Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Blog With Right Sidebar

Acute respiratory health effects of urban air pollutants in adults with different patterns of underlying respiratory disease.

Related Articles

Acute respiratory health effects of urban air pollutants in adults with different patterns of underlying respiratory disease.

Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:0

Authors: Mehta AJ, Schindler C, Perez L, Probst-Hensch N, Schwartz J, Brändl O, Karrer W, Tschopp JM, Rochat T, Künzli N

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether underlying chronic respiratory diseases are susceptible factors for symptomatic episodes, which lead to primary-level care, in association with air pollutant exposures is unknown. We evaluated and compared association lag structures between daily ambient levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and total suspended particulates (TSP) and respiratory symptom-related doctor visits in adults with different patterns of underlying chronic respiratory disease.
METHODS: In a time-stratified case-crossover analysis nested within a diary panel study, 459 Swiss adult participants with asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and healthy participants recorded occurrence of respiratory-symptom related doctor visits (n = 1,048) in one to six four-week intervals over two years. For each disease subgroup, odds ratios (ORs) for doctor visit were estimated as a function of NO2 or TSP concentrations (per 10 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) lagged between 0-13 days in a polynomial distributed lag model.
RESULTS: Higher ORs for NO2 in participants with COPD (OR: 1.17, 95%CI: 1.02-1.35) and asthma (OR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.02-1.30) occurred at exposure lags of two and five days, respectively. Doctor visits increased by 9.1% (95%CI: 3.2-15.4%) and 4.2% (95%CI: 1.2-7.2%) over the first week following a 10 µg/m3 increase in NO2 concentration in the COPD and chronic bronchitis subgroups, respectively. The percent increase in the COPD subgroup was significantly greater (p <0.05) when compared with the healthy subgroup. Observed findings were similar for TSP.
CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory problems leading to a doctor visit, associated with an increase in exposure to NO2 and TSP, may have a faster dynamic in individuals with COPD.

PMID: 23076649 [PubMed - in process]

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Related Articles

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD010005

Authors: Cates CJ, Oleszczuk M, Stovold E, Wieland LS

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or regular salbutamol. No similar sized surveillance studies have been carried out in children with asthma, and we remain uncertain about the comparative safety of regular combination therapy with either formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma.
OBJECTIVES: We have used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in children with asthma.
METHODS: We included Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews conducted in May 2012, and ran updated searches for each of the reviews. These were independently assessed. All the reviews were assessed for quality using the AMSTAR tool. We extracted the data relating to children from each review and from new trials found in the updated searches (including risks of bias, study characteristics, serious adverse event outcomes, and control arm event rates).The safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol were assessed directly from the paediatric trials in the Cochrane reviews of monotherapy and combination therapy with each product. Then monotherapy was indirectly compared to combination therapy by looking at the differences between the pooled trial results for monotherapy and the pooled results for combination therapy. The comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol was assessed using direct evidence from trials that randomised children to each treatment; this was combined with the result of an indirect comparison of the combination therapy trials, which represents the difference between the pooled results of each product when randomised against inhaled corticosteroids alone.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified six high quality, up to date Cochrane reviews. Four of these related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and these included 19 studies in children. We added data from two recent studies on salmeterol combination therapy in 689 children which were published after the relevant Cochrane review had been completed, making a total of 21 trials on 7474 children (from four to 17 years of age). The two remaining reviews compared the safety of formoterol with salmeterol from trials randomising participants to one or other treatment, but the reviews only included a single trial in children in which there were 156 participants.Only one child died across all the trials, so impact on mortality could not be assessed.We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a non-fatal serious adverse event of any cause in children on formoterol monotherapy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.83, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1335, high quality) and smaller increases in odds which were not statistically significant for salmeterol monotherapy (Peto OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.05, I(2) = 17%, 5 trials, N = 1333, moderate quality), formoterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, I(2) = 32%, 7 trials, N = 2788, moderate quality) and salmeterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.91, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1862, moderate quality).We compared the pooled results of the monotherapy and combination therapy trials. There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of children with a serious adverse event (SAE) from long-acting beta(2)-agonist beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination trials (Peto OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.75, 12 trials, N = 4,650). However, there were fewer children with an SAE in the regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) control group (0.7%) than in the placebo control group (3.6%). As a result, there was an absolute increase of an additional 21 children (95% CI 4 to 45) suffering such an SAE of any cause for every 1000 children treated over six months with either regular formoterol or salmeterol monotherapy, whilst for combination therapy the increased risk was an additional three children (95% CI 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 over three months.We only found a single trial in 156 children comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol monotherapy, and even with the additional evidence from indirect comparisons between the combination formoterol and salmeterol trials, the CI around the effect on SAEs is too wide to tell whether there is a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.37 to 4.32).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know if regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children alters the risk of dying from asthma.Regular combination therapy is likely to be less risky than monotherapy in children with asthma, but we cannot say that combination therapy is risk free. There are probably an additional three children per 1000 who suffer a non-fatal serious adverse event on combination therapy in comparison to ICS over three months. This is currently our best estimate of the risk of using LABA combination therapy in children and has to be balanced against the symptomatic benefit obtained for each child. We await the results of large on-going surveillance studies to further clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma.The relative safety of formoterol in comparison to salmeterol remains unclear, even when all currently available direct and indirect trial evidence is combined.

PMID: 23076961 [PubMed - in process]

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

Related Articles

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

BMC Pulm Med. 2012 Oct 18;12(1):67

Authors: Nathan RA, D'Urzo A, Blazhko V, Kaiser K

Abstract
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(R)), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. METHODS: Patients aged [greater than or equal to]12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 mug b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 mug b.i.d.), formoterol (10 mug b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV1 from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV1 compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV1 versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. EudraCT number: 2007-002866-36; US NCT number: NCT00393991.

PMID: 23078148 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

How air pollution influences clinical management of respiratory diseases. A case-crossover study in Milan.

BACKGROUND: Environmental pollution is a known risk factor for multiple diseases and furthermore increases rate of hospitalisations. We investigated the correlation between emergency room admissions (ERAs) of the general population for respiratory diseases and the environmental pollutant levels in Milan, a metropolis in northern Italy.
METHODS: We collected data from 45770 ERAs for respiratory diseases. A time-stratified case-crossover design was used to investigate the association between air pollution levels and ERAs for acute respiratory conditions. The effects of air pollutants were investigated at lag 0 to lag 5, lag 0--2 and lag 3--5 in both single and multi-pollutant models, adjusted for daily weather variables.
RESULTS: An increase in ozone (O3) levels at lag 3--5 was associated with a 78% increase in the number of ERAs for asthma, especially during the warm season. Exposure to carbon monoxide (CO) proved to be a risk factor for pneumonia at lag 0--2 and in the warm season increased the risk of ERA by 66%. A significant association was found between ERAs for COPD exacerbation and levels of sulphur dioxide (SO2), CO, nitrate dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The multipollutant model that includes all pollutants showed a significant association between CO (26%) and ERA for upper respiratory tract diseases at lag 0--2. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, only CO (OR 1.19) showed a significant association.
CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to environmental pollution, even at typical low levels, can increase the risk of ERA for acute respiratory diseases and exacerbation of obstructive lung diseases in the general population.

Pathogenesis of HIV and the Lung.

Antiretroviral therapy has improved longevity for HIV-infected persons, but long-term HIV infection is now complicated by increased rates of chronic medical conditions including pulmonary disorders. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, asthma, and pulmonary hypertension are becoming common comorbidities of HIV infection, and these diseases may develop as a result of HIV-related risk factors, such as antiretroviral drug toxicities, colonization by infectious organisms, HIV viremia, immune activation, or immune dysfunction. It also appears that the ability to control HIV infection does not completely eliminate the risk for infectious complications, such as bacterial pneumonia and tuberculosis.
The effect of HIV infection on lung-specific immune responses is being elucidated to help develop better prevention and treatment strategies in HIV-infected persons.

Search