RESUMEN
Background: Primary studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of noninvasive respiratory supports, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), for improving oxygenation and ventilation in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and acute respiratory failure (ARF). These studies have not been synthesized and are not included in current practice guidelines. This systematic review with meta-analysis synthesizes studies that compared the effectiveness of NIPPV, HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for improving oxygenation and ventilation in ILD patients with ARF. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library searches were conducted from inception to August 2023. An additional search of relevant primary literature and review articles was also performed. A random effects model was used to estimate the PF ratio (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen), PaCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide), mortality, intubation rate and hospital length of stay. Results: Ten studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Noninvasive respiratory supports demonstrated a significant improvement in PF ratio compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT); the mean difference was 55.92 (95% CI [18.85-92.99]; p=0.003). Compared to HFNC, there was a significant increase in PF ratio in NIPPV (mean difference 0.45; 95% CI [0.12-0.79]; p=0.008). There were no mortality and intubation rate benefits when comparing NIPPV and HFNC; the mean difference was 1.1; 95% CI [0.83-1.44]; p=0.51 and 1.86; 95% CI [0.42-8.33]; p=0.42, respectively. In addition, there was a significant decrease in hospital length of stay in HFNC compared to NIPPV (mean difference 9.27; 95% Cl [1.45 - 17.1]; p=0.02). Conclusions: Noninvasive respiratory supports might be an alternative modality in ILDs with ARF. NIPPV demonstrated a potential to improve the PF ratio compared to HFNC. There was no evidence to support the benefit of NIPPV or HFNC in terms of mortality and intubation rate.
RESUMEN
Colchicine toxicity is uncommon when patients receive a therapeutic dose regularly. However, inadvertent drug interactions can result in unpredicted adverse outcomes. The toxicity of colchicine can manifest in various ways, ranging from mild and non-specific symptoms to severe form known as multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. This case highlights (1) the diagnostic challenge that arises when distinguishing between the severe manifestation of colchicine toxicity and septic shock and (2) concomitant prescription of colchicine with potent CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitors (ie, clarithromycin) can lead to colchicine toxicity despite normal renal and hepatic clearance. Unfortunately, specific tests of colchicine toxicity were not routinely available. A high index of clinical suspicion and recognition of drug interactions with their common presentations are crucial for making diagnosis and management. Failure to recognise drug toxicity can result in poor outcomes.