Pharmacological management of COVID-19 patients with ARDS (CARDS): A narrative review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly infectious. It has been highlighted that if not expertly and individually managed with consideration of the vasocentric features, a COVID-19 patient with an acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) may eventually develop multiorgan failure. Unfortunately, there is still no definite drug for CARDS that is capable of reducing either short-term or long-term mortality and no specific treatments for COVID-19 exist right now. In this narrative review, based on a selective literature search in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov, we have examined the emerging evidence on the possible treatment of CARDS. Although numerous pharmacologic therapies to improve clinical outcomes in CARDS have been studied also in clinical trials, none have shown efficacy and there is great uncertainty about their effectiveness. There is still no recommendation for the therapeutic use of any specific agent to treat CARDS because no drugs are validated to have significant efficacy in clinical treatment of COVID-19 patients in large-scale trials. However, there exist a number of drugs that may be useful at least in some patients. The real challenge now is to link the right patient to the right treatment

Dexamethasone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Whether, when and to whom

A clinical interpretation of the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) study was performed to provide a useful tool to understand whether, when, and to whom dexamethasone should be administered during hospitalization for COVID-19. A post hoc analysis of data published in the preliminary report of the RECOVERY study was performed to calculate the person-based number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) of 6 mg dexamethasone once daily for up to 10 days vs. usual care with respect to mortality. At day 28, the NNT of dexamethasone vs. usual care was 36.0 (95%CI 24.9–65.1, p < 0.05) in all patients, 8.3 (95%CI 6.0–13.1, p < 0.05) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and 34.6 (95%CI 22.1–79.0, p < 0.05) in patients receiving oxygen only (with or without noninvasive ventilation). Dexamethasone increased mortality compared with usual care in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation, leading to a NNH value of 26.7 (95%CI 18.1–50.9, p < 0.05). NNT of dexamethasone vs. usual care was 17.3 (95%CI 14.9–20.6) in subjects <70 years, 27.0 (95%CI 18.5–49.8) in men, and 16.2 (95%CI 13.2–20.8) in patients in which the onset of symptoms was >7 days. Dexamethasone is effective in male subjects < 70 years that require invasive mechanical ventilation experiencing symptoms from >7 days and those patients receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation; it should be avoided in patients not requiring respiratory support

Oral corticosteroids dependence and biologic drugs in severe asthma: Myths or facts? a systematic review of real‐world evidence

Airway inflammation represents an important characteristic in asthma, modulating airflow limitation and symptom control, and triggering the risk of asthma exacerbation. Thus, although corticosteroids represent the cornerstone for the treatment of asthma, severe patients may be dependent on oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Fortunately, the current humanised monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, and reslizumab have been proven to induce an OCS‐sparing effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus overcoming the problem of OCS dependence in severe asthma. Nevertheless, a large discrepancy has been recognized between selected patients enrolled in RCTs and non‐selected asthmatic populations in real‐world settings. It is not possible to exclude that the OCS‐sparing effect of mAbs resulting from the RCTs could be different than the real effect resulting in clinical practice. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and correlation analysis to assess whether mAbs are effective in eliciting an OCS‐sparing effect and overcoming the OCS dependence in severe asthmatic patients in real‐world settings. Overall, real‐world studies support the evidence that OCS dependence is a real condition that, however, can be found only in a small number of really severe asthmatic patients. In most patients, the dependence on OCS can be related to modifying factors that, when adequately modulated, may lead to a significant reduction or suspension of OCS maintenance. Conversely, in severe asthmatics in whom OCS resistance is proved by a high daily dose intake, mAbs allow reversion of the OCS dependence, leading to the suspension of OCS therapy in most patients or >50% reduction in the daily OCS dose

Inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists in asthma - A narrative review

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have a recognised role in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In asthma, muscarinic antagonists (both short- and long-acting) were historically considered less effective than β2-agonists; only relatively recently have studies been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of LAMAs, as add-on to either inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy or ICS/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. These studies led to the approval of the first LAMA, tiotropium, as an add-on therapy in patients with poorly controlled asthma. Subsequently, a number of single-inhaler ICS/LABA/LAMA triple therapies have been approved or are in clinical development for the management of asthma. There is now substantial evidence of the efficacy and safety of LAMAs in asthma that is uncontrolled despite treatment with an ICS/LABA combination. This regimen is recommended by GINA as an optimisation step for patients with severe asthma before any biologic or systemic corticosteroid treatment is initiated. This narrative review summarises the potential mechanisms of action of LAMAs in asthma, together with the initial clinical evidence supporting this use. We also discuss the studies that led to the approval of tiotropium for asthma and the data evaluating the efficacy and safety of the various triple therapies, before considering other potential uses for triple therapy

A long-term clinical trial on the efficacy and safety profile of doxofylline in Asthma: The LESDA study.

Doxofylline, an oral methylxanthine with bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory activities, offers a promising alternative to theophylline due to its superior efficacy/safety profile. No long-term studies on the efficacy and safety of doxofylline are currently available in asthma. The aim of the Long-term clinical trial on the Efficacy and Safety profile of Doxofylline in Asthma (LESDA) study was to investigate the safety and efficacy profile of doxofylline administered for one year in asthmatic patients. LESDA was a multicenter, open-label, Phase III, clinical trial in which adult asthmatic patients received the same treatment (oral doxofylline 400 mg t.i.d.) for one year. Efficacy was assessed through periodic pulmonary function tests and by having the subjects keep monthly records of asthma events rates and use of salbutamol as rescue medication. The rate of adverse events (AEs) was recorded during the study. Three-hundred nine patients were screened and allocated in the study. Doxofylline significantly improved the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (+16.90 ± 1.81%, P < 0.001 vs. baseline). Doxofylline also significantly improved the rate of asthma events (events/day: -0.57 ± 0.18, P < 0.05 vs. baseline) and the use of salbutamol as rescue medication (puffs/day: -1.48 ± 0.25, P < 0.01 vs. baseline). The most common AEs were nausea (14.56%), headache (14.24%), insomnia (10.68%), and dyspepsia (10.03%). There were neither serious AEs nor deaths during or shortly after the study. Concluding, doxofylline is effective and well tolerated when administered chronically in asthmatic patients

The impact of monoclonal antibodies on airway smooth muscle contractility in asthma: A systematic review

Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) represents a central pathophysiological hallmark of asthma, with airway smooth muscle (ASM) being the effector tissue implicated in the onset of AHR. ASM also exerts pro-inflammatory and immunomodulatory actions, by secreting a wide range of cytokines and chemokines. In asthma pathogenesis, the overexpression of several type 2 inflammatory mediators including IgE, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and TSLP has been associated with ASM hyperreactivity, all of which can be targeted by humanized monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically assess evidence across the literature on mAbs for the treatment of asthma with respect to their impact on the ASM contractile tone. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab were found to be effective in modulating the contractility of the ASM and preventing the AHR, but no available studies concerning the impact of reslizumab on the ASM were identified from the literature search. Omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab can directly modulate the ASM in asthma, by specifically blocking the interaction between IgE, IL-4, and TSLP, and their receptors are located on the surface of ASM cells. Conversely, mepolizumab and benralizumab have prevalently indirect impacts against AHR by targeting eosinophils and other immunomodulatory effector cells promoting inflammatory processes. AHR has been suggested as the main treatable trait towards precision medicine in patients suffering from eosinophilic asthma, therefore, well-designed head-to-head trials are needed to compare the efficacy of those mAbs that directly target ASM contractility specifically against the AHR in severe asthma, namely omalizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab

Brain natriuretic peptide: Much more than a biomarker.

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) modulates several biological processes by activating the natriuretic peptide receptor A (NPR-A). Atria and ventricles secrete BNP. BNP increases natriuresis, diuresis and vasodilatation, thus resulting in a decreased cardiac workload. BNP and NT-proBNP, which is the biologically inactive N-terminal portion of its pro-hormone, are fast and sensitive biomarkers for diagnosing heart failure. The plasma concentrations of both BNP and NT-proBNP also correlate with left ventricular function in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, even without history of heart failure. Several studies have been conducted in vitro and in vivo, both in animals and in humans, in order to assess the potential role of the NPR-A activation as a novel therapeutic approach for treating obstructive pulmonary disorders. Unfortunately, these studies have yielded conflicting results. Nevertheless, further recent specific studies, performed in ex vivo models of asthma and COPD, have confirmed the bronchorelaxant effect of BNP and its protective role against bronchial hyperresponsiveness in human airways. These studies have also clarified the intimate mechanism of action of BNP, represented by an autocrine loop elicited by the activation of NPR-A, localized on bronchial epithelium, and the relaxant response of the surrounding ASM, which does not expresses NPR-A. This review explores the teleological activities and paradoxical effects of BNP with regard to chronic obstructive respiratory disorders, and provides an excursus on the main scientific findings that explain why BNP should be considered much more than a biomarker

The influence of propofol, remifentanil and lidocaine on the tone of human bronchial smooth muscle.

Bronchoscopy is generally a safe procedure, but the induction of anaesthesia can induce bronchospasm. Consequently we investigated the influence of propofol, remifentanil and lidocaine on the tone of the human bronchial smooth muscle. Materials and methods: The influence of propofol, remifentanil and lidocaine on the contractile response of human bronchial smooth muscle to electrical field stimulation (EFS) has been evaluated. The role of capsaicin-sensitive sensory nerves and of inducible nitric oxide synthase has also been assessed. Furthermore, the interaction between these three dugs has been measured by Bliss Independence (BI) theory. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) was assessed by Student's t test or ANOVA. Results: Propofol (1.3 μg ml-1) and lidocaine (1 mg ml-1) reduced the baseline tone of bronchial rings (-14.45 ± 4.53% and -33.40 ± 1.07%, respectively, P < 0.05), whereas remifentanil had not such effect. Aminoguanidine prevented the relaxant effect of propofol. Propofol did not alter the bronchial contractile response to EFS following 30 min of treatment, whereas remifentanil enhanced the bronchial tension (133.83 ± 9.38%, control 101.93 ± 6.82%, P < 0.05 P < 0.05) and lidocaine completely abolished the contractility at 1 mg ml-1 (P < 0.05). The desensitization of capsaicin-sensitive sensory nerves normalized the hyperresponsiveness induced by remifentanil (-26.77 ± 1.68%, P < 0.05). Significant BI antagonism (P < 0.001) was detected for propofol and lidocaine on the bronchial hyperresponsiveness induced by remifentanil. Conclusion: Propofol and remifentanil may be used safely for bronchoscopy, although remifentanil should be associated with propofol or lidocaine to prevent the potential opioid-mediated bronchospasm

The Effect of Maintenance Treatment with Erdosteine on Exacerbation Treatment and Health Status in Patients with COPD: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the RESTORE Dataset.

Purpose: To explore the effect of erdosteine on COPD exacerbations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and subjectively assessed COPD severity. Patients and methods: This post-hoc analysis of the RESTORE study included participants with COPD and spirometrically moderate (GOLD 2; post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] 50‒79% predicted; n = 254), or severe airflow limitation (GOLD 3; post-bronchodilator FEV1 30‒49% predicted; n = 191) who received erdosteine 300 mg twice daily or placebo added to usual maintenance therapy for 12 months. Antibiotic and oral corticosteroid use was determined together with patientreported HRQoL (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ). Patient and physician subjective COPD severity scores (scale 0‒4) were rated at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for exacerbation severity, COPD severity, and treatment group. Comparisons between treatment groups used Student’s t-tests or ANCOVA as appropriate. Results: Among GOLD 2 patients, 43 of 126 erdosteine-treated patients exacerbated (7 moderate-to-severe exacerbations), compared to 62 of 128 placebo-treated patients (14 moderate-to-severe exacerbations). Among those with moderate-to-severe exacerbations, erdosteine-treated patients had a shorter mean duration of corticosteroid treatment (11.4 days vs 13.3 days for placebo, P = 0.043), and fewer patients required antibiotic treatment with/without oral corticosteroids (71.4% vs 85.8% for placebo, P &lt; 0.001). Erdosteine-treated GOLD 2 patients who exacerbated showed significant improvements from baseline in SGRQ total scores and subjective disease severity scores (patient- and physician-rated), compared with placebo-treated patients regardless of exacerbation severity. Among GOLD 3 patients, there were no significant differences between treatment groups on any of these measures. Conclusion: Adding erdosteine to the usual maintenance therapy of COPD patients with moderate airflow limitation reduced the number of exacerbations, the duration of treatment with corticosteroids and the episodes requiring treatment with antibiotics. Additionally, treatment with erdosteine improved HRQoL and patient-reported disease severity

Pulmonary Perspective b 2 -Agonist Therapy in Lung Disease

b 2 -Agonists are effective bronchodilators due primarily to their ability to relax airway smooth muscle (ASM). They exert their effects via their binding to the active site of b 2 -adrenoceptors on ASM, which triggers a signaling cascade that results in a number of events, all of which contribute to relaxation of ASM. There are some differences between b 2 -agonists. Traditional inhaled short-acting b 2 -agonists albuterol, fenoterol, and terbutaline provide rapid as-needed symptom relief and short-term prophylactic protection against bronchoconstriction induced by exercise or other stimuli. The twice-daily b 2 -agonists formoterol and salmeterol represent important advances. Their effective bronchodilating properties and long-term improvement in lung function offer considerable clinical benefits to patients. More recently, a newer b 2 -agonist (indacaterol) with a longer pharmacodynamic half-life has been discovered, with the hopes of achieving once-daily dosing. In general, b 2 -agonists have an acceptable safety profile, although there is still controversy as to whether long-acting b 2 -agonists may increase the risk of asthma mortality. In any case, they can induce adverse effects, such as increased heart rate, palpitations, transient decrease in Pa O 2 , and tremor. Desensitization of b 2 -adrenoceptors that occurs during the first few days of regular use of b 2 -agonist treatment may account for the commonly observed resolution of the majority of these adverse events after the first few doses. Nevertheless, it can also induce tolerance to bronchoprotective effects of b 2 -agonists and has the potential to reduce bronchodilator sensitivity to them. Some novel once-daily b 2 -agonists (olodaterol, vilanterol, abediterol) are under development, mainly in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid or a long-acting antimuscarinic agent