Search

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a worldwide rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients fed enterally and parenterally at home are exposed to the same risk of infection as the general population, but more prone to complications than others. Therefore the guidance for care-givers and care-takers of these patients is needed., Methods: The literature search identified no relevant systematic reviews or studies on the subject. Therefore a panel of 21 experts from 13 home medical nutrition (HMN) centres in Poland was formed. Twenty-three key issues relevant to the management of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 in the HMN settings were identified and discussed. Some statements diverge from the available nutrition, surgical or ICU guidelines, some are based on the best available experience. Each topic was discussed and assessed during two Delphi rounds subsequently. Statements were graded strong or weak based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility., Results: the panel issued 23 statements, all of them were graded strong. Two scored 85.71% agreement, eleven 95.23%, and ten 100%. The topics were: infection control, enrolment to HMN, logistics and patient information., Conclusions: the position paper present pragmatic statements for HMN to be implemented in places without existing protocols for SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. They represent the state of knowledge available at the moment and may change should new evidence occurs., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is controversy about whether therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) modifies the natural history of COPD, characterized by an accelerated decline in FEV(1)., Methods: The Inhaled Steroids Effect Evaluation in COPD (ISEEC) study is a pooled study of patient-level data from seven long-term randomized controlled trials of ICS vs placebo lasting >/= 12 months in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. We have previously reported a survival benefit for ICS therapy in COPD patients using ISEEC data. We aimed to determine whether the regular use of ICSs vs placebo improves FEV(1) decline in COPD patients, and whether this relationship is modified by gender and smoking., Results: There were 3,911 randomized participants (29.2% female) in this analysis. In the first 6 months after randomization, ICS use was associated with a significant mean (+/- SE) relative increase in FEV(1) of 2.42 +/- 0.19% compared with placebo (p < 0.01), which is quantifiable in absolute terms as 42 mL in men and 29 mL in women over 6 months. From 6 to 36 months, there was no significant difference between placebo and ICS therapy in terms of FEV(1) decline (-0.01 +/- 0.09%; p = 0.86). The initial treatment effect was dependent on smoking status and gender. Smokers who continued to smoke had a smaller increase in FEV(1) during the first 6 months than did ex-smokers. Female ex-smokers had a larger increase in FEV(1) with ICS therapy than did male ex-smokers., Conclusions: We conclude that in COPD in the first 6 months of treatment, ICS therapy is more effective in ex-smokers than in current smokers with COPD in improving lung function, and women may have a bigger response to ICSs than men. However, it seems that after 6 months, ICS therapy does not modify the decline in FEV(1) among those who completed these randomized clinical trials.