Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating adults with acute asthma in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by airways inflammation, constriction of airway smooth muscle and structural alteration of the airways that is at least partially reversible. Exacerbations of asthma can be life threatening and place a significant burden on healthcare services. Various guidelines have been published to inform management personnel in the acute setting; several include the use of a single bolus of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in cases that do not respond to first-line treatment. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains unclear, particularly in less severe cases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of IV MgSO4 in adults treated for acute asthma in the emergency department. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to 2 May 2014. We also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults treated in the emergency department (ED) for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, and at least two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, risk of bias and numerical data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and we contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios using study participants as the unit of analysis, and we analysed continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences using fixed-effect models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE and presented results in Summary of findings table 1.We carried out subgroup analyses on the primary outcome for baseline severity of exacerbations and whether or not ipratropium bromide was given as a co-medication. Unpublished data and studies at high risk of bias for blinding were removed from the main analysis in sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 2313 people with acute asthma to the comparisons of interest in this review.Most studies were double-blinded trials comparing a single infusion of 1.2 g or 2 g IV MgSO4 over 15 to 30 minutes versus a matching placebo. Eleven were conducted at a single centre, and three were multi-centre trials. Participants in almost all of the studies had already been given at least oxygen, nebulised short-acting beta2-agonists and IV corticosteroids in the ED; in some studies, investigators also administered ipratropium bromide. Ten studies included only adults, and four included both adults and children; these were included because the mean age of participants was over 18 years.Intravenous MgSO4 reduced hospital admissions compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92; I(2) = 28%, P value 0.18; n = 972; high-quality evidence). In absolute terms, this odds ratio translates into a reduction of seven hospital admissions for every 100 adults treated with IV MgSO4 (95% CI two to 13 fewer). The test for subgroup differences revealed no statistical heterogeneity between the three severity subgroups (I(2) = 0%, P value 0.73) or between the four studies that administered nebulised ipratropium bromide as a co-medication and those that did not (I(2) = 0%, P value 0.82). Sensitivity analyses in which unpublished data and studies at high risk for blinding were removed from the primary analysis did not change conclusions.Within the secondary outcomes, high- and moderate-quality evidence across three spirometric indices suggests some improvement in lung function with IV MgSO4. No difference was found between IV MgSO4and placebo for most of the non-spirometric secondary outcomes, all of which were rated as low or moderate quality (intensive care admissions, ED treatment duration, length of hospital stay, readmission, respiration rate, systolic blood pressure).Adverse events were inconsistently reported and were not meta-analysed. The most commonly cited adverse events in the IV MgSO4 groups were flushing, fatigue, nausea and headache and hypotension (low blood pressure). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that a single infusion of 1.2 g or 2 g IV MgSO4 over 15 to 30 minutes reduces hospital admissions and improves lung function in adults with acute asthma who have not responded sufficiently to oxygen, nebulised short-acting beta2-agonists and IV corticosteroids. Differences in the ways the trials were conducted made it difficult for the review authors to assess whether severity of the exacerbation or additional co-medications altered the treatment effect of IV MgSO4. Limited evidence was found for other measures of benefit and safety.Studies conducted in these populations should clearly define baseline severity parameters and systematically record adverse events. Studies recruiting participants with exacerbations of varying severity should consider subgrouping results on the basis of accepted severity classifications

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality). MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups.Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded.We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision).We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12

Interventions to improve inhaler technique for people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide. Inhalers are often prescribed to help control asthma symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce the risk of exacerbations or flare-ups. However, evidence suggests that many people with asthma do not use their inhaler correctly. It is therefore important to evaluate whether interventions aimed specifically at improving technique are effective and safe, and whether use of these interventions translates into improved clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of interventions to improve inhaler technique on clinical outcomes and safety in adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search on 23 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing a group of adults or children with asthma receiving an inhaler technique intervention versus a group receiving a control or alternative intervention. We included parallel and cluster-randomised trials of any duration conducted in any setting, and planned to include only the first phase of any cross-over trials identified. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We grouped studies making similar comparisons by consensus (e.g. all those comparing enhanced inhaler technique education vs usual care) and conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with random-effects models. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were inhaler technique, asthma control and exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids (OCS). MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 29 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2210), although not all reported relevant or useable data. All participants had asthma, and follow-up ranged from 2 to 26 weeks. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition biases and at high risk for biases associated with blinding. We considered most of the evidence to be of low quality owing to these biases and to imprecision in the estimates of effect.We classified studies into three comparisons: enhanced face-to-face training session(s), multi-media-delivered inhaler training (e.g. DVD, computer app or game) and technique feedback devices. Differences between interventions, populations and outcome measures limited quantitative analyses, particularly for exacerbations, adverse events, unscheduled visits to a healthcare provider and absenteeism from work or school.Enhanced inhaler technique education and multi-media training improved technique in most studies immediately after the intervention and at follow-up, although the variety of checklists used meant that this was difficult to assess reliably. For both adults and children, how and when inhaler technique was assessed appeared to affect whether inhaler technique improved and by how much.Analyses of the numbers of people who demonstrated correct or 'good enough' technique were generally more useful than checklist scores. Adult studies of enhanced education showed benefit when this metric was used at 2 to 26 weeks' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 5.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 13.65; 258 participants; three studies; 31 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 69 (95% CI 45 to 86) in the education group; moderate-quality evidence). A similar result was seen in studies looking at feedback devices at four weeks' follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.33; 97 participants; one study; 51 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 83 (95% CI 66 to 93) in the feedback group; low-quality evidence). However, the benefit of multi-media training for adults even immediately after the intervention was uncertain (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.50; 164 participants; two studies; I² = 49%; 30 per 100 in the control group with correct technique compared with 47 (95% CI 26 to 70) in the multi-media group; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence tended to be less clear for children, usually because results were based on fewer and smaller studies.Some studies did not report exacerbations in a way that allowed meta-analysis; others provided inconclusive results. Inhaler technique interventions provided some benefit for asthma control and quality of life but generally did not lead to consistent or important clinical benefits for adults or children. Confidence intervals included no difference or did not reach a threshold that could be considered clinically important. Responder analyses sometimes showed improvement among more people in the intervention groups, even though the mean difference between groups was small. We found no evidence about harms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although interventions to improve inhaler technique may work in some circumstances, the variety of interventions and measurement methods used hampered our ability to perform meta-analyses and led to low to moderate confidence in our findings. Most included studies did not report important improvement in clinical outcomes. Guidelines consistently recommend that clinicians check regularly the inhaler technique of their patients; what is not clear is how clinicians can most effectively intervene if they find a patient's technique to be inadequate, and whether such interventions will have a discernible impact on clinical outcomes

Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents with asthma are at high risk of poor adherence with treatment. This may be compounded by activities that worsen asthma, in particular smoking. Additional support above and beyond routine care has the potential to encourage good self-management. We wanted to find out whether sessions led by their peers or by lay leaders help to reduce these risks and improve asthma outcomes among adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains reports of randomised trials obtained from multiple electronic and handsearched sources, and we searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 25 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies randomised adolescents with asthma to an intervention led by lay people or peers or to a control. We included parallel randomised controlled trials with individual or cluster designs. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the searches, extracted numerical data and study characteristics and assessed each included study for risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life and exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids. We graded the analyses and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we described skewed data narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies including a total of 1146 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. As ever with systematic reviews of complex interventions, studies varied by design (cluster and individually randomised), duration (2.5 to 9 months), setting (school, day camp, primary care) and intervention content. Most risk of bias concerns were related to blinding and incomplete reporting, which limited the meta-analyses that could be performed. Studies generally controlled well for selection and attrition biases.All participants were between 11 and 17 years of age. Asthma diagnosis and severity varied, as did smoking prevalence. Three studies used the Triple A programme; one of these studies tested the addition of a smoke-free pledge; another delivered peer support group sessions and mp3 messaging to encourage adherence; and the third compared a peer-led asthma day camp with an equivalent camp led by healthcare practitioners.We had low confidence in all findings owing to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Results from an analysis of asthma-related quality of life based on the prespecified random-effects model were imprecise and showed no differences (MD 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.81); a sensitivity analysis based on a fixed-effect model and a responder analysis suggested small benefit may be derived for this outcome. Most other results were summarised narratively and did not show an important benefit of the intervention; studies provided no analysable data on asthma exacerbations or unscheduled visits (data were skewed), and one study measuring adherence reported a drop in both groups. Effects on asthma control favoured the intervention but findings were not statistically significant. Results from two studies with high levels of baseline smoking showed some promise for self-efficacy to stop smoking, but overall nicotine dependence and smoking-related knowledge were not significantly better in the intervention group. Investigators did not report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although weak evidence suggests that lay-led and peer support interventions could lead to a small improvement in asthma-related quality of life for adolescents, benefits for asthma control, exacerbations and medication adherence remain unproven. Current evidence is insufficient to reveal whether routine use of lay-led or peer support programmes is beneficial for adolescents receiving asthma care.Ongoing and future research may help to identify target populations for lay-led and peer support interventions, along with attributes that constitute a successful programme

Tailoring asthma treatment on eosinophilic markers (exhaled nitric oxide or sputum eosinophils): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asthma guidelines guide health practitioners to adjust treatments to the minimum level required for asthma control. As many people with asthma have an eosinophilic endotype, tailoring asthma medications based on airway eosinophilic levels (sputum eosinophils or exhaled nitric oxide, FeNO) may improve asthma outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the evidence from our updated Cochrane systematic reviews, for tailoring asthma medication based on eosinophilic inflammatory markers (sputum analysis and FeNO) for improving asthma-related outcomes in children and adults. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane reviews with standardised searches up to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: The Cochrane reviews included randomised controlled comparisons of tailoring asthma medications based on sputum analysis or FeNO compared with controls (primarily clinical symptoms and/or spirometry/peak flow). RESULTS: The 16 included studies of FeNO-based management (seven in adults) and 6 of sputum-based management (five in adults) were clinically heterogeneous. On follow-up, participants randomised to the sputum eosinophils strategy (compared with controls) were significantly less likely to have exacerbations (62 vs 82/100 participants with ≥1 exacerbation; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62). For the FeNO strategy, the respective numbers were adults OR 0.60 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.84) and children 0.58 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.75). However, there were no significant group differences for either strategy on daily inhaled corticosteroids dose (at end of study), asthma control or lung function. CONCLUSION: Adjusting treatment based on airway eosinophilic markers reduced the likelihood of asthma exacerbations but had no significant impact on asthma control or lung function

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to combination long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) can relieve asthma symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but there are limited treatment options for people who do not gain control on combination LABA/ICS. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) are a class of inhaled drug which have been effective for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now becoming available for people with asthma to take alongside their LABA/ICS inhaler. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to combination long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adults whose asthma is not well controlled by LABA/ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to January 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO trials portal, and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared LAMA as an add-on to LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS alone for adults with asthma. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), validated measures of asthma control, and serious adverse events (including mortality). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened searches and independently extracted details on risk of bias and numerical data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We found four double-blind, double-dummy trials comparing LAMA to placebo, including 1197 people with asthma taking combination LABA/ICS. One of the trials was designed to study glycopyrronium bromide but was withdrawn prior to enrolment, and the other three all studied tiotropium bromide (mostly 5 µg once daily via Respimat) over 48 to 52 weeks. People in the trials had a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 55% of their predicted value, indicating severe asthma.People randomised to take tiotropium add-on had fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than those continuing to take LABA/ICS alone, but the confidence intervals did not rule out no difference (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence). Over 48 weeks, 328 out of 1000 people taking their usual LABA/ICS would have to take oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation compared with 271 if they took tiotropium as well (95% CI 218 to 333 per 1000). Analyses comparing the number of exacerbations per patient in each group (rate ratio) and the time until first exacerbation (hazard ratio) were in keeping with the main result. Quality of life, as measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was no better for those taking tiotropium add-on than for those taking LABA/ICS alone when considered in light of the 0.5 minimal clinically important difference on the scale (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.20), and evidence for whether tiotropium increased or decreased serious adverse events in this population was inconsistent (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47; I(2) = 76%).Within the secondary outcomes, exacerbations requiring hospital admission were too rare to tell whether tiotropium was beneficial over LABA/ICS alone. There was high quality evidence showing benefits to lung function (trough FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC)) and potentially small benefits to asthma control. People taking tiotropium add-on were less likely to experience non-serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium add-on may have additional benefits over LABA/ICS alone in reducing the need for rescue oral steroids in people with severe asthma. The effect was imprecise, and there was no evidence for other LAMA preparations. Possible benefits on quality of life were negligible, and evidence for the effect on serious adverse events was inconsistent. There are likely to be small added benefits for tiotropium Respimat 5 µg daily on lung function and asthma control over LABA/ICS alone and fewer non-serious adverse events. The benefit of tiotropium add-on on the frequency of hospital admission is still unknown, despite year-long trials.Ongoing and future trials should clearly describe participants' background medications to help clinicians judge how the findings relate to stepwise care. If studies test LAMAs other than tiotropium Respimat for asthma, they should be at least six months long and use accepted and validated outcomes to allow comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between different preparations

Assessing the healthcare resource use associated with inappropriate prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in GOLD groups A or B:an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

Abstract Background Recent recommendations from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) position inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing exacerbations (≥ 2 or ≥ 1 requiring hospitalisation); i.e. GOLD groups C and D. However, it is known that ICS is frequently prescribed for patients with less severe COPD. Potential drivers of inappropriate ICS use may be historical clinical guidance or a belief among physicians that intervening early with ICS would improve outcomes and reduce resource use. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare resource use in the UK for COPD patients in GOLD groups A and B (0 or 1 exacerbation not resulting in hospitalisation) who have either been prescribed an ICS-containing regimen or a non-ICS-containing regimen. Methods Linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database were used. For the study period (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2015) a total 4009 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1745 receiving ICS-containing therapy and 2264 receiving non-ICS therapy. Treatment groups were propensity score-matched to account for potential confounders in the decision to prescribe ICS, leaving 1739 patients in both treatment arms. Resource use was assessed in terms of frequency of healthcare practitioner (HCP) interactions and rescue therapy prescribing. Treatment acquisition costs were not assessed. Results Results showed no benefit associated with the addition of ICS, with numerically higher all-cause HCP interactions (72,802 versus 69,136; adjusted relative rate: 1.07 [p = 0.061]) and rescue therapy prescriptions (24,063 versus 21,163; adjusted relative rate: 1.05 [p = 0.212]) for the ICS-containing group compared to the non-ICS group. Rate ratios favoured the non-ICS group for eight of nine outcomes assessed. Outcomes were similar for subgroup analyses surrounding potential influential parameters, including patients with poorer lung function (FEV1 <  50% predicted), one prior exacerbation or elevated blood eosinophils. Conclusions These data suggest that ICS use in GOLD A and B COPD patients is not associated with a benefit in terms of healthcare resource use compared to non-ICS bronchodilator-based therapy; using ICS according to GOLD recommendations may offer an opportunity for improving patient care and reducing resource use

Altering crystal growth and annealing in ice-templated scaffolds.

The potential applications of ice-templating porous materials are constantly expanding, especially as scaffolds for tissue engineering. Ice-templating, a process utilizing ice nucleation and growth within an aqueous solution, consists of a cooling stage (before ice nucleation) and a freezing stage (during ice formation). While heat release during cooling can change scaffold isotropy, the freezing stage, where ice crystals grow and anneal, determines the final size of scaffold features. To investigate the path of heat flow within collagen slurries during solidification, a series of ice-templating molds were designed with varying the contact area with the heat sink, in the form of the freeze drier shelf. Contact with the heat sink was found to be critical in determining the efficiency of the release of latent heat within the perspex molds. Isotropic collagen scaffolds were produced with pores which ranged from 90 μm up to 180 μm as the contact area decreased. In addition, low-temperature ice annealing was observed within the structures. After 20 h at -30 °C, conditions which mimic storage prior to lyophilization, scaffold architecture was observed to coarsen significantly. In future, ice-templating molds should consider not only heat conduction during the cooling phase of solidification, but the effects of heat flow during ice growth and annealing.The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Gates Cambridge Trust, the Newton Trust, and ERC Advanced Grant 320598 3D-E. A.H. held a Daphne Jackson Fellowship funded by the University of Cambridge.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10853-015-9343-

Diagnosis and Pharmacotherapy of Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease : The Finnish Guidelines

Peer reviewe

Risk factors for exacerbations and pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at risk of exacerbations and pneumonia; how the risk factors interact is unclear. METHODS: This post-hoc, pooled analysis included studies of COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combinations and comparator arms of ICS, LABA, and/or placebo. Backward elimination via Cox's proportional hazards regression modelling evaluated which combination of risk factors best predicts time to first (a) pneumonia, and (b) moderate/severe COPD exacerbation. RESULTS: Five studies contributed: NCT01009463, NCT01017952, NCT00144911, NCT00115492, and NCT00268216. Low body mass index (BMI), exacerbation history, worsening lung function (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage), and ICS treatment were identified as factors increasing pneumonia risk. BMI was the only pneumonia risk factor influenced by ICS treatment, with ICS further increasing risk for those with BMI <25 kg/m2. The modelled probability of pneumonia varied between 3 and 12% during the first year. Higher exacerbation risk was associated with a history of exacerbations, poorer lung function (GOLD stage), female sex and absence of ICS treatment. The influence of the other exacerbation risk factors was not modified by ICS treatment. Modelled probabilities of an exacerbation varied between 31 and 82% during the first year. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of an exacerbation was considerably higher than for pneumonia. ICS reduced exacerbations but did not influence the effect of risks associated with prior exacerbation history, GOLD stage, or female sex. The only identified risk factor for ICS-induced pneumonia was BMI <25 kg/m2. Analyses of this type may help the development of COPD risk equations