirometry and maintenance.Results: Although the sample size was achieved in both settings, rural centers (RCs) gave a lower response rate than urban centers (UCs). The number of centers without spirometry in rural areas doubled those in the urban areas. Most centers had between one and two spirometers. However, the number of spirometry tests per week was significantly lower in RCs than in UCs (4 [4.1%] vs 6.9 [5.7%], P