Right ventricular functional recovery assessment with stress echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing after pulmonary embolism: a pilot prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Data on right ventricular (RV) exercise adaptation following acute intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the symptom burden, RV functional recovery during exercise and cardiopulmonary exercise parameters in survivors of intermediate and high-risk acute PE. METHODS: We prospectively recruited patients following acute intermediate and high-risk PE at four sites in Australia and UK. Study assessments included stress echocardiography, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and ventilation-perfusion (VQ) scan at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited and 24 (median age: 55 years, IQR: 22) completed follow-up. Reduced peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and workload was seen in 75.0% (n=18), with a persistent high symptom burden (mean PEmb-QoL Questionnaire 48.4±21.5 and emPHasis-10 score 22.4±8.8) reported at follow-up. All had improvement in RV-focused resting echocardiographic parameters. RV systolic dysfunction and RV to pulmonary artery (PA) uncoupling assessed by stress echocardiography was seen in 29.2% (n=7) patients and associated with increased ventilatory inefficiency (V̇E/V̇CO2 slope 47.6 vs 32.4, p=0.03), peak exercise oxygen desaturation (93.2% vs 98.4%, p=0.01) and reduced peak oxygen pulse (p=0.036) compared with controls. Five out of seven patients with RV-PA uncoupling demonstrated persistent bilateral perfusion defects on VQ scintigraphy consistent with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary vascular disease. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, impaired RV adaptation on exercise was seen in almost one-third of patients. Combined stress echocardiography and CPET may enable more accurate phenotyping of patients with persistent symptoms following acute PE to allow timely detection of long-term complications.

Right heart strain assessment on CTPA following acute pulmonary embolism: Interobserver variability between expert radiologists and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy of right heart strain (RHS) measured on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) scans by non-radiologists is unknown. We assessed inter-observer variability of four RHS features and determined the accuracy of measurements by respiratory physicians. METHOD: 1560 consecutive patients with acute PE were identified, and those who had a CTPA and an echocardiogram within 24-h included. CTPAs were independently scored prospectively by two radiologists, two thoracic physicians and a specialist registrar. Inter-observer variability was assessed, and diagnostic accuracy compared to echocardiography. RESULTS: 182 patients (median age 62.8 years, IQR 49.8-71.5) with acute PE (7.7% high-risk, 40.7% intermediate high-risk, 31.3% intermediate low-risk and 20.3% low-risk) were included. Right ventricle to left ventricle diameter ratio (RV:LV) measurement had low inter-observer variability among the radiologists and non-radiologists with interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.95 (95%CI 0.92-0.97) and 0.96 (95%CI 0.94-0.97) respectively. RV:LV ratio had high diagnostic accuracy compared to RV dilatation on echocardiography (AUC 0.89, 95%CI 0.84-0.94 for radiologists and AUC 0.84, 95%CI 0.77-0.90 for non-radiologists). Main pulmonary artery to ascending aorta diameter ratio (MPA:Ao) measurement also had excellent agreement amongst the radiologists and non-radiologists (ICC 0.93 (95%CI 0.88-0.96) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.81-0.96) respectively). Significant variability was seen in the assessment of subjective features of RHS (leftward bowing of interventricular septum and contrast reflux into inferior vena cava) amongst the non-radiologists. CONCLUSION: RV:LV and MPA:Ao diameter ratios on CTPA measured by non-radiologists have low inter-observer variability and good agreement with radiologists, and can be reliably used where an expert report is unavailable.

Severe asthma assessment, management and the organisation of care in Australia and New Zealand: expert forum roundtable meetings.

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on individuals, families and the healthcare system. Treatment is complex, due to disease heterogeneity, comorbidities and complexity in care pathways. New approaches and treatments improve health outcomes for people with severe asthma. However, emerging multidimensional and targeted treatment strategies require a reorganisation of asthma care. Consensus is required on how reorganisation should occur and what areas require further research. The Centre of Excellence in Severe Asthma convened three forums between 2015 and 2018, hosting experts from Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The forums were complemented by a survey of clinicians involved in the management of people with severe asthma. We sought to: (i) identify areas of consensus among experts; (ii) define activities and resources required for the implementation of findings into practice; and (iii) identify specific priority areas for future research. Discussions identified areas of unmet need including assessment and diagnosis of severe asthma, models of care and treatment pathways, add-on treatment approaches and patient perspectives. We recommend development of education and training activities, clinical resources and standards of care documents, increased stakeholder engagement and public awareness campaigns and improved access to infrastructure and funding. Further, we propose specific future research to inform clinical decision-making and develop novel therapies. A concerted effort is required from all stakeholders (including patients, healthcare professionals and organisations and government) to integrate new evidence-based practices into clinical care and to advance research to resolve questions relevant to improving outcomes for people with severe asthma.

The cost-effectiveness of azithromycin in reducing exacerbations in uncontrolled asthma.

Add-on azithromycin (AZM) results in a significant reduction in exacerbations among adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of add-on AZM in terms of healthcare and societal costs.The AMAZES trial randomly assigned 420 participants to AZM or placebo. Healthcare use and asthma exacerbations were measured during the treatment period. Healthcare use included all prescribed medicine and healthcare contacts. Costs of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were estimated based on overall consumption and published estimates of costs. The value of an avoided exacerbation was based on published references. Differences in cost between the two groups were related to differences in exacerbations in a series of net monetary benefit estimates. Societal costs included lost productivity, over the counter medicines, steroid induced morbidity and AMR costs.Add-on AZM resulted in a reduction in healthcare costs (mean (95% CI)) including nights in hospital (AUD 433.70 (AUD 48.59-818.81) or EUR 260.22 (EUR 29.15-491.29)), unplanned healthcare visits (AUD 20.25 (AUD 5.23-35.27) or EUR 12.15 (EUR 3.14-21.16)), antibiotic costs (AUD 14.88 (AUD 7.55-22.21) or EUR 8.93 (EUR 4.53-13.33)) and oral corticosteroid costs (AUD 4.73 (AUD 0.82-8.64) or EUR 2.84 (EUR 0.49-5.18)); all p<0.05. Overall healthcare and societal costs were lower (AUD 77.30 (EUR 46.38) and AUD 256.22 (EUR 153.73) respectively) albeit not statistically significant. The net monetary benefit of add-on AZM was estimated to be AUD 2072.30 (95% CI AUD 1348.55-2805.23) or (EUR 1243.38 (EUR 809.13-1683.14) assuming a willingness to pay per exacerbation avoided of AUD 2651 (EUR 1590.60). Irrespective of the sensitivity analysis applied, the net monetary benefit for total, moderate and severe exacerbations remained positive and significant.Add-on AZM therapy in poorly controlled asthma was a cost-effective therapy. Costs associated with AMR did not influence estimated cost-effectiveness.

Severe Asthma Toolkit: an online resource for multidisciplinary health professionals-needs assessment, development process and user analytics with survey feedback.

OBJECTIVES: Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on individuals, families and the healthcare system. New treatment and management approaches are emerging as effective options for severe asthma. Translating new knowledge to multidisciplinary healthcare professionals is a priority. We developed 'The Severe Asthma Toolkit' (https://toolkit.severeasthma.org.au) to increase awareness of severe asthma, provide evidence-based resources and support decisionmaking by healthcare providers. SETTING: Roundtable discussions and a survey of Australians clinicians were conducted to determine clinician preferences, format and content for a severe asthma resource. PARTICIPANTS: A reference group from stakeholder and consumer bodies and severe asthma experts provided advice and feedback. A multidisciplinary team of international experts was engaged to develop content. Written content was based on up-to-date literature. Peer and editorial review were performed to finalise content and inform web design. Website design focused on user experience, navigation, engagement, interactivity and tailoring of content for a clinical audience. RESULTS: A web-based resource was developed. Roundtable discussions and a needs assessment survey identified the need for dedicated severe asthma management resources to support skills training. The end-product, which launched 26 March 2018, includes an overview of severe asthma, diagnosis and assessment, management, medications, comorbidities, living with severe asthma, establishing a clinic, paediatrics/adolescents and clinical resources. Analytics indicate access by users worldwide (32 169 users from 169 countries). User survey results (n=394) confirm access by the target audience (72% health professionals), who agreed the toolkit increased their knowledge (73%) and confidence in managing severe asthma (66%), and 75% are likely to use the resource in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The Severe Asthma Toolkit is a unique, evidence-based internet resource to support healthcare professionals providing optimal care for people with severe asthma. It is a comprehensive, accessible and independent resource developed by leading severe asthma experts to improve clinician knowledge and skills in severe asthma management.

Managing patients with severe asthma in Australia: Current challenges with the existing models of care.

Severe asthma leads to debilitating symptoms for patients and excessive socioeconomic burden for the community. Comprehensive models of care are required to address complex issues, risk factors and comorbidities in patients with severe asthma, and to identify patients most appropriate for specialised treatments. Dedicated severe asthma services improve asthma control, reduce asthma exacerbations and hospital admissions, and improve quality of life. Currently, diverse models of care exist for managing severe asthma across Australia. Most referrals to severe asthma services are from respiratory physicians seeking a second opinion or from primary care for poorly controlled asthma. Despite benefits of specialised severe asthma services, many patients are not referred and resources are limited, often resulting in long waiting times. Patient referral is often unstructured and there are considerable variations in the management of severe asthma with limited access to other health care professionals such as speech pathologists and dieticians, and restricted scope to optimise patient work-up before referral. Ongoing communication between the specialist and referring clinician is essential for continuity of care but is often lacking. Referral pathways can be optimised by developing referral criteria and guidelines to triage patients with severe asthma and to improve resource efficiency. Additional education and tools for assessing and managing severe asthma are needed, and mechanisms should be developed for involving primary care in the management of stabilised patients. Strategies to increase patient access to multidisciplinary services are recommended.