Clinical outcomes of long-term inhaled combination therapies in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Few studies have reported which inhaled combination therapy, either bronchodilators and/or inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), is beneficial in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction. Our study compared the efficacy and safety among different inhaled combination therapies in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction. METHODS: Our retrospective study analyzed the patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity < 0.7 and radiologically confirmed bronchiectasis in chest computed tomography between January 2005 and December 2021. The eligible patients underwent baseline and follow-up spirometric assessments. The primary endpoint was the development of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation. The secondary endpoints were the change in the annual FEV1 and the adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the blood eosinophil count (BEC). RESULTS: Among 179 patients, the ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), ICS/LABA, and LABA/LAMA groups were comprised of 58 (32.4%), 52 (29.1%), and 69 (38.5%) patients, respectively. ICS/LABA/LAMA group had a higher severity of bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction, than other groups. In the subgroup with BEC ≥ 300/uL, the risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbation was lower in the ICS/LABA/LAMA group (adjusted HR = 0.137 [95% CI = 0.034-0.553]) and the ICS/LABA group (adjusted HR = 0.196 [95% CI = 0.045-0.861]) compared with the LABA/LAMA group. The annual FEV1 decline rate was significantly worsened in the ICS/LABA group compared to the LABA/LAMA group (adjusted ß-coefficient=-197 [95% CI=-307--87]) in the subgroup with BEC < 200/uL. CONCLUSION: In patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction, the use of ICS/LABA/LAMA and ICS/LABA demonstrated a reduced risk of exacerbation compared to LABA/LAMA therapy in those with BEC ≥ 300/uL. Conversely, for those with BEC < 200/uL, the use of ICS/LABA was associated with an accelerated decline in FEV1 in comparison to LABA/LAMA therapy. Further assessment of BEC is necessary as a potential biomarker for the use of ICS in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction.

Efficacy and safety of HX 110-A and HX 110-B in promoting respiratory health: protocol for an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: HX110-A and HX110-B are compound extracts based on radix adenophorae and rhizoma dioscoreae, respectively, which have anti-inflammatory activity. There are limited data on whether they may help improve respiratory conditions including lung function. Therefore, in this trial, we will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the use of HX110-A and HX110-B for the treatment of respiratory health in adults with mild respiratory symptoms. METHODS: This will be an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial with three arms. Adults more than 40 years old with persistent respiratory symptoms will be enrolled. Patients with definite respiratory disease or with a history of recent intake of antioxidants or anti-inflammatory agents will be excluded. Study subjects will be assigned at a 1:1:1 ratio into the following three arms: controls, experimental group 1 (HX110-A), and experimental group 2 (HX110-B). Control or experimental foods will be administered for 8 weeks, and follow-up will be up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome will be total antioxidant capacity. Secondary outcomes will be inflammatory indexes, respiratory symptoms, lung function, quality of life, and fatigue level. Safety outcomes will be assessed by monitoring adverse events and vital signs, and through clinical pathology tests. RESULTS: This trial will reveal the effectiveness and safety of HX110-A and/or HX110-B for medical purposes in adults with respiratory symptoms. The results should clarify if active intake of specific foods with these functional compounds may promote respiratory health in adults without definite respiratory disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service, KCT0003614. Registered 12 May 2019 (Respectively registered, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/en/search/search_result_st01.jsp?seq=13364).

Comparison of levofloxacin versus moxifloxacin for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

RATIONALE: Levofloxacin (LFX) and moxifloxacin (MXF) are the two most frequently recommended fluoroquinolones for treatment of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). However, studies comparing the effectiveness of LFX and MXF among patients with MDR-TB are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of LFX and MXF in terms of culture conversion after 3 months of treatment for MDR-TB. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter randomized open label trial, we randomly assigned 182 patients with MDR-TB (sensitive to LFX and MXF) to receive either LFX (750 mg/day; 90 patients) or MXF (400 mg/day; 92 patients) with a background drug regimen. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were time to culture conversion and time to smear conversion, with data censored at 3 months, and the proportions of adverse drug reactions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 3 months of treatment, 68 (88.3%) of the 77 patients in the LFX group and 67 (90.5%) of the 74 in the MXF group showed conversion to negative sputum cultures (odds ratio for LFX compared with MXF, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.20). Adverse drug reactions were reported in six patients (7.7%) in the LFX group and four (5.2%) in the MXF group (P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of LFX or MXF for treatment of patients with MDR-TB may not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01055145).