Search

Listeria monocytogenes is a formidable pathogen acquired primarily through contaminated food. Invasive listeriosis is a reportable disease in Ontario, Canada; [approximately equal to]50 case-patients (0.4 cases/100,000 persons) have been reported [...]

Background: An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) may prevent wheezing/asthma attacks in preschoolers with recurrent wheeze when added to short-acting β-agonist (SABA). Objective: The aim of this historical matched cohort study was to assess the effectiveness of these treatments for preventing wheezing/asthma attacks. Methods: Electronic medical records from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database were used to characterize a UK preschool population (1–5 years old) with two or more episodes of wheezing during 1 baseline year before first prescription (index date) of ICS or LTRA, or repeat prescription of SABA. Children initiating ICS or LTRA on the index date were matched 1:4 to those prescribed only SABA for age, sex, year of index prescription, mean baseline SABA dose, baseline attacks, baseline antibiotic prescriptions, and eczema diagnosis. Wheezing/asthma attacks (defined as asthma-related emergency attendance, hospital admission, or acute oral corticosteroid prescription) during 1 outcome year were compared using conditional logistic regression. Results: Matched ICS and SABA cohorts included 990 and 3,960 children, respectively (61% male; mean [SD] age 3.2 [1.3] years), and matched LTRA and SABA cohorts included 259 and 1,036 children, respectively (65% male; mean [SD] age 2.6 [1.2] years). We observed no significant difference between matched cohorts in the odds of a wheezing/asthma attack: ICS vs SABA, OR (95% CI) 1.01 (0.85–1.19) and LTRA vs SABA, OR (95% CI) 1.28 (0.96–1.72). Conclusion: We found no evidence that initiation of ICS or LTRA therapy is associated with fewer attacks during 1 outcome year than SABA alone for a heterogeneous group of preschool children with recurrent wheeze in the real-life clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most randomised clinical trials typically exclude a significant proportion of asthma patients, including those at higher risk of adverse events, with comorbidities, obesity, poor inhaler technique and adherence, or smokers. However, these patients might differentially benefit from extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This matched cohort, database study, compared the effectiveness of extrafine-particle with fine-particle ICS in a real-life population initiating ICS therapy in the Netherlands.Methods: Data were from the Pharmo Database Network, comprising pharmacy and hospital discharge records, representative of 20 % of the Dutch population. The study population included patients aged 12 - 60, with a General Practice-recorded diagnosis for asthma (International Classification of Primary Care code R96), when available, ≥2 prescriptions for asthma therapy at any time in their recorded history, and receiving first prescription of ICS therapy as either extrafine-particle (ciclesonide or hydrofluoroalkane beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]) or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine-particle-BDP). Patients were matched (1:1) on relevant demographic and clinical characteristics over 1-year baseline. Primary outcomes were severe exacerbation rates, risk domain asthma control and overall asthma control during the year following first ICS prescription. Secondary outcomes, treatment stability and being prescribed higher versus lower category of short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) dose, were compared over a 1-year outcome period using conditional logistic regression models.Results: Following matching, 1399 patients were selected in each treatment cohort (median age: 43 years; males: 34 %). Median (interquartile range) initial ICS doses (fluticasone-equivalents in μg) were 160 (160 - 320) for extrafine-particle versus 500 (250 - 500) for fine-particle ICS (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for residual confounders, matched patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had significantly lower rates of exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [95 % CI], 0.59 [0.47-0.73]), and significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control and treatment stability in the year following initiation than those prescribed fine-particle ICS, and this occurred at lower prescribed doses. Patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had lower odds of being prescribed higher doses of SABA (0.50 [0.44-0.57]).Conclusion: In this historical, matched study, extrafine-particle ICS was associated with better odds of asthma control than fine-particle ICS in patients prescribed their first ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Of importance, this was reached at significantly lower prescribed dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have greater small airway deposition than standard fine-particle ICS. We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes after patients initiated extrafine-particle ciclesonide or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine beclomethasone). Methods: This historical, matched cohort study included patients aged 12-60 years prescribed their first ICS as ciclesonide or fine-particle ICS. The 2 cohorts were matched 1:1 for key demographic and clinical characteristics over the baseline year. Co-primary endpoints were 1-year severe exacerbation rates, risk-domain asthma control, and overall asthma control; secondary endpoints included therapy change. Results: Each cohort included 1,244 patients (median age 45 years; 65% women). Patients in the ciclesonide cohort were comparable to those in the fine-particle ICS cohort apart from higher baseline prevalence of hospitalization, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and rhinitis. Median (interquartile range) prescribed doses of ciclesonide and fine-particle ICS were 160 (160-160) µg/day and 500 (250-500) µg/day, respectively (P<0.001). During the outcome year, patients prescribed ciclesonide experienced lower severe exacerbation rates (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI], 0.69 [0.53-0.89]), and higher odds of risk-domain asthma control (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 1.62 [1.27-2.06]) and of overall asthma control (2.08 [1.68-2.57]) than those prescribed fine-particle ICS. The odds of therapy change were 0.70 (0.59-0.83) with ciclesonide. Conclusions: In this matched cohort analysis, we observed that initiation of ICS with ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma outcomes and fewer changes to therapy, despite data suggesting more difficult-to-control asthma. The median prescribed dose of ciclesonide was one-third that of fine-particle ICS.

BACKGROUND: Real-life studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies in clinical practice. AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with standard size-particle ICS in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US). METHODS: These retrospective matched cohort analyses used large electronic databases to study asthma-related outcomes for patients in the UK (12-60 years old; n = 1730) and US (12-80 years; n = 10,312) prescribed extrafine beclomethasone or fluticasone as their first ICS therapy for asthma. Patients were matched on demographic characteristics and asthma severity during 1 baseline year, and asthma control and asthma-related costs were compared during 1 outcome year. RESULTS: In both the UK and US, adjusted odds of risk-domain asthma control were similar, whereas the odds of overall control (no hospitalisation or oral steroids for asthma, no antibiotics for lower respiratory infection, limited reliever use) were greater for extrafine ICS in both countries (UK odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.50). Asthma-related annual costs, adjusted for baseline, were significantly lower for extrafine-particle ICS cohorts in both countries (UK difference, - £66 (95% CI, - 93 to - 37)). Cost-effectiveness analyses using the two measures of asthma control found 92 and 98% probabilities of extrafine-particle ICS being the preferred treatment strategy (less costly and more effective than standard size-particle ICS) in the UK, and 84 and 100% probabilities in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating ICS therapy for asthma as extrafine-particle ICS seems the dominant treatment option (less costly and more effective) compared with standard size-particle ICS in both the UK and the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Asthma management guidelines recommend adding a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) or increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as step-up therapy for patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS monotherapy. However, it is uncertain which option works best, which ICS particle size is most effective, and whether LABA should be administered by separate or combination inhalers. This historical, matched cohort study compared asthma-related outcomes for patients (aged 12–80 years) prescribed step-up therapy as a ≥50% extrafine ICS dose increase or add-on LABA, via either a separate inhaler or a fine-particle ICS/LABA fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler. Risk-domain asthma control was the primary end-point in comparisons of cohorts matched for asthma severity and control during the baseline year. After 1:2 cohort matching, the increased extrafine ICS versus separate ICS+LABA cohorts included 3232 and 6464 patients, respectively, and the fine-particle ICS/LABA FDC versus separate ICS+LABA cohorts included 7529 and 15 058 patients, respectively (overall mean age 42 years; 61–62% females). Over one outcome year, adjusted OR (95% CI) for achieving asthma control were 1.25 (1.13–1.38) for increased ICS versus separate ICS+LABA and 1.06 (1.05–1.09) for ICS/LABA FDC versus separate ICS+LABA. For patients with asthma, increased dose of extrafine-particle ICS, or add-on LABA via ICS/LABA combination inhaler, is associated with significantly better outcomes than ICS+LABA via separate inhalers.

Background: Patient preference is an important factor when choosing an inhaler device for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aims: To identify characteristics of patients with asthma or COPD who prefer a once-daily controller medication regimen. Methods: This retrospective observational study used electronic patient records and linked outcomes from patient-completed questionnaires in a primary care database. We compared the characteristics of patients indicating a preference for once-daily therapy with those who were unsure or indicating no preference. Results: Of 3,731 patients with asthma, 2,174 (58%) were women; the mean age was 46 years (range 2-94). Of 2,138 patients with COPD, 980 (46%) were women; the mean age was 70 years (range 35-98). Approximately half of the patients in each cohort indicated once-daily preference, one-quarter were unsure, and one-quarter did not prefer once-daily therapy. In patients with asthma or COPD, the preference for once-daily controller medication was significantly associated with pPor adherence and higher concerns about medication. In asthma, good control and low self-perceived controller medication need were associated with once-daily preference. By contrast, in COPD, a high self-perceived need for controller medication was associated with once-daily preference. There was no significant relationship between once-daily preference and age, sex, disease severity, or exacerbation history. Conclusions: Understanding patient preferences may help prescribers to individualise therapy better for asthma and COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Selection of inhaler device type appears to influence real-world effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but data are lacking on the role of inhaler device in ICS and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy for asthma. Methods: This retrospective matched cohort study compared 1-year asthma outcomes for UK patients initiating fixed-dose combination (FDC) fluticasone–salmeterol delivered by pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus dry powder inhaler (DPI). Patients with asthma aged 4–80 years receiving a first prescription for FDC fluticasone–salmeterol by pMDI or DPI were matched on baseline demographic and asthma severity measures. Co-primary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no recorded hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection) and exacerbation rate. Results: Compared with the DPI cohort (n = 1567), patients in the pMDI cohort (n = 1567) had significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control during the outcome year (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.40). Exacerbation rate was lower but not significantly in the pMDI cohort (adjusted rate ratio for pMDI cohort, 0.82; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.00). The odds of treatment success (defined as no exacerbations and no change in asthma therapy) was significantly greater in the pMDI cohort (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42). Conclusions: For UK primary care patients, pMDIs appear to achieve better asthma control outcomes than DPIs for delivery of FDC fluticasone–salmeterol. Pragmatic trials are needed to further investigate real-world outcomes with different inhaler devices for combination therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Retrospective database study comparing upper and lower airway-related outcomes for patients with rhinitis and co-morbid asthma receiving mometasone furoate - an intranasal corticosteroid with low systemic bioavailability - or an oral antihistamine. Methods: 395 patients prescribed intranasal mometasone were matched on 10 demographic and respiratory-related criteria in a 1:2 ratio to 790 patients prescribed oral antihistamine. Asthma and rhinitis control were assessed over one year using predefined composite proxy measures. Results: Asthma control was achieved by 309/395 (78.2%) versus 580/790 (73.4%; p=0.071) patients in the mometasone and antihistamine cohorts, respectively. Rhinitis control was achieved by 293 (74.2%) versus 539 (68.2%; p=0.035), respectively. The adjusted odds ratios for antihistamines, relative to mometasone, were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.52-0.98) for achieving asthma control and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97) for achieving rhinitis control. Conclusions: Patients with rhinitis and co-morbid asthma initiating rhinitis therapy achieved significantly better upper as well as lower airway outcomes with intranasal mometasone than with oral antihistamine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examined the association of low minimum inhibitory concentrations with the tetracycline-resistance gene tet(C) in Escherichia coli. In this study, broth microdilution and Etest were used to test the susceptibility of tet(A), tet(B) and tet(C) genotypes to tetracycline. Findings revealed the presence of a cluster of tetracycline minimum inhibitory concentrations around an intermediate susceptibility range of two-16 µgram/milliliter (mL) in all tet(C)-positive E. coli isolates.