Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe). MAIN RESULTS: We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations). MAIN RESULTS: We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

Primary jejunal amelanotic melanoma: case report and review of literature.

Intussusception more commonly occurs in pediatrics but is a rare cause of bowel obstruction and gastrointestinal bleeding in adults. It typically occurs in adults due to a malignancy, which serves as a pathologic lead point. We present a case of a 64-year-old female with nausea, vomiting, and melena who was found to have intussusception associated with a primary jejunal amelanotic melanoma. Both intussusception and primary small bowel melanomas are rare causes of obstruction and bleeding. Intussusception occurring as a result of a primary small bowel amelanotic melanoma is exceedingly rare with very few reported cases. We provide a case report and review of the literature.

Are We Coping Well with COVID-19?: A Study on Its Psycho-Social Impact on Front-line Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Global pandemics have a profound psycho-social impact on health systems and their impact on healthcare workers is under-reported. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey with 13 Likert-scale responses and some additional polar questions pertaining to dressing habits and learning in a university hospital in the midwest United States. Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed. RESULTS: The 370 respondents (66.1% response rate, age 38.5±11.6 years; 64.9% female), included 102 supervising providers [96 (25.9%) physicians, 6 (1.6%) mid-level], 64 (17.3%) residents/fellows, 73 (19.7% nurses, 45 (12.2%) respiratory therapists, 31 (8.4%) therapy services and others: 12 (3.2%) case-managers, 4 (1.1%) dietitians, 39 (10.5%) unclassified]. Overall, 200 (54.1%) had increased anxiety, 115 (31.1%) felt overwhelmed, 159 (42.9%) had fear of death, and 281 (75.9%) changed dressing habits. Females were more anxious (70.7% vs. 56%, X2 (1, N=292)=5.953, p=0.015), overwhelmed (45.6% vs. 27.3%, X2 (1, N=273)=8.67, p=0.003) and suffered sleep disturbances (52% vs. 39%, X2 (1, N=312)=4.91, p=0.027). Administration was supportive; 243 (84.1%, N=289), 276 (74.5%) knew another co-worker with COVID-19, and only 93 (25.1%) felt healthcare employment was less favorable. Residents and fellows reported a negative impact on their training despite feeling supported by their program. CONCLUSION: Despite belief of a supportive administration, over half of healthcare workers and learners reported increased anxiety, and nearly a third felt overwhelmed during this current pandemic.

Monitoring the Use of Telemonitor: A Resident-run Quality Improvement Initiative Decreases Inappropriate Use of Telemonitor in a Community Hospital.

Background Cardiac telemetry is an important tool to detect life-threatening conditions in hospitalized patients but is used widely and inappropriately. We sought to assess current usage and improve the appropriate use of telemetry in a community hospital. Methods We conducted a quality improvement project on patients who were admitted on telemetry floors between January and March 2017 (pre-intervention). The indication(s) and duration of telemonitor use, event(s) recorded on telemonitor and outcome of the event(s) were documented. A six-month educational intervention was undertaken and the effect of intervention was assessed among patients admitted between December 2017 and February 2018 (post-intervention). Results In the pre-intervention group, 329 patients qualified for the study, with a median age of 78 years. The post-intervention group had 383 qualified patients with a median age of 77 years. Mean duration of telemonitor use was four days in both groups. In the pre-intervention group, 54% had class I, 32% had class II, and 14% had class III indications. In post-intervention group, 46% had class I, 42% had class II, and 12% had class III indications. The educational intervention resulted in a trend towards less inappropriate use of telemetry, particularly in teaching service. Telemonitor events were recorded in 22 (7%) of the pre-intervention patients and 13 (4%) of the post-intervention group. Two patients died in the pre-intervention group and one in the post-intervention group from non-cardiac causes. Conclusion Our results highlight that change in practice requires sustained education interventions.