RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread worldwide since December 2019, causing the COVID-19 pandemic. Several measures have taken place in many countries to avoid further spread of the virus and to manage infected people according to disease severity. Notably, telemedicine (TM) was successfully used to manage less severe patients. Our aim was to assess the impact and the edges of using TM in home-isolated or hospitalized patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection and its further application. METHODS: We performed a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and available on PubMed database. Full texts were blindly reviewed and then assessed according to PICO model. RESULTS: Our research identified a total of 1,959 records, of which 24 were potentially eligible through the articles full-text review. Six papers were included for data extraction and 18 articles were excluded: 10 articles were not RCTs and 8 articles did not involve SARS-CoV-2 patients. The TM application showed an improvement in psychological stress, mental disorders, and a significant reduction of general stress in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. The effectiveness of using TM in rehabilitative respiratory programs has been also reported. Furthermore, the benefits of TM application in tailored monitoring of vital parameters in home-isolated patients helped clinicians to early identify a deterioration of clinical conditions. CONCLUSION: The use of TM during COVID-19 pandemic represented a novel, intriguing, versatile, and useful tool to support clinical practice. This evidence suggests considering TM in a wider range of clinical applications.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Telemedicina , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin-5 receptor (IL-5Rα), leading to the rapid depletion of blood eosinophils. RCTs have demonstrated efficacy in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of benralizumab on sinonasal outcomes in a real-life setting in patients with SEA and concomitant chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). METHODS: We included 25 patients (mean age: 57.47 years, range: 35-77, F/M = 12:13) who were prescribed 30 mg benralizumab every month for the first three administrations and then every 2 months. The primary endpoint was to evaluate changes in the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and nasal polyp score (NPS) over a 24-month treatment period. Secondary endpoints included measuring the effects on nasal obstruction and impaired sense of smell. RESULTS: The mean NPS score decreased significantly from 5.11 ± 1.84 at baseline to 2.37 ± 1.96 at 24 months. The mean SNOT-22 decreased from 57 ± 15.30 at baseline to 26 ± 16.73 at 24 months. The SSIT-16 mean score improved with an increase in olfactory performance from 5.23 ± 2.58 at baseline to 7 ± 3.65 at 24 months. Moreover, 8/25 patients (32%) required rescue treatment with systemic steroids and 2 patients required endoscopic sinus surgery. CONCLUSIONS: While the improvement may not seem optimal at 12 months, a progressive enhancement was noted during the second year of treatment. Despite our data showing an improvement in quality of life and a reduction in the size of nasal polyps, no significant improvement in olfactory sensitivity was observed. In addition, in several patients, rescue treatments were required to maintain control of nasal and sinus symptoms. A careful risk-benefit assessment is therefore needed when deciding to continue treatment, weighing the potential for further improvement against the risks of complications. Such decisions should always be made in the context of a multidisciplinary team.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend treating asthma exacerbations (AAEs) with bronchodilators combined with inhaled and/or systemic corticosteroids. Indications for antibiotic prescriptions for AAEs are usually not incorporated although the literature shows antibiotics are frequently prescribed. AIM: To investigate the antibiotic prescription rates in AAEs and explore the possible determining factors of those practices. METHODS: A digital survey was created to determine the antibiotic prescription rates in AAEs and the influencing factors for the prescription practices. The survey was distributed among European academy of allergy and clinical immunology (EAACI) members by mass emailing and through regional/national societies in the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, and Poland. Furthermore, we retrieved local antibiotic prescription rates. RESULTS: In total, 252 participants completed the survey. Respondents stated that there is a lack of guidelines to prescribe antibiotics in AAEs. The median antibiotic prescription rate in this study was 19% [IQR: 0%-40%] and was significantly different between 4 professions: paediatrics 0% [IQR: 0%-37%], pulmonologists 25% [IQR: 10%-50%], general practitioners 25% [IQR: 0%-50%], and allergologists 17% [IQR: 0%-33%]) (p = 0.046). Additional diagnostic tests were performed in 71.4% of patients before prescription and the most common antibiotic classes prescribed were macrolides (46.0%) and penicillin (42.9%). Important clinical factors for health care providers to prescribe antibiotics were colorised/purulent sputum, abnormal lung sounds during auscultation, fever, and presence of comorbidities. CONCLUSION: In 19% of patients with AAEs, antibiotics were prescribed in various classes with a broad range among different subspecialities. This study stresses the urgency to compose evidence-based guidelines to aim for more rational antibiotic prescriptions for AAE.