Search

Background: Anxiety disorders have high prevalence in people with intellectual disabilities. In populations without intellectual disabilities, cognitive behavioural therapy is a first line psychological therapy for these presentations. There is no existing review of the range of methods and outcomes from intervention studies in this area. Method: A systematic review was carried out following guidance in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Results: Nineteen studies were identified. The majority of reports were descriptive case studies; the most frequently described presentations were non-specific anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder; the most frequently described cognitive techniques were psycho-education and interventions directly aimed at thoughts and beliefs and most studies reported positive outcomes, although the better controlled studies tended to report less comprehensive impacts. Conclusions: A range of presentations have been described although the area is still at a primarily descriptive stage. We discuss intervention structures and approaches that require further research.

Background: Although rare, uterine sarcomas account for a high proportion of uterine cancer mortality. Treatment options and robust trial data are limited., Objectives: The TOURISM study (Treatment Outcomes in UteRIne SarcoMa) is a UK-wide study by the National Oncology Trainees Collaborative for Healthcare Research which aimed to characterise this patient cohort., Design: A retrospective descriptive cohort study. Patients with carcinosarcomas/mixed Mullerian tumours, non-uterine gynaecological sarcomas and uterine metastases were excluded. Routine clinical data, including general patient demographics, diagnosis, treatment and outcomes, were collated and pseudonymised., Setting: Patients diagnosed with uterine sarcoma in the UK National Health Service between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2017 were identified from electronic records., Participants: A total of 406 patients from eight centres were eligible for inclusion., Results: The median age at diagnosis was 56 years, with leiomyosarcoma the most common diagnosis (54.4%). The majority (57.9%) were diagnosed at the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I, with 19.7% diagnosed at stage IV. Nearly half (45.2%) of the patients received at least one line of chemotherapy, of which most (81.0%) received doxorubicin first-line. In the stage I group 7.4% received adjuvant chemotherapy and 15.0% received adjuvant radiotherapy. Median overall survival was 37 months; however, survival varied significantly by stage at diagnosis (stage I: 105 months; stage II: 33 months; stage III: 19 months; stage IV: 14 months)., Conclusions: Our data highlight the diversity in patient management in uterine sarcoma and a marked survival advantage for patients diagnosed with stage I disease. These data highlight the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and describe real-world trends in systemic therapies, radiotherapy and surgical treatment in this rare cancer type., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MAB: consultancy: Servier. Honoraria: Servier, Ipsen, AZ, BMS, MSD. Travel: AZ, Ipsen, Servier. ALS: consultancy: AZ, Eisai, MSD, GSK. Speaker fees: Eisai, MSD, GSK. Travel: MSD. The other authors did not declare any conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer., Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program., Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization., Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Purpose: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction, and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer predicting severe disease and build a decision support online tool, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET)., Methods: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24 hours), admission (≥ 24 hours inpatient), oxygen (O 2 ) requirement, and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcomes were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest combined with Shapley Additive Explanations. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Finally, the CORONET model was validated on an external cohort., Results: The model development data set comprised 920 patients, with median age 70 (range 5-99) years, 56% males, 44% females, and 81% solid versus 19% hematologic cancers. In derivation, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 v 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation (n = 282 patients), the performance of CORONET varied depending on the country cohort. CORONET cutoffs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died (94% and 98% in validation, respectively). The specificity for mortality prediction was 92% and 83% in derivation and validation, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations revealed that National Early Warning Score 2, C-reactive protein, and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation., Conclusion: CORONET, a decision support tool validated in health care systems worldwide, can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Rebecca J. LeeSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst) Rohan ShottonHonoraria: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Laurence AlbigesConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Roche (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Merck (Inst), MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bellerophon Therapeutics (Inst)Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS, MSD Dirk ArnoldEmployment: Asklepios KlinikenHonoraria: Bayer, Merck Serono, Roche/Genentech, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dome, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Pierre Fabre, IpsenConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Merck Serono, Biocompatibles, Terumo, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Oncolytics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boston ScientificUncompensated Relationships: ESMO Council, ESMO Journals (Ann Oncol, ESMO Open), German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology, German Cancer Society, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Kathryn BanfillStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche (I)Honoraria: AstraZeneca Mark BaxterHonoraria: IpsenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen Fabrice BarlesiHonoraria: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Takeda, Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Mirati TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Takeda, Bayer, Mirati TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Takeda (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, MSD Oncology Benjamin BesseResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Onxeo (Inst), Inivata (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Celgene (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Cristal Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), OSE Immunotherapeutics (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Tolero Pharmaceuticals (Inst), 4D Pharma (Inst), Aptitude Health (Inst), Cergentis (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Genzyme (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Turning Point Therapeutics (Inst), Eisai (Inst) Antonio CallesHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Bayer, Takeda, Sanofi/RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, Igen Biotech, Sanofi/RegeneronResearch Funding: MSD Oncology Ellen CopsonHonoraria: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Lilly, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, NanoString Technologies, Pfizer, Sanofi/Aventis, RocheSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi/AventisResearch Funding: SECA, AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca Adina E. CroitoruConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Pfizer, MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Merck (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, ServierUncompensated Relationships: Lilly, Roche, Bayer, Pfizer, Sanofi Leonie EastlakeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier Paul FitzpatrickStock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca/MedImmuneResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst)Other Relationship: Pistoia Alliance, EHDEN IMI project Henrik FrederiksenResearch Funding: AbbVie (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Sanofi (Inst) Hannah FrostResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Sarju GanatraExpert Testimony: Haymarket Medical EducationTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Haymarket Medical Education Andreas GlenthøjHonoraria: Novo NordiskConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Bluebird Bio, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, AgiosResearch Funding: Sanofi, Saniona A/STravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Agios Fabio GomesHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Roche Donna M. GrahamConsulting or Advisory Role: Clinigen GroupSpeakers' Bureau: Cancer Drug Development ForumResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst) Kevin HarringtonHonoraria: Arch Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BMS (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD (Inst), Oncolys BioPharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Inzen Therapeutics (Inst), Codiak Biosciences (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: Arch Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BMS (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD (Inst), Oncolys BioPharma (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Inzen Therapeutics (Inst)Speakers' Bureau: BMS (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), MSD (Inst)Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst) Lasse H. JakobsenHonoraria: Takeda, Roche Khurum KhanHonoraria: ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer Health Christophe MassardConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm Group, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, ORION, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Blueprint Medicines, Innate Pharma, PharmaMar, Faron Pharmaceuticals Olivier MichielinConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, NeraCare GmbHExpert Testimony: Bristol Myers SquibbTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Anne C. MosenthalHonoraria: Springer Nature Berta ObispoHonoraria: Sanofi, Lilly, Angelini, LEO Pharma, RoviConsulting or Advisory Role: Rovi George PentheroudakisHonoraria: Roche, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, AmgenResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, MSD, Roche, Amgen, BMS Solange PetersHonoraria: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), MSD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Medscape (Inst), Prime Oncology (Inst), RMEI Medical Education (Inst), Research to Practice (Inst), PER (Inst), Imedex (Inst), ecancer (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Biocartis (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), Illumina (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Bioinvent (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Vaccibody (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst)Research Funding: Roche (Inst), BMS (Inst), MSD (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Illumina (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Biodesix (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst), Phosplatin Therapeutics (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Sanofi, IncyteUncompensated Relationships: Journal of Thoracic Oncology, ESMO, European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP), Annals of Oncology (I) Kimberly Rieger-ChristResearch Funding: Veracyte, Ravel, Grail, Exact Sciences, Nucleix Timothy RobinsonTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly Emanuela RomanoConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst)Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche Michael RoweHonoraria: MSDSpeakers' Bureau: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Pharma Anne ThomasConsulting or Advisory Role: BMSSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers SquibbExpert Testimony: BMS Lance TurtleSpeakers' Bureau: Eisai (Inst) David ViñalSpeakers' Bureau: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Caroline WilsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer Carlo PalmieriHonoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Pfizer, Daiichi-SankyoTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Donal LandersEmployment: AstraZeneca, AthenexLeadership: DeLondra OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: DeLondra OncologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Timothy CooksleyHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation Caroline DiveConsulting or Advisory Role: Biocartis, Merck, AstraZeneca, GRAIL, Boehringer IngelheimResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bioven, Amgen, Carrick Therapeutics, Merck, Taiho Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Novartis, Celgene, Epigene Therapeutics, Angle, Menarini, Clearbridge Biomedics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, NeoMed André FreitasResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst) Anne C. ArmstrongStock and Other Ownership Interests: AstraZeneca (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Gilead Sciences, MSDResearch Funding: AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences, MSD OncologyNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Pembrolizumab is an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor with a dosing schedule of 200 mg 3 weekly (q3w). Dose of 400 mg 6 weekly (q6w) was approved based on simulation of dose/exposure relationships and predicted no difference in toxicity. We present real-world comparative toxicity data. Patients receiving pembrolizumab for any indication between March and December 2019 were included across 3 regional centers. Toxicity data were collected retrospectively using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v5.0. Clinically significant immune-related adverse events (CSirAE) were defined as immune-related events and grade ≥3 rash. Data were analyzed using incidence (Poisson distribution) and incidence ratio. Overall, 63 patients started on q6w and 110 patients received q3w. There were 3 (q6w) and 8 (q3w) grade 3-5 CSirAE and 13 (q6w) and 31 (q3w) grade 1-2 CSirAE. The incidence of grade 3-5 CSirAE was 0.77 (95% confidence interval: 0.16-2.24) per 100 patient-months in q6w and 0.68 (95% confidence interval: 0.29-1.34) per 100 patient-months in q3w (incidence ratio of 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.19-4.70). Low-grade toxicity was common (fatigue, pruritus, rash; q6w 46%, q3w 42%). Incidence of CSirAEs was low but low-grade toxicity was common. Despite a limited number of events, there is the suggestion that the q6w schedule has a similar toxicity profile to q3w and therefore consideration should be given to the reduced burden to patients and health services when deciding treatment., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the effects on transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (Ptco2) of high concentration and titrated oxygen therapy in medical inpatients with morbid obesity who were not selected for a pre-existing diagnosis of obesity hypoventilation syndrome., Design: A randomised, crossover trial undertaken between February and September 2015., Setting: Internal medicine service, Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand., Participants: 22 adult inpatients, aged 16 years or more, with a body mass index exceeding 40 kg/m 2 ., Interventions: Participants received in random order two 60-minute interventions, with a minimum 30-minute washout period between treatments: titrated oxygen therapy (oxygen delivered, if required, via nasal prongs to achieve peripheral oxygen saturation [Spo2] of 88-92%), and high concentration oxygen therapy (delivered via Hudson mask at 8 L/min, without regard to Spo2). Ptco2 and Spo2 were recorded at 10-minute intervals., Main Outcome Measure: Ptco2 at 60 minutes, adjusted for baseline., Results: Baseline Ptco2 was 45 mmHg or lower for 16 participants with full data (73%). The mean difference in Ptco2 between high concentration and titrated oxygen therapy at 60 minutes was 3.2 mmHg (95% CI, 1.3-5.2 mmHg; P = 0.002)., Conclusion: High concentration oxygen therapy increases Ptco2 in morbidly obese patients. Our findings support guidelines that advocate oxygen therapy, if required in patients with morbid obesity, be titrated to achieve a target Spo2 of 88-92%., Clinical Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12610000522011.

Background and Objective: Increased arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO 2 ) is an important complication of acute exacerbations of COPD. The effects of nasal high-flow cannulae (NHF) on PaCO 2 in patients with COPD exacerbations, and whether this therapy should be used in this clinical situation, are less certain. We aimed to investigate the effect of NHF on PaCO 2 in patients admitted to hospital with a COPD exacerbation., Methods: We performed a single-centre randomized controlled cross-over trial in 24 hospital inpatients with acute exacerbations of COPD receiving oxygen via standard nasal prongs (SNPs). Patients received both supplemental oxygen via NHF (35 L/min) and SNP for 30 min each, with oxygen titrated to maintain the patient's baseline oxygen saturation, measured by pulse oximetry (SpO 2 ). Interventions were administered in random order with a minimum 15-min washout between interventions. The primary outcome was difference in transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (PtCO 2 ) at 30 min adjusted for time zero., Results: The difference in PtCO 2 adjusted for time zero was lower after 30 min for NHF compared with SNP (-1.4 mm Hg (95% CI: -2.2 to -0.6), P = 0.001). There was no difference in SpO 2 at 30 min (-0.02% (95% CI: -0.8 to 0.7), P = 0.96). The reduction in respiratory rate for NHF at 30 min was not statistically significant (-2.0 breaths/min (95% CI: -4.5 to 0.4), P = 0.099)., Conclusion: Short-term use of NHF results in a small reduction in PtCO 2 compared with SNP in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD, but whether this is clinically significant is uncertain., (© 2017 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology.)

The purpose of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand guidelines is to provide simple, practical evidence-based recommendations for the acute use of oxygen in adults in clinical practice. The intended users are all health professionals responsible for the administration and/or monitoring of oxygen therapy in the management of acute medical patients in the community and hospital settings (excluding perioperative and intensive care patients), those responsible for the training of such health professionals, and both public and private health care organizations that deliver oxygen therapy., (© 2015 The Authors. Respirology published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of Asian Pacific Society of Respirology.)