The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on severe asthma care in Europe: Will care change for good?

peer reviewedBackground The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put pressure on healthcare services, forcing the reorganisation of traditional care pathways. We investigated how physicians taking care of severe asthma patients in Europe reorganised care, and how these changes affected patient satisfaction, asthma control and future care. Methods In this European-wide cross-sectional study, patient surveys were sent to patients with a physician-diagnosis of severe asthma, and physician surveys to severe asthma specialists between November 2020 and May 2021. Results 1101 patients and 268 physicians from 16 European countries contributed to the study. Common physician-reported changes in severe asthma care included use of video/phone consultations (46%), reduced availability of physicians (43%) and change to home-administered biologics (38%). Change to phone/video consultations was reported in 45% of patients, of whom 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Of 709 patients on biologics, 24% experienced changes in biologic care, of whom 92% were changed to home-administered biologics and of these 62% were satisfied or very satisfied with this change. Only 2% reported worsening asthma symptoms associated with changes in biologic care. Many physicians expect continued implementation of video/phone consultations (41%) and home administration of biologics (52%). Conclusions Change to video/phone consultations and home administration of biologics was common in severe asthma care during the COVID-19 pandemic and was associated with high satisfaction levels in most but not all cases. Many physicians expect these changes to continue in future severe asthma care, though satisfaction levels may change after the pandemic. © The authors 2022

A global-scale screening of non-native aquatic organisms to identify potentially invasive species under current and future climate conditions

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147868Science of the Total Environment78814786

A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee

Many clinical trials have evaluated the benefit of long-term use of antiplatelet drugs in reducing the risk of clinical thrombotic events. Aspirin and ticlopidine have been shown to be effective, but both have potentially serious adverse effects. Clopidogrel, a new thienopyridine derivative similar to ticlopidine, is an inhibitor of platelet aggregation induced by adenosine diphosphate. METHODS: CAPRIE was a randomised, blinded, international trial designed to assess the relative efficacy of clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) and aspirin (325 mg once daily) in reducing the risk of a composite outcome cluster of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death; their relative safety was also assessed. The population studied comprised subgroups of patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Patients were followed for 1 to 3 years. FINDINGS: 19,185 patients, with more than 6300 in each of the clinical subgroups, were recruited over 3 years, with a mean follow-up of 1.91 years. There were 1960 first events included in the outcome cluster on which an intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients treated with clopidogrel had an annual 5.32% risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death compared with 5.83% with aspirin. These rates reflect a statistically significant (p = 0.043) relative-risk reduction of 8.7% in favour of clopidogrel (95% Cl 0.3-16.5). Corresponding on-treatment analysis yielded a relative-risk reduction of 9.4%. There were no major differences in terms of safety. Reported adverse experiences in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups judged to be severe included rash (0.26% vs 0.10%), diarrhoea (0.23% vs 0.11%), upper gastrointestinal discomfort (0.97% vs 1.22%), intracranial haemorrhage (0.33% vs 0.47%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (0.52% vs 0.72%), respectively. There were ten (0.10%) patients in the clopidogrel group with significant reductions in neutrophils (< 1.2 x 10(9)/L) and 16 (0.17%) in the aspirin group. INTERPRETATION: Long-term administration of clopidogrel to patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease is more effective than aspirin in reducing the combined risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. The overall safety profile of clopidogrel is at least as good as that of medium-dose aspirin