Pleural effusion guidelines from ICS and NCCP Section 1: Basic principles, laboratory tests and pleural procedures.

Pleural effusion is a common problem in our country, and most of these patients need invasive tests as they can't be evaluated by blood tests alone. The simplest of them is diagnostic pleural aspiration, and diagnostic techniques such as medical thoracoscopy are being performed more frequently than ever before. However, most physicians in India treat pleural effusion empirically, leading to delays in diagnosis, misdiagnosis and complications from wrong treatments. This situation must change, and the adoption of evidence-based protocols is urgently needed. Furthermore, the spectrum of pleural disease in India is different from that in the West, and yet Western guidelines and algorithms are used by Indian physicians. Therefore, India-specific consensus guidelines are needed. To fulfil this need, the Indian Chest Society and the National College of Chest Physicians; the premier societies for pulmonary physicians came together to create this National guideline. This document aims to provide evidence based recommendations on basic principles, initial assessment, diagnostic modalities and management of pleural effusions.

Effectiveness and safety of Levofloxacin containing regimen in the treatment of Isoniazid mono-resistant pulmonary Tuberculosis: a systematic review.

Background: We aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the Levofloxacin-containing regimen that the World Health Organization is currently recommending for the treatment of Isoniazid mono-resistant pulmonary Tuberculosis. Methods: Our eligible criteria for the studies to be included were; randomized controlled trials or cohort studies that focused on adults with Isoniazid mono-resistant tuberculosis (HrTB) and treated with a Levofloxacin-containing regimen along with first-line anti-tubercular drugs; they should have had a control group treated with first-line without Levofloxacin; should have reported treatment success rate, mortality, recurrence, progression to multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis. We performed the search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Google Scholar, and Clinical trials registry. Two authors independently screened the titles/abstracts and full texts that were retained after the initial screening, and a third author resolved disagreements. Results: Our search found 4,813 records after excluding duplicates. We excluded 4,768 records after screening the titles and abstracts, retaining 44 records. Subsequently, 36 articles were excluded after the full-text screening, and eight appeared to have partially fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We contacted the respective authors, and none responded positively. Hence, no articles were included in the meta-analysis. Conclusion: We found no "quality" evidence currently on the effectiveness and safety of Levofloxacin in treating HrTB. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022290333, identifier: CRD42022290333.

Undiagnosed Asthma-COPD overlap among patients diagnosed as Asthma and COPD in a referral hospital, India.

Patients who have features of both Asthma & COPD are now known as Asthma COPD overlap (ACO). Prevalence of ACO based on the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and Global initiative for obstructive lung disease (GOLD) Syndromic Approach is scarce. In this cross-sectional observational study, we recruited physician-diagnosed-pAsthma, pCOPD & pACO by simple random sampling. Clinical features, spirometry, 6-min walk test, Serum Immunoglobulin E, % blood eosinophils and chest x-rays were reviewed. Syndromic approach was applied, and the diagnosis was reclassified accordingly. In all, 877 patients were included (Male = 445, Female = 432). Physician diagnosis for these were: pAsthma-713, pCOPD-157 and pACO-7. They were reclassified using the Syndromic approach as: sAsthma, sCOPD and sACO. The 713 pAsthmatics were reclassified as follows: sAsthma-684 (95.94%), sCOPD-12 (1.68%) and sACO-17 (2.38%). Of the 157 pCOPD patients, 91 (57.96%) were reclassified as sCOPD, 23 (14.6%) as sACO, and 17 (927.38%) as sAsthma. Of the 7 previously diagnosed pACO patients, only 1 (14.28%) was reclassified as sACO, 5 (71.42%) as sAsthma and 1 (14.28%) as sCOPD. sCOPD patients had more exacerbations (52.88% vs 46.34%, p = 0.479), critical care admissions (16.35% vs 7.32%, p = 0.157) and intubations (17.31% vs 9.76%, p = 0.255) compared to sACO patients, the latter had more events than sAsthma patients: exacerbations 46.34% vs 10.11% (p < 0.001), critical care admissions 7.32% vs 1.64% (p = 0.010) and intubations 9.76% vs 1.5% (p < 0.001). The syndromic approach helped us to identify ACO and also more appropriately classified COPD & Asthma. There was a significant difference between physician diagnosis and diagnosis using Syndromic Approach. It revealed considerable misclassification of several Asthmatic and ACO subjects, who could have been denied inhaled corticosteroids, as they were wrongly categorised as COPD by physician diagnosis.

Chamberlain's Line Violation in Basilar Invagination Patients Compared with Normal Subjects: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the measured odontoid tip violation above Chamberlain's line described in the literature to diagnose basilar invagination (BI) and to establish the normal placement of the dens tip defining individuals without BI (normal subjects). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify clinical or radiological studies that expressed the amount of odontoid violation above Chamberlain's line in patients with a BI diagnosis. In addition, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate normal subjects' values of Chamberlain's line violation (CLV). RESULTS: There were 23 studies included (13 radiological and 10 clinical). Most studies used computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging. Eight different cutoff values were used to measure dislocated odontoid apexes above Chamberlain's line regardless of the radiological modality. The mean measured amount of CLV was 3.95 mm (median 5 mm; range, 0-9 mm). The meta-analysis included 8 studies (1233 patients) with a normal sample population with a mean normal CLV of -0.63 mm (below the line) (95% confidence interval [-0.8, 1.18 mm], random effects model). CONCLUSIONS: Different values were found in the assessed studies used for CLV in BI diagnosis. This variability is especially important for type B BI, as type A BI has other craniocervical diagnostic parameters. Considering the results obtained in this meta-analysis, BI should be diagnosed in the case of any dens violation >1.18 mm.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

The impact of traumatic herniated discs in cervical facets dislocations treatments: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic facet dislocations in the subaxial cervical spine, also known as locked facets, are commonly associated with neurological deficits. The fear of the presence of an associated traumatic disc herniation and consequent neurological worsening usually causes a delay in the spinal realignment. This study's aim is an analysis of safety and efficacy when treating acute cervical traumatic facet dislocations using cranial-cervical traction or posterior open reduction and fixation in the presence of disc herniations. METHODS: Inclusion criteria addressed the following patient groups: (1) MRI diagnosis of traumatic cervical facet dislocations with disc herniation, (2) intervention: either cranial-cervical traction or posterior open reduction and fixation, (4) neurological outcomes after treatment, (5) adult 18 plus years of age, (6) sample sizes greater than 20 patients, (7) English language publication. The following databases and search tools were analyzed: MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and the clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov), October 2021. RESULTS: Six studies were found, 2 with posterior open reduction and fixation and 4 with cranial-cervical traction, totalizing 197 patients. Neurological worsening was reported only in 1 case (0.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic disc herniation in cervical facet dislocations is not an absolute contraindication of cranial-cervical traction or posterior open reduction. Early realignment of the spine could bring more neurological benefits than waiting for an MRI or surgical discectomy. However, caution is needed in this review's data interpretation until prospective and well-designed studies are performed.

The surgical treatment of subaxial acute cervical spine facet dislocations in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Adult cervical spine traumatic facet joint dislocations occur when excessive traumatic forces displace the vertebrae's facets, leading to loss of joint congruence. Reduction requires either cranial traction or open surgical procedures. This study aims to appraise the effects of different surgical techniques in the treatment of subaxial cervical spine acute traumatic facet blocks in adults. This study was based on a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, registered in Prospero (CRD42021279249). The PICO question was composed of adults with acute cervical spine traumatic facet dislocations submitted to anterior or posterior surgical approaches, associated or not with cranial traction for reduction. Each surgical technique was compared to the other. The primary clinical outcomes included neurological improvement or worsening and surgical success/failure rates. The anterior approach without cranial traction was efficient in reducing facet displacements. Skull traction was an efficient and immediate method to achieve spine dislocation reductions. Differences were not present among techniques regarding neurological improvement. There were no surgical failures in patients operated on via the posterior approach. The need to decompress and stabilize the cervical spine can be achieved by anterior or posterior surgical approaches, and there is no clear answer as to which initial approach is superior to the other.

Treatment of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With a Tabletop Noninvasive Ventilation Device in a Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit.

Objective: To study the outcomes of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) administered through a tabletop device for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome in the respiratory intermediate care unit (RIMCU) at a tertiary care hospital in India. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively studied a cohort of hospitalized patients deteriorating despite low-flow oxygen support who received protocolized management with positive airway pressure using a tabletop NIV device in the RIMCU as a step-up rescue therapy from July 30, 2020 to November 14, 2020. Treatment was commenced on the continuous positive airway pressure mode up to a pressure of 10 cm of H2O, and if required, inspiratory pressures were added using the bilevel positive air pressure mode. Success was defined as weaning from NIV and stepping down to the ward, and failure was defined as escalation to the intensive care unit, the need for intubation, or death. Results: In total, 246 patients were treated in the RIMCU during the study period. Of these, 168 received respiratory support via a tabletop NIV device as a step-up rescue therapy. Their mean age was 54 years, and 83% were men. Diabetes mellitus (78%) and hypertension (44%) were the commonest comorbidities. Treatment was successful with tabletop NIV in 77% (129/168) of the patients; of them, 41% (69/168) received treatment with continuous positive airway pressure alone and 36% (60/168) received additional increased inspiratory pressure via the bilevel positive air pressure mode. Conclusion: Respiratory support using the tabletop NIV device was an effective and economical treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Further studies are required to assess the appropriate time of initiation for maximal benefits and judicious utilization of resources.

Food resilience in a dark catastrophe: A new way of looking at tropical wild edible plants.

A global sun-blocking catastrophe is more plausible than anyone would like to think. Models have consistently shown the devastating effects these events could have to the world's agricultural systems for upwards of 15 years. New shade-, drought-, and cool-tolerant crops and more food stockpile sources must be found if there would be any hope of feeding the global population in such a scenario. Wild edible plants (WEPs) are important buffers of food security to indigenous peoples, impoverished peoples, and those in areas with erratic growing seasons across the globe. Here, we suggest WEP species that have the potential to be scaled up through cultivation in post-catastrophe conditions, and the use of foraged food stockpiles to function as stop-gap foods until conventional agriculture returns. We also propose policy initiatives for habitat protection, education programs, and general preparedness.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections. MAIN RESULTS: Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Recurrent COVID-19 infection in a case of rituximab-induced hypogammaglobulinaemia.

Patients with immunodeficiency are at an increased risk of recurrent COVID-19 infection. They may lack the natural immune response that usually confers long-lasting immunity. Here, we present our experience managing one such patient, who had a COVID-19 infection twice, 5 months apart. He had a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and computed tomography (CT) thorax with classical findings of COVID-19 on both occasions. He had multiple negative RT-PCR tests and two CT scans without COVID-19 features between these two infections. While the antibody response to the first infection was not detectable, the response to the second infection was robust. Live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated in patients with immunodeficiency, and other vaccines may not elicit an adequate immune response. A high index of suspicion for recurrent COVID-19 is warranted in this group of patients.

A community-based cross-sectional study on knowledge, attitude, and perceptions about asthma among healthy adults in rural South India.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that proper knowledge and perceptions about asthma result in a positive correlation with compliance with medications and regular medical follow-up. Assessing the level of knowledge, attitude, and perception (KAP) in the community is essential for planning public health interventions. There is a lacuna on community-based KAP study on asthma in rural India, as most of the existing evidence is from hospital-based studies in an urban setting. METHODS: We interviewed 280 healthy adults from 14 villages in South India using the Chicago community asthma survey-32 (CCAS-32) questionnaire. We noted the frequency distribution of responses to the questions and scored KAP on symptoms, triggers, and treatment, and performed bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The mean age was 37.7 years ranging from 18 to 62 years. Almost half of them (47%) had primary or middle school education. 40.7% and 57.9% believed severe headache and tightness of chest were symptoms of asthma, respectively. Similarly, 38.2% and 48.4% thought asthma was a hereditary and contagious disease, respectively, whereas 41.8% of perceived asthma medications could be addictive. Having witnessed "patients with asthma" was associated with KAP on symptoms and triggers while younger age and having a relative with asthma were associated with KAP on treatment independently. Participants who had relatives with asthma were three times [(OR 3.04; 95% (1.5-6.1)] more likely to have good KAP compared to their counterparts. CONCLUSION: Asthma knowledge and perceptions are sparse in rural India. Adequate investments in public awareness are the need of the hour.

Role of Atlas Assimilation in the Context of Craniocervical Junction Anomalies.

Atlas assimilation (AA) may be associated with atlantoaxial dislocation, Chiari malformation (CM), and basilar invagination. The importance of AA in the context of craniocervical junction (CVJ) anomalies is unclear. Considering this context, this study's objective is to discuss the role of AA in the management of CVJ anomalies, especially in CM. A comprehensive literature review was performed. In addition, some illustrative cases were discussed on the basis of our review. Finally, we propose a theoretic algorithm to evaluate patients with AA and CM. AA is a proatlas segmentation anomaly that may be complete or incomplete. It may be totally asymptomatic or symptomatic as the result of transferred shifted forces onto the C1-2 joints, leading to clear instability (atlantoaxial dislocation) or mild C1-2 instability. Cautious surgical planning may be required due to associated vertebral artery anomalies. AA with concomitant C2-C3 segmentation failure is highly associated with late C1-C2 instability. CVJ decompression failure was reported in patients with CM and a low clivus canal angle (<130-135 degrees). Patients with assimilated anterior C1 arches usually have evident AAD. CM patients with AA generally have type 1 BI or type 2 BI and are reported with higher rates of CVJ instabilities when compared with those "pure" CM. Dynamic examinations may provide additional evidence of atlantoaxial instability. Although AA per se is not considered an unstable configuration, further and detailed evaluations of patients with CM associated with AA are necessary. Some associated unstable configurations required concomitant CVJ fixation.

Terminology and Legislation referring to Percutaneous Facet Procedures to Treat Low Back Pain in Brazil ­ Current Status

Incongruities in the terminology and in the Brazilian legislation about percutaneous facet procedures (PFPs) for the treatment of chronic lower back pain are frequently the subject of litigations between health professionals and supplementary healthcare providers. The Brazilian Hierarchical Classification of Medical Procedures (CBHPM, in the Portuguese acronym) describes four types of PFPs, while the Brazilian Unified Supplementary Health Terminology (TUSS, in the Portuguese acronym) describes five distinct lumbar PFPs, which correlate with the ones described on the List of Procedures and Events in Health, created by the Brazilian National Agency of Supplementary Health (ANS, in the Portuguese acronym). In the present paper, we review the terminology of the procedures, proposing the unification of the terminology and the abolition of redundancies in the tables. Finally, we developed a single terminology proposal for the PFPs based on their complexity and objectives to be used for the treatment of lower back pain.