Managing children with frequent respiratory infections and associated wheezing: a preliminary randomized study with a new multicomponent nasal spray.

BACKGROUND: Preschoolers frequently have respiratory infections (RIs), which may cause wheezing in some subjects. Type 2 polarization may favor increased susceptibility to RIs and associated wheezing. Non-pharmacological remedies are garnering increasing interest as possible add-on therapies. The present preliminary study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new multi-component nasal spray in preschoolers with frequent RIs and associated wheezing. METHODS: Some preschoolers with these characteristics randomly took this product, containing lactoferrin, dipotassium glycyrrhizinate, carboxymethyl-beta-glucan, and vitamins C and D3 (Saflovir), two sprays per nostril twice daily for 3 months. Other children were randomly treated only with standard therapy. Outcomes included the number of RIs and wheezing episodes, use of medications, and severity of clinical manifestations. RESULTS: Preschoolers treated add-on with this multicomponent product experienced fewer RIs and used fewer beta-2 agonists than untreated children (P = 0.01 and 0.029, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated that a multicomponent product, administered add-on as a nasal spray, could reduce the incidence of RIs and use of symptomatic drugs for relieving wheezing in children.

Rationale and design of the PARTHENOPE trial: A two-by-two factorial comparison of polymer-free vs biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents and personalized vs standard duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in all-comers undergoing PCI.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has undergone significant advancements as a result of the combination of device-based and drug-based therapies. These iterations have led to the development of polymer-free drug-eluting stents. However, there is a scarcity of data regarding their clinical performance. Furthermore, while various risk scores have been proposed to determine the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), none of them have undergone prospective validation within the context of randomized trials. DESIGN: The PARTHENOPE trial is a phase IV, prospective, randomized, multicenter, investigator-initiated, assessor-blind study being conducted at 14 centers in Italy (NCT04135989). It includes 2,107 all-comers patients with minimal exclusion criteria, randomly assigned in a 2-by-2 design to receive either the Cre8 amphilimus-eluting stent or the SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stent, along with either a personalized or standard duration of DAPT. Personalized DAPT duration is determined by the DAPT score, which accounts for both bleeding and ischemic risks. Patients with a DAPT score <2 (indicating higher bleeding than ischemic risk) receive DAPT for 3 or 6 months for chronic or acute coronary syndrome, respectively, while patients with a DAPT score ≥2 (indicating higher ischemic than bleeding risk) receive DAPT for 24 months. Patients in the standard DAPT group receive DAPT for 12 months. The trial aims to establish the noninferiority between stents with respect to a device-oriented composite end point of cardiovascular death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically-driven target-lesion revascularization at 12 months after PCI. Additionally, the trial aims to demonstrate the superiority of personalized DAPT compared to a standard approach with respect to a net clinical composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or type 2 to 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria at 24-months after PCI. SUMMARY: The PARTHENOPE trial is the largest randomized trial investigating the efficacy and safety of a polymer-free DES with a reservoir technology for drug-release and the first trial evaluating a personalized duration of DAPT based on the DAPT score. The study results will provide novel insights into the optimizing the use of drug-eluting stents and DAPT in patients undergoing PCI.

Choosing nasal devices: a dilemma in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Upper airway diseases are frequent and recognize different etiopathogenetic mechanisms, including infection, inflammation, and allergy. Therefore, topical treatments are preferable in comparison with systemic medications. Several delivery devices are available on the market, including nasal drops, syringes, sprays, nebulizers, and douches. However, it is clinically relevant to know the better way to use it. METHODS: The present experience compared five different devices that were tested: i) a nasal dropper, ii) a standard nasal spray device, iii) a mucosal atomization device with a nozzle tip, iv) a nebulizer device, and v) a nasal douche. Saline solution with methylene blue was the marker to evaluate the intranasal distribution. RESULTS: The findings showed an apparent difference in area distribution among these delivery devices. Conclusion The present experience showed that doctors should choose the most appropriate device for the current disease in clinical practice.

When rhinosinusitis is not just rhinosinusitis: Clinical characteristics and phenotypes of patients with type 2 chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a chronic and recurrent disease that negatively affects patients' quality of life. CRS has two main phenotypes: CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and CRS without polyps (CRSsNP). Minimal research has been conducted to study the variability in patients' characteristics. Therefore, we conducted this study to examine these differences. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included patients with both CRSwNP and CRSsNP. Outcomes included symptom severity, radiographic severity, and number of sinus surgeries. Symptom severity was assessed using the Sino-nasal Outcome Test and the Lund-Mackay CT score was used to determine radiographic severity. Further subgroup analysis was done based on the presence or absence of comorbid asthma. RESULTS: A total of 110 and 106 patients were included in the CRSwNP and CRSsNP groups, respectively. The mean age in the CRSwNP and CRSsNP groups was 50.2 and 48.7, and the proportion of female patients was 40.9% and 58.5%, respectively. No significant difference in symptom severity was noted between CRSwNP and CRSsNP group (68.1±18.6 vs. 73.2±21.27; P=0.097), while the Lund-Mackay score was significantly lower in the CRSsNP group (7.4±2.3 vs. 11.9±3.6; P=0.016). Also, the number of surgeries was significantly lower in the CRSsNP group as compared to the CRSwNP group (P=0.023). Subgroup analysis revealed statistically significant differences between those with and without asthma in patients with CRSwNP in terms of Lund-Mackay scores and number of surgeries (P=0.038 and 0.043), respectively. However, no significant differences were noted in the CRSsNP group (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear variability in the characteristics of patients with CRSsNP and CRSwNP. A similar difference was noted in the CRSwNP group when patients were stratified based on the presence of absence of asthma. This warrants further investigation of potential correlation with the prognosis and optimum treatment strategies of this patient population.

Prevention of recurrent respiratory infections : Inter-society Consensus.

Recurrent respiratory infections (RRIs) are a common clinical condition in children, in fact about 25% of children under 1 year and 6% of children during the first 6 years of life have RRIs. In most cases, infections occur with mild clinical manifestations and the frequency of episodes tends to decrease over time with a complete resolution by 12 years of age. However, RRIs significantly reduce child and family quality of life and lead to significant medical and social costs.Despite the importance of this condition, there is currently no agreed definition of the term RRIs in the literature, especially concerning the frequency and type of infectious episodes to be considered. The aim of this consensus document is to propose an updated definition and provide recommendations with the intent of guiding the physician in the complex process of diagnosis, management and prevention of RRIs.

Inter-society consensus for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in infants, children and adolescents with airway diseases.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, a multidisciplinary panel of experts from eight Italian scientific paediatric societies developed a consensus document for the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders. The aim is to provide healthcare providers with a multidisciplinary document including indications useful in the clinical practice. The consensus document was intended to be addressed to paediatricians who work in the Paediatric Divisions, the Primary Care Services and the Emergency Departments, as well as to Residents or PhD students, paediatric nurses and specialists or consultants in paediatric pulmonology, allergy, infectious diseases, and ear, nose, and throat medicine. METHODS: Clinical questions identifying Population, Intervention(s), Comparison and Outcome(s) were addressed by methodologists and a general agreement on the topics and the strength of the recommendations (according to the GRADE system) was obtained following the Delphi method. The literature selection included secondary sources such as evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews and was integrated with primary studies subsequently published. RESULTS: The expert panel provided a number of recommendations on the use of inhaled corticosteroids in preschool wheezing, bronchial asthma, allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, laryngitis and laryngospasm. CONCLUSIONS: We provided a multidisciplinary update on the current recommendations for the management and prevention of the most common paediatric airways disorders requiring inhaled corticosteroids, in order to share useful indications, identify gaps in knowledge and drive future research.

ImpaCt of an Optimal Implantation Strategy on Absorb Long-Term Outcomes: The CIAO Registry.

AIM: To compare the long-term outcomes of patients implanted with Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) with optimal versus suboptimal technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients who received an Absorb between March 2012 and January 2016 were selected from 19 Italian centers databases to assess the impact of an optimal implantation technique (CIAO criteria) on long-term device-oriented composite end-point (DOCE) - including cardiac death (CD), target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) - on its single components and on scaffold thrombosis (ScT). CIAO criteria consist of predilation (balloon/vessel ratio 1:1), correct sizing (BRS/proximal reference vessel diameter -RVD- ratio 0.8-1.2) and high-pressure postdilation with non-compliant (NC) balloon (≥20 atm for balloon/BRS ratio 1:1 or ≥16 atm for a 0.25-0.5 mm oversized balloon). Among the 1.434 patients analyzed, 464 (32.4%) fulfilled all CIAO criteria for every BRS implanted (CIAO 3 group), while 970 (67.6%) did not in at least one of the received BRS (CIAO 0-1-2 group). At 31.0 (interquartile range -IQR- 24.8-38.5) months follow-up, CIAO criteria did not impact on DOCE (8.2% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.92), ID-TLR (6.9% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.72) or ScT (1.9% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.80) in the overall population. At multivariate analysis overall BRS length (p = 0.001), severely calcified lesions (p = 0.03) and absence of CIAO criteria (CIAO 0, p = 0.005) were independent predictors of DOCE in long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that strict application of an optimal Absorb implantation technique doesn't improve long-term DOCE or ScT but may mitigate the worse outcome of patients with calcific lesions.

Inflammation, infection, and allergy of upper airways: new insights from national and real-world studies.

The upper airways (UA) should be considered as a functional unit. Current functional anatomy divides URT in three, mutually dependent, "junction boxes": i) the ostio-meatal complex (OMC), ii) the spheno-ethmoidal recess (SER), and iii) the rhinopharynx (RP). Correct ventilation and effective mucociliary clearance of these sites significantly affect the healthy physiology of the entire respiratory system. The OMC, SER, and RP obstruction is the first pathogenic step in the inflammatory/infectious cascade of UA disorders. The inflammation of the respiratory mucosa is the main pathogenic factor for airway obstruction. Moreover, bacterial biofilm (a strategy modality of bacterial survival) is an important local cause of systemic antibiotic ineffectiveness, recurrent infections, and antibiotic resistance. Health microbiota guarantees UA wellness; on the contrary, dysbiosis promotes and worsens UA infections. Allergy, namely type 2 inflammation, is a common cause of UA obstruction such as promoting in turn infections. Fiberoptic endoscopy is a mandatory diagnostic tool in clinical practice. Nasal cytology, mainly concerning flow cytometry, allows defining rhinitis phenotypes so allowing a precision medicine approach. Several conventional therapeutic approaches are available, but efficacy and safety should be ever properly considered before the prescription. Also, complementary medicine plays a fruitful role in the management of UA diseases. National and real-world studies are reported and discussed as they may be useful in daily clinical practice.

One-year clinical performance of ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: Results from the RAI registry.

OBJECTIVES: To report 1-year clinical outcomes of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) population. BACKGROUND: BVS use has rapidly extended to high-risk patients as those presenting with ACS. To date limited data have been reported on BVS performance in ACS patients. METHODS: RAI is a multicenter, prospective registry that included 1,505 patients treated with at least 1 successful BVS implantation. A subgroup analysis on ACS patients was performed and the 1-year outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) population are reported here. Coprimary endpoints were target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of the patients presented with ACS, of whom 36.5% with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. ACS patients were significantly younger, with a better cardiovascular risk profile, a lower rate of multivessel disease, chronic total occlusion or in-stent restenosis and a lower Syntax score. Predilation and postdilation were performed in 97.4% and in 96.5% of cases, respectively. No differences were noted in terms of TIMI 3 final flow, but acute gain was greater in ACS compared to SCAD group (P < 0.001). At one-year follow-up no differences were found in terms of TLR (3.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.98), and device-oriented composite end-point (4.3% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.4) between ACS and SCAD groups. The rate of definite/probable ScT was numerically higher in ACS vs. stable CAD patients (1.3% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of BVS in ACS patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to SCAD population numerically higher, but without statistical significance.

One-Year Results Following a Pre-Specified ABSORB Implantation Strategy in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT Study).

BACKGROUND: data from clinical experiences with Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in STEMI raised concerns among clinicians about the device safety because a noteworthy scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rate was reported at early and long-term follow-up. Nevertheless, pre-specified technical suggestions of how to perform an optimal BRS procedure in STEMI were lacking. In this study we sought to assess the 1-year results following a pre-specified BRS implantation strategy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI (pPCI). METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter study on 505 STEMI patients undergoing pPCI with Absorb following a dedicated implantation protocol. The primary end-point (a device oriented composite end-point (DOCE) of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) within 30 days) was already reported. We here present DOCE, its singular components and ScT rates (secondary end-points) at 1-year. RESULTS: According to the study protocol direct Absorb implantation was feasible in 47 (9.3%) patients while post-dilatation was performed in 468 (92.7%) cases. The hierarchical DOCE rate at 1-year was 1.2% (0.4% cardiac death, 0.4% TV-MI and 0.8% ID-TLR) versus 0.6% at 30-day. Two episodes (0.4%) of ScT (one probable subacute and one late definite) were reported. At 1-year, 99.2% patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy (95% with ticagrelor or prasugrel). CONCLUSIONS: A pre-specified Absorb implantation strategy in STEMI patients was associated with persistent low DOCE and ScT rates at 1-year. Longer term follow-up is needed to assess the role of this strategy on preventing very-late events (NCT02601781).

Impact of Absorb bioresorbable scaffold implantation technique on post-procedural quantitative coronary angiographic endpoints in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a sub-analysis of the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation technique on post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) parameters in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed 442 STEMI patients who underwent BRS implantation in the BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT study. Optimal BRS implantation was assessed using the PSP score, developed and validated in the GHOST-EU registry. We analysed post-implantation QCA parameters, including minimum lumen diameter (MLD) and maximum footprint, in patients with and without optimal BRS implantation, coded as maximum PSP score. Patients with optimal BRS implantation had higher post-procedural MLD and lower maximum footprint than those without. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that optimal BRS implantation was an independent predictor of high post-procedural MLD, defined as ≥2.4 mm for 2.5 or 3.0 mm BRS and ≥2.8 mm for 3.5 mm BRS. Thrombectomy before optimal BRS implantation showed a trend towards higher post-procedural MLD and lower maximum footprint. There was no relationship between optimal BRS implantation and device-oriented composite events at one year. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal BRS implantation, as assessed by PSP score, was associated with better post-procedural QCA parameters in STEMI. Thrombectomy before optimal BRS implantation might improve angiographic results in STEMI. Long-term follow-up is needed to analyse the relationship between QCA parameters and clinical outcomes after BRS implantation in STEMI patients.

"Full-plastic jacket" with everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: Clinical outcomes in the multicenter prospective RAI registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298413).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate mid-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with 'full-plastic jacket' (FPJ) everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS) implantation. BACKGROUND: FPJ with BRS may represent an interesting option for patient with diffuse coronary artery disease (CAD), but data on the clinical impact of FPJ using the Absorb BRS are scant. METHODS: FPJ was defined as the implantation of >56 mm of overlapping BRS in at least one vessel. We compared outcomes of patients receiving Absorb FPJ vs. non-FPJ within the multicenter prospective RAI Registry. RESULTS: Out of 1505 consecutive patients enrolled in the RAI registry, 1384 were eligible for this analysis. Of these, 143 (10.3%) were treated with BRS FPJ. At a median follow-up of 649 days, no differences were observed between FPJ and non-FPJ groups in terms of the device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE) (5.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.675) or the patient-related composite endpoint (PoCE) (20.9% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.149). Patients receiving FPJ had higher rates of target vessel repeat revascularization (TVR) (11.2% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.042). In the FPJ group, there was no cardiac death and only one (very late) stent thrombosis (ST) (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Mid-term outcomes of a FPJ PCI strategy in the setting of diffuse CAD did not show a significant increase in composite device- and patient-related events, with rates of cardiac death and ST comparable to non-FPJ Absorb BRS implantation. However, these findings are hypothesis generating and requiring further validation.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes After Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) may represent an intriguing clinical scenario for implantation of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BRS). Nevertheless, the knowledge about the performance of these devices in patients with ACS is limited. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of clinical studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting-BRS versus everolimus-eluting-metallic stents (EES) in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Six studies enrolling 2,318 patients were included and analyzed for the risk of primary safety outcome (stent or scaffold thrombosis [ST/ScT]), primary efficacy outcome (target lesion revascularisation [TLR]), and secondary outcomes (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death). Median follow-up was 9.5 (6 to 19.5) months. Patients treated with BRS had a significantly higher risk of definite ST/ScT compared with those receiving EES (2.3% vs 1.08%, odds ratio [OR] 2.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 4.45, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). Similarly, the risk of TLR was significantly higher in the BRS compared with EES group (3.5% vs 2.5%, OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.16, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). When TLRs due to thrombosis were excluded, the difference in risk estimates between the 2 groups was no longer significant (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.98, p = 0.71, I2 = 25%). Risk for secondary endpoints did not differ between the 2 groups. Results were confirmed when clinical and procedural variables were tested as potential effect modifiers in the meta-regression analysis for both primary endpoints. In conclusion, compared with those receiving EES, patients with ACS treated with BRS had increased risk of definite device thrombosis and TLR at mid-term follow-up.

Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stent in small vessel disease: A propensity matched analysis of COMPARE II, RAI, and MAASSTAD-ABSORB studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small vessel disease (SVD) are at higher risk of adverse events after PCI compared to non-SVD patients. In this subset, the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) has raised particular concern. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare outcomes of Absorb BVS versus a 2nd-generation metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in the SVD setting, by pooling patients from three large, prospective studies. METHODS: Patients with SVD (reference vessel diameter ≤2.75 mm by QCA) and treated with Absorb BVS were identified in the Italian RAI and the MAASSTAD-Absorb registries. EES controls were identified in the COMPARE II Trial. We performed a propensity-score matching using several clinical and angiographic variables. Implantation technique was not object of matching, being device-specific. RESULTS: Out of 4635 enrolled subjects, 1147 belonged to the SVD population. After matching, we obtained 337 pairs of patients. High clinical and angiographic complexity was found in both groups. Predilation and postdilation rates were significantly higher in BVS patients. No differences were found in terms of the device-oriented composite end-point at 1-year (HR = 1.08, 95%CI 0.5-2.3, P = .8) and 2-years (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.68-2.43, P = .5). Notwithstanding, higher incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was observed in the BVS group at 1 year (HR 4.7, 95%CI 0.8-31.4, P = .08) and 2-years (HR = 8.34 95%CI 1.1-60.2, P = .04). CONCLUSION: In this propensity-matched analysis pooling SVD patients of three large prospective studies, incidence of composite device-related events was comparable between BVS and EES up to 2 years follow-up. However, higher rates of stent thrombosis were found in the BVS group.