Analysis of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adult patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Investigation for the presence of asthma comorbidities is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma because their presence can complicate asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To understand the prevalence and pattern of comorbidities and multimorbidity in adults with severe asthma and their association with asthma-related outcomes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry from 22 countries. A total of 30 comorbidities were identified and categorized a priori as any of the following: (1) potentially type 2-related comorbidities, (2) potentially oral corticosteroid (OCS)-related comorbidities, or (3) comorbidities mimicking or aggravating asthma. The association between comorbidities and asthma-related outcomes was investigated using multivariable models adjusted for country, age at enrollment, and sex (ie male or female). RESULTS: Of the 11,821 patients, 69%, 67%, and 55% had at least 1 potentially type 2-related, potentially OCS-related, or mimicking or aggravating comorbidities, respectively; 57% had 3 or more comorbidities, and 33% had comorbidities in all 3 categories. Patients with allergic rhinitis, nasal polyposis, and chronic rhinosinusitis experienced 1.12 (P = .003), 1.16 (P < .001), and 1.29 times (P < .001) more exacerbations per year, respectively, than those without. Patients with nasal polyposis and chronic rhinosinusitis were 40% and 46% more likely (P < .001), respectively, to have received long-term (LT) OCS. All assessed potential OCS-related comorbidities (except obesity) were associated with a greater likelihood of LTOCS use (odds ratios [ORs]: 1.23-2.77) and, except for dyslipidemia, with a greater likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.29-1.68). All mimicking or aggravating comorbidities assessed were associated with more exacerbations (1.24-1.68 times more), all (except bronchiectasis) with increased likelihood of uncontrolled asthma (ORs: 1.57-1.81), and all (except chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with increased likelihood of LTOCS use (ORs: 1.37-1.57). A greater number of comorbidities was associated with worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a global study, comorbidity or multimorbidity is reported in most adults with severe asthma and is associated with poorer asthma-related outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The International Severe Asthma Registry database has ethical approval from the Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) committee (ADEPT0218) and is registered with the European Union Electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance [ENCEPP]/DSPP/23720). The study was designed, implemented, and reported in compliance with the European Network Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) Code of Conduct (EMA 2014; EUPAS44024) and with all applicable local and international laws and regulations, and registered with ENCEPP (https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=48848). Governance was provided by ADEPT (registration number: ADEPT1121).

Association Between T2-related Comorbidities and Effectiveness of Biologics in Severe Asthma.

Rationale: Previous studies investigating the impact of comorbidities on the effectiveness of biologic agents have been relatively small and of short duration and have not compared classes of biologic agents. Objectives: To determine the association between type 2-related comorbidities and biologic agent effectiveness in adults with severe asthma (SA). Methods: This cohort study used International Severe Asthma Registry data from 21 countries (2017-2022) to quantify changes in four outcomes before and after biologic therapy-annual asthma exacerbation rate, FEV1% predicted, asthma control, and long-term oral corticosteroid daily dose-in patients with or without allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps (NPs), NPs, or eczema/atopic dermatitis. Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,765 patients, 1,257, 421, and 87 initiated anti-IL-5/5 receptor, anti-IgE, and anti-IL-4/13 therapies, respectively. In general, pre- versus post-biologic therapy improvements were noted in all four asthma outcomes assessed, irrespective of comorbidity status. However, patients with comorbid CRS with or without NPs experienced 23% fewer exacerbations per year (95% CI, 10-35%; P < 0.001) and had 59% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy asthma control (95% CI, 26-102%; P < 0.001) than those without CRS with or without NPs. Similar estimates were noted for those with comorbid NPs: 22% fewer exacerbations and 56% higher odds of better post-biologic therapy control. Patients with SA and CRS with or without NPs had an additional FEV1% predicted improvement of 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0-5.3; P = 0.004), a trend that was also noted in those with comorbid NPs. The presence of allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis was not associated with post-biologic therapy effect for any outcome assessed. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of systematic comorbidity evaluation. The presence of CRS with or without NPs or NPs alone may be considered a predictor of the effectiveness of biologic agents in patients with SA.

Altitude and COVID-19 in Colombia: An updated analysis accounting for potential confounders.

We assessed the relationship between the altitude of municipalities and the incidence, mortality, and fatality from COVID-19 and excess of mortality in Colombia between 2020 and 2022. We conducted an ecologic study including all 1122 municipalities in Colombia and used categories of altitude as main independent variable. We fit multivariable regression models for incidence, mortality, fatality rates, and excess of mortality controlling for several variables at municipality level. There was a higher incidence rate, similar mortality rate and lower case-fatality rate for COVID-19 during 2020-2022 in municipalities in the upper category of altitude (>=2500 masl) compared to the lower category (<1000 masl). The excess of mortality was lower but not statistically different in municipalities in the upper category of altitude, and significantly lower in the intermediate altitude category compared to the lowlands. Our findings provide evidence that municipalities with high altitude had similar mortality rate, and lower case-fatality rate and excess of mortality for COVID-19 compared to lowlands in Colombia.

Psychometric Properties of the SOC-13 Scale in Colombian Adults.

The aim of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the SOC-13 in Colombian adults. The SOC-13 questionnaire was administered to 489 individuals aged ≥18 years who were in lockdown from March to July 2020 in Nariño County, Colombia. Psychometric properties of the scale were examined using a cross-validation method via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Additionally, configural and metric invariance were tested. To determine the internal consistency of the questionnaire, McDonald's omega (ω), Cronbach's alpha (α), and composite reliability (CR) coefficients were estimated. The EFA determined that a three-factor structure best fit the data (comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness) and CFA confirmed this three-factor model structure showing a good fit (χ2S-B = 188.530, χ2S-B/(62) = 3.615, p = 0.001; NNFI = 0.959; CFI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.052 (90% CI [0.041-0.063]) and SRMR = 0.052).The invariance analysis indicated the same underlying theoretical structure between genders. Additionally, (ω), (α), and (CR) coefficients confirmed a high internal consistency of the instrument. The SOC-13 scale, reflecting comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness, is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the sense of coherence in Colombian populations.

Discrepancies between perceptions of students and deans regarding the consequences of restricting students' use of electronic medical records on quality of medical education.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) are more used in university hospitals, but the use of EMR by medical students at the workplace is still a challenge, because the conflict of interest between medical accountability for hospitals and quality of medical education programs for students. Therefore, this study investigates the use of EMR from the perspective of medical school deans and students, and determines their perceptions and concerns about consequences of restricted use of EMR by students on quality of education and patient care. METHODS: We administered a large-scale survey about the existence of EMR, existing policies, students' use for learning, and consequences on patient care to 42 deans and 789 Residency Physician Applicants in a private university in Colombia. Data from 26 deans and 442 former graduated students were compared with independent t tests and chi square tests. RESULTS: Only half of medical schools had learning programs and policies about the use of EMR by students. Deans did not realize that students have less access to EMR than to paper-based MR. Perceptions of non-curricular learning opportunities how to write in (E)MR were significantly different between deans and students. Limiting students use of EMR has negative consequences on medical education, according to both deans and students, while deans worried significantly more about impact on patient care than students. Billing issues and liability aspects were their major concerns. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a clear policy and educational program on the use of EMR by students. Discrepancies between the planned curriculum by deans and the real clinical learning environment as experienced by students indicate suboptimal learning opportunities for students. Creating powerful workplace-learning experiences and resolving concerns on students use of EMR has to be resolved in a constructive collaboration way between the involved stakeholders, including also EMR designers and hospital administrators. We recommend intense supervision of students' work in EMR to take full advantage of the technological advances of EMR at the modern clinical site, both for patient care and for medical education.

Asthma in adults.

INTRODUCTION: About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild-to-moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for chronic asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 54 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adding anti-IgE treatment; beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists when asthma is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists as needed for symptom relief); inhaled corticosteroids (low dose and increasing dose); leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids); and theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).

Asthma in adults.

INTRODUCTION: About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild-to-moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic asthma? What are the effects of treatments for acute asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 99 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions. For acute asthma: beta(2) agonists (plus ipratropium bromide, pressured metered-dose inhalers, short-acting continuous nebulised, short-acting intermittent nebulised, and short-acting intravenous); corticosteroids (inhaled); corticosteroids (single oral, combined inhaled, and short courses); education about acute asthma; generalist care; helium-oxygen mixture (heliox); magnesium sulphate (intravenous and adding isotonic nebulised magnesium to inhaled beta(2) agonists); mechanical ventilation; oxygen supplementation (controlled 28% oxygen and controlled 100% oxygen); and specialist care. For chronic asthma: beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists when asthma is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists as needed for symptom relief); inhaled corticosteroids (low dose and increasing dose); leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids); and theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).

[Impact of preventive treatment with long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonists and inhaled corticosteroids on the morbidity and mortality of severe asthma exacerbations in 1543 patients]. / Impacto del tratamiento preventivo con agonistas adrenérgicos beta(2) de acción larga y glucocorticoides inhalados en la morbimortalidad de 1.543 episodios de exacerbación grave de asma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining long-acting #b(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABA) as maintenance treatment for asthma have shown surprisingly conflicting results. The aim of the present study was to determine the impact, in terms of efficacy and safety, of previous maintenance treatment on severe asthma exacerbations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics of exacerbations experienced by 1543 patients with moderate persistent and severe persistent asthma. Drug therapy was as follows: a combination of inhaled LABAs and corticosteroids (493 patients), an inhaled corticosteroid only (456 patients), and no maintenance treatment (594 patients). RESULTS: Asthmatic patients taking LABAs did not show higher mortality, longer stay in the intensive care unit, longer hospital stay, lower pH, or worse airflow obstruction than the other 2 groups. On the contrary, they had a higher mean (SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second at discharge (54% [16%]) than patients taking inhaled corticosteroids (48% [19%]) and patients taking no maintenance treatment (48% [20%]) (P=.009). Patients taking no maintenance treatment also had lower mean (SD) pH values (7.37 [0.11]) than patients taking LABAs (7.39 [0.09]) and patients taking inhaled corticosteroids (7.39 [0.08]) (P=.002), and more admissions to the intensive care unit (11.1% vs 6.5% and 7.7%; P=.002 and P=.018, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not reveal higher morbidity or mortality in severe asthma exacerbations in patients with moderate persistent or severe persistent asthma who had received inhaled LABAs combined with inhaled corticosteroids. On the contrary, asthma patients who did not use maintenance treatment experienced more severe asthma exacerbations.

Asthma in adults.

INTRODUCTION: About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild to moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic, and for acute asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 121 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: for acute asthma: beta(2) agonists (plus Ipratropium bromide, nebulisers, pressured metered-dose inhalers, short-acting continuous nebulised, short-acting intermittent nebulised, short-acting intravenous), corticosteroids (inhaled), corticosteroids (single oral, combined inhaled, short courses), education about acute asthma, generalist care, helium-oxygen mixture, magnesium sulphate (intravenous, adding isotonic nebulised magnesium to inhaled beta(2) agonists), mechanical ventilation, oxygen supplementation (controlled 28% oxygen, controlled 100% oxygen), specialist care. For chronic asthma: beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled as needed for symptom relief), inhaled corticosteroids (low dose, increasing dose), leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids), theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).

Endoftalmitis y septicemia por Klebsiella pneumoniae / Endophthalmitis and septicemia for Klebsiella pneumoniae

La endoftalmitis endógena puede ser la primera manifestación de sepsis, secundaria a infección en el hígado, pulmón, tracto urinario o próstata. Los síntomas más comunes son la disminución de la agudeza visual y dolor ocular y el signo característico es el hipopion. La endoftalmitis endógena secundaria a absceso hepático por Klebsiella pneumoniae es una presentación poco común en el mundo occidental. La mayoría de casos son descritos en el este asiático, especialmente en Taiwán. Es probable que exista una reacción inmunológica y cierto mimetismo antigénico con dicho microorganismo, pero se necesitan más estudios para aclarar esta relación. Nuestro caso se trata de un paciente de 57 años, sin ningún antecedente de importancia, con absceso hepático, endoftalmitis bilateral e infección de vías urinarias, secundario a infección por Klebsiella pneumoniae. El pronóstico de estos pacientes depende de la rapidez con que se sospeche la endoftalmitis y de un tratamiento antibiótico adecuado.