High-flow nasal oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in hospitalised patients with respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) is used in diverse hospital settings to treat patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence regarding any benefits HFNO therapy has compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients with ARF. METHODS: Three databases (Embase, Medline and CENTRAL) were searched on 22 March 2023 for studies evaluating HFNO compared with COT for the treatment of ARF, with the primary outcome being hospital mortality and secondary outcomes including (but not limited to) escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (randomised controlled trials (RCTs)), ROBINS-I (non-randomised trials) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). RCTs and observational studies were pooled together for primary analyses, and secondary analyses used RCT data only. Treatment effects were pooled using the random effects model. RESULTS: 63 studies (26 RCTs, 13 cross-over and 24 observational studies) were included, with 10 230 participants. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of hospital mortality (risk ratio, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; p=0.29; 17 studies, n=5887) between HFNO and COT for all causes ARF. However, compared with COT, HFNO significantly reduced the overall need for escalation to IMV (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95 p=0.003; 39 studies, n=8932); and overall need for escalation to NIV (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; p=0.04; 16 studies, n=3076). In subgroup analyses, when considering patients by illness types, those with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure who received HFNO compared with COT had a significant reduction in-hospital mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02). DISCUSSION: HFNO was superior to COT in reducing the need for escalation to both IMV and NIV but had no impact on the primary outcome of hospital mortality. These findings support recommendations that HFNO may be considered as first-line therapy for ARF. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264837.

Identifying viral infections in vaccinated Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients using clinical features and inflammatory markers.

BACKGROUND: Known inflammatory markers have limited sensitivity and specificity to differentiate viral respiratory tract infections from other causes of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). To overcome this, we developed a multi-factorial prediction model combining viral symptoms with inflammatory markers. METHODS: Interleukin-6 (IL-6), serum amyloid A (SAA) and viral symptoms were measured in stable COPD and at AECOPD onset and compared with the viral detection rates on multiplex PCR. The predictive accuracy of each measure was assessed using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: There was a total of 33 viruses detected at the onset of 148 AECOPD, the majority 26 (79%) were picornavirus. Viral symptoms with the highest predictive values were rhinorrhoea [Odds ratio (OR) 4.52; 95% CI 1.99-10.29; P < 0.001] and sore throat (OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.14-6.08; P = 0.022), combined the AUC ROC curve was 0.67. At AECOPD onset patients experienced a 1.6-fold increase in IL-6 (P = 0.008) and 4.5-fold increase in SAA (P < 0.001). The addition of IL-6 to the above model significantly improved diagnostic accuracy compared with symptoms alone (AUC ROC 0.80 (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The addition of inflammatory markers increases the specificity of a clinical case definition for viral infection, particularly picornavirus infection.

A community-based, time-matched, case-control study of respiratory viruses and exacerbations of COPD.

Respiratory viruses are associated with severe acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in hospitalized patients. However, exacerbations are increasingly managed in the community, where the role of viruses is unclear. In community exacerbations, the causal association between viruses and exacerbation maybe confounded by random fluctuations in the prevalence of circulating respiratory viruses. Therefore, to determine whether viral respiratory tract infections are causally associated with community exacerbations, a time-matched case-control study was performed. Ninety-two subjects (mean age 72 yrs), with moderate to severe COPD, (mean FEV(1) 40% predicted), were enrolled. Nasopharyngeal swabs for viral multiplex polymerase chain reaction and atypical pneumonia serology were obtained at exacerbation onset. Control samples were collected in synchrony, from a randomly selected stable patient drawn from the same cohort. In 99 weeks of surveillance, there were 148 exacerbations. Odds of viral isolation were 11 times higher in cases, than their time-matched controls (34 discordant case-control pairs; in 31 pairs only the case had virus and in three pairs only control). Picornavirus (26), influenza A (3), parainfluenza 1,2,3 (2), respiratory syncytial virus (1), and adenovirus (1) were detected in cases while adenovirus (1) and picornavirus (2) were detected in controls. In patients with moderate or severe COPD the presence of a virus in upper airway secretions is strongly associated with the development of COPD exacerbations. These data support the causative role of viruses in triggering COPD exacerbations in the community.

Evaluating the effects of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on consumer behavior and health: methodological challenges.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans is the official nutrition policy statement for the United States. Government involvement in providing information on private behavior, such as food choice, is justified by the high cost of poor diets, as measured in medical expenses and lost productivity. The Guidelines are intended to provide an up-to-date, consistent information base for federal nutrition education and information efforts and food assistance program regulations. Through these policy mechanisms, the Guidelines are assumed to improve dietary behavior, and, ultimately, health. By law, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans must be updated every five years; however, there is no mandate for evaluation. Evaluation could provide useful information to assess the extent to which the Guidelines positively influence health and provide insights into reasons for their successes and limitations. However, evaluation would also present considerable challenges. This paper discusses the critical data and methodological needs for improving evaluation of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.