Systematic Review on the Efficacy of Fexofenadine in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

Rationale: Evidence-based medicine represents the effort to highlight the best intervention for patients, clinicians, and policy makers, each from their respective viewpoint, to solve a particular health condition. According to a recently diffused grading system of evidence and recommendations for medical interventions, efficacy and safety represent 2 of the most important features to consider, and data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is the strongest supporting demonstration. Fexofenadine has been used for its efficacy and safety in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) for many years although no meta-analyses supporting its use currently exist. The aim of this study is to assess for the first time the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in the treatment of AR by means of a meta-analytic analysis of existing RCTs. Since specific evidence should be provided to address recommendations in a pediatric population, the quality of the estimates of this subgroup analysis is assessed. Methods: All double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials assessing the efficacy of fexofenadine in AR were searched for in OVID, Medline, and Embase databases up to December 2007. Outcomes were extracted from original articles; when this information was not available, the authors of each trial were contacted. Some graphics were digitalized. The RevMan 5 program was used to perform the analysis. GradePro 3.2.2 was used to assess the quality of the evidence for a pediatric population. Results: Of 2,152 identified articles, 20 were potentially relevant trials. Eight studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The main reasons for exclusion were: unnatural exposure, strong study limitations, an atypical outcome measurement, a design for other outcomes, and not being a placebo-controlled, single-blind study. Seven trials investigated a mixed population of adults and children, 1 trial investigated only children, and 1 trial only adults. In 1,833 patients receiving fexofenadine (1,699 placebo), a significant reduction of the daily reflective total symptom scores (TSS) (SMD –0.42; 95% CI –0.49 to –0.35, p < 0.00001) was found. Positive results were also found for morning instantaneous TSS and individual nasal symptom scores (sneezing, rhinorrhea, itching, and congestion). The safety analysis did not show a significant difference in reported adverse events (AE) between the active and placebo treatment groups (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.87–1.22, p = 0.75). A very low heterogeneity between the studies was detected, so a fixed-effects model was used. The mean quality level of the included trials was medium. Specific information for a pediatric population may be assumed with a moderate quality of evidence from only 1 study and with a low quality of evidence, mainly due to indirectness, from the others. Conclusions: This study has 5 major strengths: it represents the first attempt to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in the treatment of AR by means of a meta-analysis of RCTs; there was consistency between positive results in terms of efficacy in TSS and in individual symptoms; a large population was studied; there was an irrelevant interstudy heterogeneity, and the AE frequency was similar in both groups. All of these values encourage the recommendation of fexofenadine for AR. Further research focused on the benefits and disadvantages for a pediatric population is needed

Increased expression of endothelial lipase in symptomatic and unstable carotid plaques

The aim of this study was to evaluate endothelial lipase (EL) protein expression in advanced human carotid artery plaques (HCAP) with regard to plaque (in)stability and the incidence of symptoms. HCAP were collected from 66 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The degree of plaque (in)stability was estimated by ultrasound and histology. In HCAP sections, EL expression was determined by immunostaining and the intensity was assessed on a semi-quantitative scale (low: <25%, high: >25% positive cells). Monocytes and macrophages in adjacent HCAP sections were stained with a CD163 specific antibody. High EL staining was more prevalent in histologically unstable plaques (in 33.3% of fibrous plaques, 50% of ulcerated non-complicated plaques and 79.2% of ulcerated complicated plaques; χ2 test, p = 0.004) and in the symptomatic group (70.8 vs. 42.9% in the asymptomatic group; χ2 test, p = 0.028). The majority of EL immunostaining was found in those HCAP regions exhibiting a strong CD163 immunostaining. EL in HCAP might be a marker and/or promoter of plaque instability and HCAP-related symptomatology

Role of Hepatic Lipase and Endothelial Lipase in High-Density Lipoprotein—Mediated Reverse Cholesterol Transport

Reverse cholesterol transport (RCT) constitutes a key part of the atheroprotective properties of high-density lipoproteins (HDL). Hepatic lipase (HL) and endothelial lipase (EL) are negative regulators of plasma HDL cholesterol levels. Although overexpression of EL decreases overall macrophage-to-feces RCT, knockout of both HL and EL leaves RCT essentially unaffected. With respect to important individual steps of RCT, current data on the role of EL and HL in cholesterol efflux are not conclusive. Both enzymes increase hepatic selective cholesterol uptake; however, this does not translate into altered biliary cholesterol secretion, which is regarded the final step of RCT. Also, the impact of HL and EL on atherosclerosis is not clear cut; rather it depends on respective experimental conditions and chosen models. More mechanistic insights into the diverse biological properties of these enzymes are therefore required to firmly establish EL and HL as targets for the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Effectiveness of cricoid pressure in preventing gastric aspiration during rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cricoid pressure is considered to be the gold standard means of preventing aspiration of gastric content during Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI). Its effectiveness has only been demonstrated in cadaveric studies and case reports. No randomised controlled trials comparing the incidence of gastric aspiration following emergent RSI, with or without cricoid pressure, have been performed. If improperly applied, cricoid pressure increases risk to the patient. The clinical significance of aspiration in the emergency department is unknown. This randomised controlled trial aims to; 1. Compare the application of the 'ideal" amount of force (30 - 40 newtons) to standard, unmeasured cricoid pressure and 2. Determine the incidence of clinically defined aspiration syndromes following RSI using a fibrinogen degradation assay previously described.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>212 patients requiring emergency intubation will be randomly allocated to either control (unmeasured cricoid pressure) or intervention groups (30 - 40 newtons cricoid pressure). The primary outcome is the rate of aspiration of gastric contents (determined by pepsin detection in the oropharyngeal/tracheal aspirates or treatment for aspiration pneumonitis up to 28 days post-intubation). Secondary outcomes are; correlation between aspiration and lowest pre-intubation Glasgow Coma Score, the relationship between detection of pepsin in trachea and development of aspiration syndromes, complications associated with intubation and grade of the view on direct largyngoscopy.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The benefits and risks of cricoid pressure application will be scrutinised by comparison of the incidence of aspiration and difficult or failed intubations in each group. The role of cricoid pressure in RSI in the emergency department and the use of a pepsin detection as a predictor of clinical aspiration will be evaluated.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611000587909.aspx">ACTRN12611000587909</a></p

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p &lt; 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice

A comprehensive overview of radioguided surgery using gamma detection probe technology

The concept of radioguided surgery, which was first developed some 60 years ago, involves the use of a radiation detection probe system for the intraoperative detection of radionuclides. The use of gamma detection probe technology in radioguided surgery has tremendously expanded and has evolved into what is now considered an established discipline within the practice of surgery, revolutionizing the surgical management of many malignancies, including breast cancer, melanoma, and colorectal cancer, as well as the surgical management of parathyroid disease. The impact of radioguided surgery on the surgical management of cancer patients includes providing vital and real-time information to the surgeon regarding the location and extent of disease, as well as regarding the assessment of surgical resection margins. Additionally, it has allowed the surgeon to minimize the surgical invasiveness of many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, while still maintaining maximum benefit to the cancer patient. In the current review, we have attempted to comprehensively evaluate the history, technical aspects, and clinical applications of radioguided surgery using gamma detection probe technology

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Clinical standards for the diagnosis and management of asthma in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to aid the diagnosis and management of asthma in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A panel of 52 experts in the field of asthma in LMICs participated in a two-stage Delphi process to establish and reach a consensus on the clinical standards. RESULTS: Eighteen clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, Every individual with symptoms and signs compatible with asthma should undergo a clinical assessment; Standard 2, In individuals (&gt;6 years) with a clinical assessment supportive of a diagnosis of asthma, a hand-held spirometry measurement should be used to confirm variable expiratory airflow limitation by demonstrating an acute response to a bronchodilator; Standard 3, Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry should be performed in individuals (&gt;6 years) to support diagnosis before treatment is commenced if there is diagnostic uncertainty; Standard 4, Individuals with an acute exacerbation of asthma and clinical signs of hypoxaemia or increased work of breathing should be given supplementary oxygen to maintain saturation at 94–98%; Standard 5, Inhaled short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABAs) should be used as an emergency reliever in individuals with asthma via an appropriate spacer device for metered-dose inhalers; Standard 6, Short-course oral corticosteroids should be administered in appropriate doses to individuals having moderate to severe acute asthma exacerbations (minimum 3–5 days); Standard 7, Individuals having a severe asthma exacerbation should receive emergency care, including oxygen therapy, systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators (e.g., salbutamol with or without ipratropium bromide) and a single dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate should be considered; Standard 8, All individuals with asthma should receive education about asthma and a personalised action plan; Standard 9, Inhaled medications (excluding dry-powder devices) should be administered via an appropriate spacer device in both adults and children. Children aged 0–3 years will require the spacer to be coupled to a face mask; Standard 10, Children aged &lt;5 years with asthma should receive a SABA as-needed at step 1 and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to cover periods of wheezing due to respiratory viral infections, and SABA as-needed and daily ICS from step 2 upwards; Standard 11, Children aged 6–11 years with asthma should receive an ICS taken whenever an inhaled SABA is used; Standard 12, All adolescents aged 12–18 years and adults with asthma should receive a combination inhaler (ICS and rapid onset of action long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] such as budesonide-formoterol), where available, to be used either as-needed (for mild asthma) or as both maintenance and reliever therapy, for moderate to severe asthma; Standard 13, Inhaled SABA alone for the management of patients aged &gt;12 years is not recommended as it is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It should only be used where there is no access to ICS. The following standards (14–18) are for settings where there is no access to inhaled medicines. Standard 14, Patients without access to corticosteroids should be provided with a single short course of emergency oral prednisolone; Standard 15, Oral SABA for symptomatic relief should be used only if no inhaled SABA is available. Adjust to the individual’s lowest beneficial dose to minimise adverse effects; Standard 16, Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) can be used as a preventive medication and is preferable to the use of long-term oral systemic corticosteroids; Standard 17, In exceptional circumstances, when there is a high risk of mortality from exacerbations, low-dose oral prednisolone daily or on alternate days may be considered on a case-by-case basis; Standard 18. Oral theophylline should be restricted for use in situations where it is the only bronchodilator treatment option available. CONCLUSION: These first consensus-based clinical standards for asthma management in LMICs are intended to help clinicians provide the most effective care for people in resource-limited settings