Outcomes following interval delayed first rib resection for acute axillosubclavian deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Current management of axillosubclavian deep venous thrombosis (DVT) often uses thrombolysis for the DVT, prompt first rib removal, and occasional venoplasty or stenting. Our institution has increasingly used anticoagulation alone followed by interval first rib resection. We sought to analyze the effectiveness of this simplified technique. METHODS: Between September 2012 and April 2021, 27 patients were identified within the institution's electronic medical record as having undergone first rib resection for upper extremity DVT. Seven of these patients had undergone preoperative thrombolysis before referral and were excluded. Among the remaining 20 patients, preoperative clinic charts were evaluated for age, venous segment involvement, contralateral limb involvement, presence of documented hypercoagulable state, duration of preoperative and postoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients (mean age, 26.2 years; 13 males) presenting with acute axillosubclavian DVT, all patients had right (n = 8) or left (n = 12) arm swelling. Five patients had extremity pain and four had extremity discoloration. Ten had axillosubclavian vein involvement, 9 had subclavian vein involvement, and 1 had axillary vein involvement. Two patients were on oral contraceptives and no patients had any other diagnosed hypercoagulable conditions. The mean duration of preoperative and postoperative anticoagulation was 3.2 ± 2.6 months and 2.1 ± 2.1 months, respectively. Nineteen patients underwent supraclavicular first rib resection and 1 patient underwent transaxillary resection. Twelve patients (60%) demonstrated complete DVT resolution by venous duplex examination during the postoperative period and 8 patients (40%) demonstrated partial recanalization/chronic DVT. Complications included one hemothorax and one thoracic duct injury. All 20 patients remain asymptomatic without arm swelling, with a mean follow-up of 55.1 ± 34.7 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with acute axillosubclavian DVT, anticoagulation alone followed by interval first rib resection proved to be successful in providing symptomatic relief in the short to medium term. By eliminating the need for preoperative thrombolysis and postoperative venograms, this potentially cost-saving algorithm simplifies our management for acute venous thoracic outlet syndrome while maintaining good clinical outcomes. Because this study only analyzed our management algorithm's effectiveness in the short to medium term, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment will need to be demonstrated.

Duplex Scans Performed Immediately Following Lower Extremity Angioplasty and Stenting are of Limited Utility.

BACKGROUND: Together with clinical examination, surveillance duplex examination represents the Society of Vascular Surgery recommendations for follow-up after endovascular intervention on the superficial femoral artery (SFA) and popliteal arterial segments. Compliance with postprocedural follow-up remains challenging. To establish a postangioplasty physiologic baseline, our institution began obtaining immediate postprocedural surveillance studies following lower extremity arterial interventions. We reviewed the utility of immediate postprocedural surveillance to determine if these studies enhanced postoperative care. METHODS: Serial patients undergoing SFA and popliteal angioplasty and stenting from January 2014 to December 2020 were identified from our prospectively maintained Vascular Surgery database. Patient demographic information, procedural details, and procedural outcomes were subsequently analyzed from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-three patients underwent 385 SFA and/or popliteal angioplasty/stenting interventions. Mean patient age was 64.8 ± 10 years. Among these 385 procedures, 350 (90.9%) were followed by immediate (<4 hours) postprocedural lower extremity arterial duplex scans. These 350 procedures included percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and/or stenting of the SFA (n = 236), popliteal artery (n = 34), or both (n = 80). Of these studies, 25 results (7.1%) were abnormal. One asymptomatic patient was admitted to hospital for immediate thrombolysis; however, the remaining 24 patients were followed clinically with no immediate intervention required. Abnormal results included 13 abnormalities appreciated on the final angiogram with 9 patients with known occlusions or stenoses, and 4 patients with mild to moderate CFA stenosis. Abnormal findings not detected on the final angiogram included 7 patients with mild to moderate stenosis and 5 patients with short occlusions (1.4%). All 5 patients with short segmental occlusions not detected on final arteriogram had preprocedural anatomy classified as either TASC C (TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus: SFA occlusions > 15 cm in length, n = 1) or TASC D (SFA occlusions > 20 cm in lenth, n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate postprocedural duplex scans demonstrate significant vessel stenosis or occlusion in approximately 7% of cases but most stenoses and occlusions were noted on final arteriography. Duplex detected short segmental occlusions not noted on final arteriography were rare (1.4%), and occurred among patients with TASC C or TASC D occlusive disease. These duplex detected abnormalities rarely changed the patient's immediate plan of care. The performance of these immediate postprocedural duplex scans demonstrated limited clinical utility.

Regular (up to 10 puffs 4-hourly) inhaled salbutamol should be prescribed at discharge after an asthma attack: myth or maxim?

Over the past 20 years, the concept of asthma weaning plans on discharge after an attack has crept into common practice, although the precise origin of these plans is unclear. High use of short-acting ß2-agonists (SABAs) may result in tolerance to their bronchodilator effects, thus diminishing their efficacy, particularly when they are most needed at the time of an acute attack. Furthermore, key warning signs of a deterioration in asthma control may be masked and the weaning plan may encourage the over-use and over-reliance on SABAs. Side-effects from over-use may also occur, including lactic acidosis, downregulation of the ß2-adrenoreceptor, increased allergen response and pro-inflammatory effects. The need for asthma education at discharge, a personal asthma action plan and vigilance about prescribing and ensuring adherence to maintenance therapy are definitely important. However, the current authors conclude that the benefit of prescribing regular salbutamol (up to 10 puffs every 4 h) at discharge after an acute asthma attack is a myth, and a very dangerous one.

A meta-analysis on the effect of proximal landing zone location on stroke and mortality in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) involving the aortic arch may increase the opportunity for stroke owing to disruption of cerebral circulation and embolization. In this study, a systematic meta-analysis was performed to examine the impact of proximal landing zone location on stroke and 30-day mortality after TEVAR. METHODS: MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched for all original studies of TEVAR reporting outcomes of stroke or 30-day mortality for at least two adjacent proximal landing zones, based on the Ishimaru classification scheme. Forest plots were created using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). An I2 of <40% was regarded as minimal heterogeneity. A P value of <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Of the 57 studies examined, a total of 22,244 patients (male 73.1%, aged 71.9 ± 11.5 years) were included in the meta-analysis, with 1693 undergoing TEVAR with proximal landing zone 0, 1931 with zone 1, 5839 with zone 2, and 3089 with zone 3 and beyond. The overall risk of clinically evident stroke was 2.7% for zones ≥3, 6.6% for zone 2, 7.7% for zone 1, and 14.2% for zone 0. More proximal landing zones were associated with higher risks of stroke compared with distal (zone 2 vs ≥3: RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.43-3.20; P = .0002; I2 = 56%; zone 1 vs 2: RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.20-1.82; P = .0002; I2 = 0%; zone 0 vs 1: RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.52-2.24; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). Mortality at 30 days was 2.9% for zones ≥3, 2.4% for zone 2, 3.7% for zone 1, and 9.3% for zone 0. Zone 0 was associated with higher mortality compared with zone 1 (RR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.75-3.03; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found in 30-day mortality between zones 1 and 2 (P = .13) and between zone 2 and zones ≥3 (P = .87). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of stroke from TEVAR is lowest in zone 3 and beyond, increasing significantly as the landing zone is moved proximally. Furthermore, perioperative mortality is increased with zone 0 compared with zone 1. Therefore, risk of stent grafting in the proximal arch should be weighed against alternative surgical or nonoperative options. It is anticipated that the risk of stroke will improve with further development of stent graft technology and implantation technique.

Key recommendations for primary care from the 2022 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) update.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) was established in 1993 by the World Health Organization and the US National Heart Lung and Blood Institute to improve asthma awareness, prevention and management worldwide. GINA develops and publishes evidence-based, annually updated resources for clinicians. GINA guidance is adopted by national asthma guidelines in many countries, adapted to fit local healthcare systems, practices, and resource availability. GINA is independent of industry, funded by the sale and licensing of its materials. This review summarizes key practical guidance for primary care from the 2022 GINA strategy report. It provides guidance on confirming the diagnosis of asthma using spirometry or peak expiratory flow. GINA recommends that all adults, adolescents and most children with asthma should receive inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapy to reduce the risk of severe exacerbations, either taken regularly, or (for adults and adolescents with "mild" asthma) as combination ICS-formoterol taken as needed for symptom relief. For patients with moderate-severe asthma, the preferred regimen is maintenance-and-reliever therapy (MART) with ICS-formoterol. Asthma treatment is not "one size fits all"; GINA recommends individualized assessment, adjustment, and review of treatment. As many patients with difficult-to-treat or severe asthma are not referred early for specialist review, we provide updated guidance for primary care on diagnosis, further investigation, optimization and treatment of severe asthma across secondary and tertiary care. While the GINA strategy has global relevance, we recognize that there are special considerations for its adoption in low- and middle-income countries, particularly the current poor access to inhaled medications.

A2BCD: a concise guide for asthma management.

The management of asthma has changed fundamentally during the past two decades. Precise assessment and phenotyping are now required to establish individually targeted treatment with disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs (DMAADs). Patients with asthma are often managed by primary care doctors or non-respiratory specialists in secondary care. However, the implementation of complex asthma guidelines in non-specialised care remains a challenge. There is a need for easy-to-understand, concise guides for general practice. In this Viewpoint, we propose a one-page practical guide for asthma management, titled A2BCD, with four components: dual assessment (A2) of asthma (ie, diagnosis and phenotype, plus asthma control and future risks); basic measures (B; eg, education, self-management skills, regular physical activity, and avoidance of asthma triggers); identification and treatment of comorbidities (C) of asthma (eg, chronic rhinosinusitis, obesity, or sleep apnoea); and phenotype-specific, individually targeted treatment with DMAADs (D), including individual inhalation schemes based on inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene modifiers, biologics, and allergen immunotherapy.

Safety of Utilizing Ultrasound as the Sole Modality of Follow-Up after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Post endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), surveillance with computed tomography-aortography (CTA) remains the most common practice, per Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines. Chronic exposure to both radiation and intravenous (IV) contrast has raised concerns about long-term CTA follow-up (FU). As we have selectively used ultrasound (US) as a sole modality for post-EVAR surveillance, we sought to review our outcomes in this subset of patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of our institution's vascular database identified 213 EVAR patients from 2013 to 2021. Fenestrated-EVAR and snorkel reconstructions were excluded. Patient demographics/outcomes, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) characteristics, and FU modalities and outcomes were analyzed. Unpaired Student's t-test, ANOVA, and chi-squared test were used to assess group differences. RESULTS: Eighty-five of the 213 EVAR patients (39.9%) were lost to FU within 3 months. Among the 128 remaining patients, 91 underwent FU using initial US, while 37 patients underwent post-EVAR FU initially using CTA. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between patient age (75.5 ± 9.4 vs. 75.3 ± 8.5), body mass index (BMI) (27.7 ± 5.4 vs. 28.9 ± 7.4), or mean AAA size (5.6 ± 1.1 vs. 5.9 ± 1.2) in US-surveilled and computed tomography (CT)-surveilled groups, respectively. Of the 91 patients, initially surveilled with US, 15 patients demonstrated endoleak and/or AAA growth (>5 mm). The 15 patients with US-demonstrated endoleak and/or growth underwent confirmatory CTA, with 3 patients eventually requiring EVAR revision. Among 37 patients initially surveilled with CT, 10 demonstrated significant growth and 2 patients eventually required EVAR revision. There were no patients with AAA rupture during post-EVAR surveillance. FU data were analyzed among a select lower-risk group of patients (preoperative AAA diameter ≤5.5 cm, BMI ≤30, and no endoleak at completion of EVAR). Among this group, there were no surveilled patients who required EVAR reintervention, regardless of surveillance modality (US n = 32; CT n = 4). The average FU was 29.5 ± 26.4 months in the US group and 26.4 ± 22.3 months in the CT group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although initial CT surveillance following EVAR remains ideal, in select lower-risk patients, US is a viable alternative even for the initial post-procedure study. Advantages include decreased radiation exposure and cost. Our data suggest that US is a safe sole modality for surveillance following EVAR in selective patients.

Counteracting health risks by Modulating Homeostatic Signaling.

Homeostasis was initially conceptualized by Bernard and Cannon around a century ago as a steady state of physiological parameters that vary within a certain range, such as blood pH, body temperature, and heart rate [1,2]. The underlying mechanisms that maintain homeostasis are explained by negative feedbacks that are executed by the neuronal, endocrine, and immune systems. At the cellular level, homeostasis, such as that of redox and energy steady state, also exists and is regulated by various cell signaling pathways. The induction of homeostatic mechanism is critical for human to adapt to various disruptive insults (stressors); while on the other hand, adaptation occurs at the expense of other physiological processes and thus runs the risk of collateral damages, particularly under conditions of chronic stress. Conceivably, anti-stress protection can be achieved by stressor-mimicking medicinals that elicit adaptive responses prior to an insult and thereby serve as health risk countermeasures; and in situations where maladaptation may occur, downregulating medicinals could be used to suppress the responses and prevent subsequent pathogenesis. Both strategies are preemptive interventions particularly suited for individuals who carry certain lifestyle, environmental, or genetic risk factors. In this article, we will define and characterize a new modality of prophylactic intervention that forestalls diseases via modulating homeostatic signaling. Moreover, we will provide evidence from the literature that support this concept and distinguish it from other homeostasis-related interventions such as adaptogen, hormesis, and xenohormesis.

Is Inhaler Technique Adequately Assessed and Reported in Clinical Trials of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Therapy? A Systematic Review and Suggested Best Practice Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled medications are central to treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), yet critical inhaler technique errors are made by up to 90% of patients. In the clinical research setting, recruitment of subjects with poor inhaler technique may give a false impression of both the benefits and the necessity of add-on treatments such as biologic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency with which inhaler technique is assessed and reliably optimized before and during patient enrollment into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the efficacy of topical therapy, and the escalation of therapy for asthma and COPD. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted of PubMed and Embase for RCTs published in the past 10 years involving patients with a diagnosis of asthma or COPD undergoing escalation of baseline inhaled therapy (stepping up, changing, adding, switching, increasing, etc) or the introduction of biologic agents. RESULTS: Searches highlighted 1,014 studies, 118 of which were eligible after the removal of duplicates as well as screening and full text review. Of these, only 14 (11.9%) included accessible information in the methods section or referred to such information in online supplements or protocols concerning assessment of participants' inhaler technique. We therefore developed the proposed Best Practice Inhaler Technique Assessment and Reporting Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies a concerning lack of checking and correcting inhaler technique, or at least reporting that this was undertaken, before enrollment in asthma and COPD RCTs, which may affect the conclusions drawn. Mandating the use of a standardized checklist in RCT protocols and ensuring all published RCTs report checking and correcting inhaler technique before enrollment are important next steps.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021. Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Estrategia Global para el Manejo del Asma 2021. Resumen ejecutivo y razones de los cambios clave / Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021. Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS–formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS–formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1–2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS–formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, “MART”) in Steps 3–5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS–long-acting β2-agonist (Steps 3–5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6–11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3–4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes. Keywords: Asthma Asthma diagnosis Asthma management Asthma prevention

El Informe sobre la Estrategia Global para el Manejo y la Prevención del Asma (GINA) proporciona a los clínicos una estrategia basada en la evidencia que se actualiza anualmente para el manejo y la prevención del asma, la cual puede adaptarse a las circunstancias locales (por ejemplo, en cuanto a acceso a medicamentos). Este artículo resume las recomendaciones clave de la GINA 2021 y la evidencia que apoya los cambios recientes. La GINA recomienda que el asma en adultos y adolescentes no se trate con agonistas β2 de acción corta (SABA) en monoterapia, debido a los riesgos que acompañan a la monoterapia con SABA y a su uso excesivo, y a la evidencia que demuestra los beneficios del uso de corticosteroides inhalados (ICS). Diversos ensayos clínicos de gran tamaño muestran que la combinación de ICS-formoterol a demanda reduce el número de exacerbaciones graves en el asma leve en ≥ 60% en comparación con los SABA en monoterapia, presentando también resultados similares en las exacerbaciones, síntomas, función pulmonar y efectos antiinflamatorios que el uso diario de ICS más SABA a demanda. Los cambios clave en la GINA 2021 incluyen la división del algoritmo de tratamiento para adultos y adolescentes en dos vías. La vía 1 (la preferencial) cuenta con ICS–formoterol a dosis bajas como tratamiento de rescate en todos los escalones: a demanda solo en los escalones 1–2 (asma leve), y como tratamiento de mantenimiento diario (control y rescate, MART) en los pasos 3–5. La vía 2 (la alternativa) cuenta con SABA a demanda en todos los escalones, más tratamiento regular con ICS (paso 2) o ICS-Agonista β2 de acción prolongada en los escalones 3–5. Para los adultos con asma moderada a grave, la GINA realiza recomendaciones adicionales en el escalón 5, con el agregado de agonistas muscarínicos de larga duración y azitromicina y de tratamientos biológicos en el asma grave. Para los niños entre seis y 11 años, se han añadido opciones nuevas de tratamiento en los escalones 3 y 4. En todos los grupos de edad y gravedad, sigue siendo esencial una valoración personalizada regular, el tratamiento de los factores de riesgo modificables, la educación para el autocontrol de síntomas, técnicas y habilidades del paciente, el ajuste apropiado de la medicación y las revisiones para optimizar la evolución del asma. Palabras clave: Asma Diagnóstico del asma Gestión del asma Prevención del asma

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2 -agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2 -agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ⩾60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

ß -Glucan Improves Protective Qi Status in Adults with Protective Qi Deficiency-A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, and Double-Blinded Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that ß -glucan enhances protective qi (PQi), an important Chinese medicine (CM) concept which stipulates that a protective force circulates throughout the body surface and works as the first line of defense against "external pernicious influences". METHODS: A total of 138 participants with PQi deficiency (PQD) were randomized to receive ß -glucan (200 mg daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. Participants' PQi status was assessed every 2 weeks via conventional diagnosis and a standardized protocol from which a PQD severity and risk score was derived. Indices of participants' immune and general health status were also monitored, including upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), saliva secretory IgA (sIgA), and self-reported measures of physical and mental health (PROMIS). RESULTS: PQi status was not significantly different between the ß -glucan and placebo treatment groups at baseline but improved significantly in the ß -glucan (vs. placebo) group in a time-dependent manner. The intergroup differences [95% confidence interval (CI)] in severity score (scale: 1-5), risk score (scale: 0-1), and proportion of PQD participants (%) at finish line was 0.49 (0.35-0.62), 0.48 (0.35-0.61), and 0.36 (0.25-0.47), respectively. Additionally, ß -glucan improved URTI symptom (scale: 1-9) and PROMIS physical (scale: 16.2-67.7) and mental (scale: 21.2-67.6) scores by a magnitude (95% CI) of 1.0 (0.21-1.86), 5.7 (2.33-9.07), and 3.0 (20.37-6.37), respectively, over placebo. CONCLUSIONS: ß -glucan ameliorates PQi in PQD individuals. By using stringent evidence-based methodologies, our study demonstrated that Western medicine-derived remedies, such as ß -glucan, can be employed to advance CM therapeutics. (ClinicalTrial.Gov registry: NCT03782974).

Burden and impact of chronic cough in UK primary care: a dataset analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic cough (CC) is a debilitating respiratory symptom, now increasingly recognised as a discrete disease entity. This study evaluated the burden of CC in a primary care setting. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Discover dataset from North West London, which links coded data from primary and secondary care. The index date depicted CC persisting for ≥8 weeks and was taken as a surrogate for date of CC diagnosis. PARTICIPANTS: Data were extracted for individuals aged ≥18 years with a cough persisting ≥8 weeks or cough remedy prescription, between Jan 2015 and Sep 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, comorbidities and service utilisation cost, including investigations performed and treatments prescribed were determined. RESULTS: CC was identified in 43 453 patients from a total cohort of 2 109 430 (2%). Median (IQR) age was 64 years (41-87). Among the cohort, 31% had no recorded comorbidities, 26% had been given a diagnosis of asthma, 17% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 12% rhinitis and 15% reflux. Prevalence of CC was greater in women (57%) and highest in the 65-74 year age range. There was an increase in the number of all investigations performed in the 12 months before and after the index date of CC diagnosis, and in particular for primary care chest X-ray and spirometry which increased from 6535 to 12 880 and from 5791 to 8720, respectively. This was accompanied by an increase in CC-associated healthcare utilisation costs. CONCLUSION: One-third of individuals had CC in the absence of associated comorbidities, highlighting the importance of recognising CC as a condition in its own right. Overall outpatient costs increased in the year after the CC index date for all comorbidities, but varied significantly with age. Linked primary-care datasets may enable earlier detection of individuals with CC for specialist clinic referral and targeted treatment.