Helminth infections, atopy, asthma and allergic diseases: protocol for a systematic review of observational studies worldwide.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood infections, particularly those caused by helminths are considered to be important environmental exposures influencing the development of allergic diseases. However, epidemiological studies focusing on the relationship between helminth infections and risk of allergic diseases, performed worldwide, show inconsistent findings. Previous systematic reviews of observational studies published 10 or more years ago showed conflicting findings for effects of helminths on allergic diseases. Over the past 10 years there has been growing literature addressing this research area and these need to be considered in order to appreciate the most contemporary evidence. The objective of the current systematic review will be to provide an up-to-date synthesis of findings of observational studies investigating the influence of helminth infections on atopy, and allergic diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol was registered at PROSPERO. We will search Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ISI Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library, Scielo, IndMed, PakMediNet, KoreaMed, Ichushi for published studies from 1970 to January 2020. Bibliographies of all eligible studies will be reviewed to identify additional studies. Unpublished and ongoing research will also be searched in key databases. There will be no language or geographical restrictions regarding publications. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool will be used to appraise methodological quality of included studies. A descriptive summary with data tables will be constructed, and if adequate, meta-analysis using random-effects will be performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be followed for reporting of the systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this systematic review will be only based on published and retrievable literature, no ethics approval will be sought. The multidisciplinary team performing this systematic review will participate in relevant dissemination activities. Findings will be presented at scientific meetings and publish the systematic review in international, peer-reviewed, open-access journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020167249

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy

Factors associated with health status and exacerbations in COPD maintenance therapy with dry powder inhalers

Funding Information: J.K. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants and personal fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals and TEVA; grants from Mundipharma; personal fees from MSD and COVIS Pharma; and also holds 72.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. H.W. has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, which is the financial and scientific partner of GPRI for the submitted study, and from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Chiesi for scientific projects in the area of COPD/asthma. S.B.-A. has received grants from TEVA, and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Mylan. J.C.d.S. reports or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medinfar, Mundipharma and Sanofi. B.C. received honorarium from GSK and Sanofi. J.v.C., L.D., I.v.G.-P., I.v.d.H., Y.J., M.K., B.M., K.S., N.S., M.H., B.M. and M.T.L. were employed by General Practitioners Research Institute (GPRI) at the time of the study. In the past three years (2019–2021), GPRI conducted investigator- and sponsor-initiated research funded by non-commercial organizations, academic institutes, and pharmaceutical companies (including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Teva). R.D. has received grants and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, Focus Care, and Glenmark. R.G. has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Chiesi. E.D. holds 27.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. M.G.P. receives grants from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.G. and A.d.l.H. are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. F.L. received grants and personal fees from GSK, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini International, Novartis, Orion, and Trudell International, outside the submitted work. T.M. is an Assoicate Editor at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. J.M. received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; and grants from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, and GSK, outside the submitted work. D.P. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance and Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); grants from the British Lung Foundation, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, UK National Health Service, and AKL Research and Development Ltd; personal fees from Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Merck, Mundipharma, Airway Vista Secretariat, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, FIECON Ltd, Fieldwork International, OM Pharma SA, PeerVoice, Phadia AB, Spirosure Inc, Strategic North Limited, Synapse Research Management Partners S.L., Talos Health Solutions, and WebMD Global LLC; non-financial support from Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology. M.R.-R. receives grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, TEVA and BIAL. I.T. reports grants and personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Chiesi and Elpen. O.U. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edmond Pharma, Chiesi and GSK; grants from Edmond Pharma; and personal fees from Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Takeda, Cipla, COVIS, Novartis, Mereobiopharma, Orion, and Menarini. S.B.-A. and T.M. are Associate Editors at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, and I.T. is Editor in Chief. These authors were not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions related to, this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Helminth infections and allergic diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature.

INTRODUCTION: There is considerable research interest in the role of helminth infections in the development of allergic diseases. However, findings from previous studies are mixed. Existing systematic reviews of these studies are outdated. We performed a systematic review of the global literature on the association between helminth infections and development and clinical outcomes of allergic diseases. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, Scielo, KoreaMed, Google Scholar, and Lilacs for studies published up to January 2020. We included observational epidemiological studies (cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies) of children and adults reporting associations between helminth infections and asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema and atopy. We performed random-effects meta-analysis to summarize the effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 80 studies with 99,967 participants. In the meta-analyses, we did not observe an overall association between helminth infections and allergic diseases. There was, however, evidence that A. lumbricoides infections was associated with an increased risk of bronchial hyperreactivity in children (RR:1.41, 95%CI: 1.17-1.70; I2=50, p for I2=0.09), and was associated with an increased risk of atopy among helminth-infected adults (RR:1.37, 95%CI: 1.18-1.61; I2=52, p for I2=0.02). We found no study that addressed the association between helminth infection and clinical outcomes of allergic diseases. The overall strength of the underlying evidence was low to moderate. CONCLUSION: Helminth infections may increase the risk of bronchial hyperreactivity in children and atopy in adults. Well-designed longitudinal cohorts may help clarify potential causal associations between chronic helminth infections and allergic diseases

microRESPIRA: Microbial community in houses from patients with chronic respiratory diseases in Estarreja

Main goal: To provide a global picture on the prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases in Estarreja and to characterize, for the 1st time, the indoor microbiome (fungi and bacteria).This work is financed by Labex DRIIHM (PIA), via OHMI Estarreja – International Observatory Hommes-Millieux, tool of CNRS/INEE - National Center for Scientific Research/Institute of Ecology and Environment.N/

Clinical recommendations for dry powder inhaler use in the management of COPD in primary care

Over 1400 patients using dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to deliver COPD maintenance therapies were recruited across Europe and Australia. Their peak inspiratory flow (PIF) was measured, inhaler technique was observed, and adherence to treatment assessed. From relating the findings with patient health status, and thereby identifying critical errors, key clinical recommendations for primary care clinicians were determined, namely – measure PIF before prescribing a DPI to ensure inhalation manoeuvre ability is well-matched with the device. Some patients could benefit from inhalation training whereas others should have their DPI changed for one better suited to their inspiratory ability or alternatively be prescribed an active device (such as a soft mist inhaler or pressurized metered dose inhaler). Observing the inhalation technique was valuable however this misses suboptimal PIF (approaching one fourth of patients with a satisfactory observed manoeuvre had a suboptimal PIF for their DPI). Assess adherence as deliberate non-adherence can point to a mismatch between a patient and their inhaler (deliberate non-adherence was significantly associated with PIFs below the minimum for the DPI). In-person observation of inhalation technique was found to be inferior to video rating based on device-specific checklists. Where video assessments are not possible, observation training for healthcare professionals would therefore be valuable particularly to improve the ability to identify the critical errors associated with health status namely ‘teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece’, ‘breathe in’ and ‘breathing out calmly after inhalation’. However, it is recommended that observation alone should not replace PIF measurement in the DPI selection process. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853

Identifying critical inhalation technique errors in Dry Powder Inhaler use in patients with COPD based on the association with health status and exacerbations: findings from the multi-country cross-sectional observational PIFotal study

Abstract Background Correct inhaler use depends on a complex interplay of factors, including device preparation and generating sufficient inspiratory flow. It is currently unknown which inhalation technique errors can be considered critical in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients on Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) maintenance therapy. Objective To investigate the association between inhalation technique errors and health status or exacerbations in patients with COPD. Additionally, the association between the number of errors and COPD outcomes was determined. Methods The PIFotal study is a cross-sectional multi-country observational study in a primary care setting, including 1434 COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years (50.1% female; mean age 69.2 yrs) using a DPI for their maintenance therapy. Inhalation technique was video recorded and scored by two independent researchers using inhaler-specific checklists. Health status was assessed with two questionnaires; the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). The number of moderate and severe exacerbations in the past 12 months was recorded. Critical errors were identified based on their association with health status or exacerbations through multi-level prediction models adjusted for identified confounding. Results Errors in inhalation technique steps ‘Breathe in’, ‘Hold breath’, and ‘Breathe out calmly after inhalation’ were significantly associated with poorer CCQ and CAT outcomes and thus deemed critical. None of the errors were significantly associated with moderate exacerbations. Patients with errors ‘Preparation’, ‘Hold inhaler in correct position during inhalation’, and ‘Breathe in’ had significantly more severe exacerbations, and therefore these errors were also deemed critical. 81.3% of patients with COPD made at least one critical error. Specific combinations of errors were associated with worse outcomes. The more inhalation technique errors identified, the poorer the health status and the higher the exacerbation rate. Conclusion In this study, we identified multiple critical inhalation technique errors in COPD patients using DPIs each associated with poorer outcomes. Explorative analysis revealed that specific combinations of errors may be of clinical relevance, especially those related to the inhalation manoeuvre. COPD outcomes worsened with increasing error count. These results warrant further prospective longitudinal studies to establish the effect of correcting these errors on COPD control. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 (31/08/2020