Search

Laura Huey Mien Lim,1 Hui Fang Lim,2,3 Mei Fong Liew,2– 4 Wenjia Chen1 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore; 3Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore Singapore; 4FAST and Chronic Programmes, Alexandra Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, SingaporeCorrespondence: Laura Huey Mien Lim, PhD Candidate in Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Tahir Foundation Building/ MD1, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, Tel +65 88527276, Email hmienlim@yahoo.comIntroduction: To date, the role of standard asthma care in reducing asthma-related health services use (HSU) during the COVID-19 pandemic remains unclear. This study examined the impact of guideline-based asthma treatment on the use of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits, polyclinic visits (total visits and urgent visits characterized by nebuliser use) before and during the pandemic.Methods: Data from April 2017 to October 2020 was obtained from the National University Health System, one of the three healthcare clusters in Singapore. Using generalized linear models, we estimated the joint effects of the ratio of preventer to reliever dispensations (PRR) and COVID-19 on asthma-related ED visits per hospital per month, total asthma-related polyclinic visits and asthma-related urgent polyclinic visits per clinic per month.Results: Findings show that before the onset of COVID-19, for every 0.5 unit increase in PRR, the number of asthma-related ED visits and urgent polyclinic visits decreased by 12.9% (95% CI: − 13.0% to − 12.9%) and 6.8% (95% CI: − 6.9% to – 6.7%), respectively, whereas total asthma-related polyclinic visits increased by 1.0% (95% CI: 0.9% to 1.0%). During the pandemic, a 0.5 unit increase of PRR decreased the number of asthma-related ED visits, urgent and total polyclinic visits by 16.9% (95% CI: − 17.0% to – 16.9%), 9.3% (95% CI: − 9.5% to − 9.2%) and 0.7% (95% CI: − 0.8% to − 0.7%), respectively.Discussion: These findings suggest that regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in PRR consistently reduced the frequency of asthma-related urgent and emergent care, although it barely influenced routine asthma follow-up visits.Plain Language Summary: In order to understand how guideline-based asthma management affects asthma-related health services use during the COVID-19 pandemic, in this study, we examined the pattern and impact of asthma medication utilisation (ie, the ratio of preventer to reliever dispensations) on asthma-related total polyclinic visits, urgent polyclinic visits and emergency department visits, and compared such effects before and during COVID-19 outbreak.We found a significant reduction in reliever medication dispensations and asthma-related total polyclinic visits, urgent polyclinic visits and emergency department visits in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic, as compared to the pre-pandemic period. We also observed a rapid increase in the ratio of preventer to reliever dispensations in Singapore since early 2019 which accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our finding suggests that this increase could be associated with a significant reduction in asthma-related urgent and emergent care. This effect persisted both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.These current findings suggest that guideline-based asthma management, which can be delivered through primary care and self-care, is able to reduce asthma-related urgent care even in a global pandemic with restrained healthcare resources.Keywords: asthma management guidelines, COVID-19, health services use

Andrew Li,1 Yiong-Huak Chan,2 Mei Fong Liew,1,3 Rakshya Pandey,4 Jason Phua1,3 1Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, University Medicine Cluster, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore; 2Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; 3Fast and Chronic Programmes, Alexandra Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore; 4Department of Respiratory Medicine, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, SingaporeCorrespondence: Andrew LiYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, National University Hospital, NUHS Tower Block, Level 10 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, 119228 SingaporeEmail Andrew_yunkai_li@nuhs.edu.sgBackground and objective: Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) advocate regular influenza vaccination, which has been shown to reduce exacerbations. However, influenza vaccination rates remain low. This quality improvement project was initiated to help improve influenza vaccination rates in a tertiary hospital.Methods: All patients with COPD in the airway program (TAP) in the National University Hospital at the end of 2013 were recruited. The interventions were implemented in 2014; thus, population was stratified into the pre-intervention group and post-intervention group. Those who died in 2014 were excluded. They were (1) patient education posters in the clinics on the need for regular influenza vaccination, (2) direct interventions by physicians, and (3) intervention by the nurses when vaccinations were neglected. Physicians were made aware of previous vaccination rates, vaccination card reminders were placed in the clinics, and a new electronic healthcare record system (EHR) was implemented. The patients were followed up till the end of 2015 or until death. When an influenza vaccination was administered, the patients were asked which of the interventions led to the vaccination. A questionnaire was delivered to the physicians to determine the interventions that led to any change in vaccination prescription practices.Results: The pre-intervention influenza vaccination rate was low at 47.7%. The post-intervention influenza vaccination rate improved to 80.7% with the multi-pronged approach. Physicians initiated the majority of vaccinations (87.9%), while nurses helped intervene in a further 12.1%. Physicians’ vaccination prescription practices changed as a result of self-awareness of low vaccination rates, vaccination card reminders, and the new EHR. Patient education made minimal impact.Conclusion: This project demonstrates that with regular audits to track progress and several easy-to-implement interventions, improving influenza vaccination rates is an achievable goal.Keywords: influenza vaccination, quality improvement project, COPD

Background: Fifty years since its inception, Light's criteria have aided in classifying pleural effusions (PEs) as exudates if 1 or more criteria are met. Thoracic ultrasound (US) emerges as a non-invasive technique for point of care use especially if pleural procedures are contemplated., Objective: We aimed to develop a score based on radiological and US features that could separate exudates from transudates without serum and pleural fluid biochemical tests necessary for Light's criteria., Methods: A prospective review of consecutive patients with PE who underwent thoracocentesis was performed. CXRs were evaluated for laterality followed by US for echogenicity, pleural nodularity, thickening and septations. PE was classified as exudate or transudate according to Light's criteria and corroborated with albumin gradient. A score combining radiological and US features was developed., Results: We recruited 201 patients with PE requiring thoracocentesis. Mean age was 64 years, 51% were females, 164 (81.6%) were exudates, and 37 (18.4%) were transudates. Assigning 1-point for Diaphragmatic nodularity, Unilateral, Echogenicity, Pleural Thickening and Septations, DUETS ranged from 1 to 5. DUETS ≥2 indicated high likelihood for exudate (PPV 98.8%, NPV 100%) with 1% misclassification versus 6.9% using Light's criteria (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: DUETS separated exudates from transudates with good accuracy, and could obviate paired serum and pleural fluid tests necessary for Light's criteria computation. Our study reflected real world practice where DUETS performed better than Light's criteria for PE that arose from more than one disease processes, and in the evaluation of patients with PE who have received diuretics., (© 2024 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology.)

Background: To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials., Aim: To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life., Methods: This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers., Results: Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV 1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV 1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/µL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV 1 increase (adjusted R 2 : 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R 2 : 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R 2 : 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE., Conclusions: The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline., Competing Interests: CP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, and Sanofi-Genzyme; has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi-Genzyme, and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Sanofi-Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis; and has received educational and research grants from AstraZeneca, Novartis, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, ALK, and Sanofi-Genzyme. JT is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. CB reports advisory board participation of Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Takeda, ValeoPharma, honorarium for presentations for AstraZeneca/Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Sanofi-Regeneron, ValeoPharma and grants paid to UBC from BioHaven, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline. GCC declares relevant research support from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. GK has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi. He has also given lectures at meetings supported by Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Boehringer-Ingelheim. DL reports personal fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca national and global, Bayer, Chiesi, Grunenthal, Grin, GlaxoSmithKline national and global, Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Carnot, grants from Abbvie, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. TNT is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. RA-L has given lectures at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi, and participated in advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Abbott. SB-A has received honorarium for participation in expert advisory boards and given lectures for Teva Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Mylan and received unrestricted research grants from Mylan, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mundipharma International, GlaxoSmithKline, and Viatris. JB has received research grants from AstraZeneca and personnel fees from NuvoAir, outside the submitted work. MH declares grants and other advisory board fees made to his institutional employer from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects. KK received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, ELPEN, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Specialty Therapeutics, WebMD. His department has received funding and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Innovis, ELPEN, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis and NuvoAir. NP has been a speaker and/or advisory board member for Abbott, Abbvie, ALK, Asit Biotech, AstraZeneca, Biomay, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL, Faes Farma, Medscape, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Nutricia, OM Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, and Viatris. PEP has attended advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; has given lectures/webinars at meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; has taken part in clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi, for which his institution received remuneration; and has a current research grant funded by GlaxoSmithKline. TP declares relevant research support from Novartis and Chiesi Pharma. CR received consulting/lecture fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Mundipharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Teva, Sanofi, and Bayer. MS has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline for purposes unrelated to the content of this manuscript and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim directly into his research account from AstraZeneca for unrelated projects. M-JT has received sponsorship to attend or speak at conferences, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Shionogi and Orient EuroPharma. CU reports personal fees for talks, participation in advisory boards etc. from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Orion Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, TFF Pharmaceuticals, Covis Pharma, Berlin-Chemie, Takeda, Chiesi, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. MA-A has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and received a grant from Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences KFAS. AA has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi, and Zentiva; sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Norameda, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. ABe is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LBu is an employee of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI. OPRI conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. VC is an employee of Optimum Patient Care OPC. OPC is a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. BC declares grants from Chiesi and GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees for advisory board activities from Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and AstraZeneca; and payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Chiesi, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. KF is an employee of Optimum Patient Care Global OPCG, a co-funder of the International Severe Asthma Registry. LH has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; he has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/Genentech Inc, and GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aerocrine, and Vitalograph; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Napp Pharmaceuticals; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; he is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. RH is an employee for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. PK reports personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, FAES, Glenmark, Novartis, Polpharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Zentiva, outside the submitted work. RM is a consultant for Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute OPRI which conducted this study in collaboration with Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. TN received lecture fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. LP received research grants and lecture fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Grifols. DC has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca. FS reports consultancy work for GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Sanofi - Advisory board, received speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Amgen, Teva and research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. MW reports grants and/or personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Sentien, Restorbio, Equillium, Genzyme, Cohero Health, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Cytoreason, Cerecor, Sound Biologics, Incyte, and Kinaset. ABo has received industry-sponsored grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cephalon/Teva, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, and consultancies with AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron-Sanofi, Med-in-Cell, Actelion, Merck, Roche, and Chiesi. GB has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. He is a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD Merck sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LC has received speaker and consultancy fees and conference expenses from AstraZeneca, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and Menarini. ED declares grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, and Seqirus, for unrelated projects and speaker fees from Sanofi. JF reports grants from research agreements with AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Sanofi Regeneron, and Novartis. Personal fees for lectures and attending advisory boards: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, and Teva. FH declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, TEVA, GSK, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, and Sanofi, for which her institution has received funding. DJ has received speaker fees and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron, Boehringer Ingelheim and research funding from AstraZeneca. MK reports grant support from AstraZeneca, and honoraria for lectures and advisory board meetings paid to her hospital Singapore General Hospital from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. LL has received personal fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini, Novartis, Orion Pharma and Sanofi. NM is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. AM-G is an employee of AstraZeneca and may own stock or stock options in AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca is a co-funder of ISAR. PHwP has received honoraria for talks and advisory board meetings from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. AP has received fees and honoraria from Menarini, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Elpen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Chiesi. PHP has received advisory board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. LP-d-L reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Techdow Pharma, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Faes Farma, personal fees from Leo-Pharma, grants and personal fees from Gebro, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. MP declares personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. LR received fees as a speaker from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. IS has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi. CT-D has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has taken part in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received unrestricted grants for investigator-initiated studies at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols and Novartis. EW has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech. She has been an investigator on studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Sanofi, Novartis, and Teva, for which her institution has received funding. RC has received honoraria for lectures from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Teva. He is a member of advisory boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Aerogen and has patents in the use of acoustics in the diagnosis of lung disease, assessment of adherence and prediction of exacerbations. PG has received speaker fees and grants to his institution from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. EH declares personal fees for advisory boards participation and/or speaker activities from: Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes-Greer, Circassia, Bosch, Celltrion-Healthcare, Chiesi, and Almirall. JM reports speaker fees, grants or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Inmunotek, Menarini and Noucor. D-WP received sponsorship to attend or speak at international meetings, honoraria for lecturing or attending advisory boards, and research grants from the following companies: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Shionogi, and Orient Pharma. FP reports having received lectures or advisory board fees from: Menarini, Mundipharma, Chiesi, Alk Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Guidotti, Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Stallergenes Greer, Valeas, and Almirall. SS declares research support and speaker fees from Cipla, Glenmark, and GlaxoSmithKline. C-CS has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer, and has acted as an investigator for trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Galapagos, Shionogi, Aridis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Insmed, United Therapeutics, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Areteia Therapeutics, Meiji, and Horizon Therapeutics. CT has received lecture or advisory board fees and grants to her institution from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Chiesi and Novartis, for unrelated projects. TT is an advisory Board Member for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Mundipharma, and Janssen. Honoraria were received for these advisory boards. Honoraria were received for speaking at CMEs for AstraZeneca in the past. Conference sponsorships from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Norvatis, Mundipharma and MSD. Research grants from Merck Serono Concor Study, MSD Apbord study. LBj has in the last three years received lecture or advisory board fees from Alk-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, and Teva. GWC has received research grants, as well as lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Alk-Albello, Allergy Therapeutics, Anallergo, AstraZeneca, MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Circassia, Danone, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, Hal Allergy, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Orion, Sanofi Aventis, Sanofi, Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Teva, Thermo Fisher, and Valeas. TI received speaker bureau fees from Kyorin, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca and Sanofi. LJ-M has received fees as advisory board participant and/or speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; has participated in clinical trials for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline. DP has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Commune Digital, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd Australia and UK and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd Singapore; 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Porsbjerg, Townend, Bergeron, Christoff, Katsoulotos, Larenas-Linnemann, Tran, Al-Lehebi, Bosnic-Anticevich, Busby, Hew, Kostikas, Papadopoulos, Pfeffer, Popov, Rhee, Sadatsafavi, Tsai, Ulrik, Al-Ahmad, Altraja, Beastall, Bulathsinhala, Carter, Cosio, Fletton, Hansen, Heaney, Hubbard, Kuna, Murray, Nagano, Pini, Cano Rosales, Schleich, Wechsler, Amaral, Bourdin, Brusselle, Chen, Chung, Denton, Fonseca, Hoyte, Jackson, Katial, Kirenga, Koh, Ławkiedraj, Lehtimäki, Liew, Mahboub, Martin, Menzies-Gow, Pang, Papaioannou, Patel, Perez-De-Llano, Peters, Ricciardi, Rodríguez-Cáceres, Solarte, Tay, Torres-Duque, Wang, Zappa, Abisheganaden, Assing, Costello, Gibson, Heffler, Máspero, Nicola, Perng (Steve), Puggioni, Salvi, Sheu, Sirena, Taillé, Tan, Bjermer, Canonica, Iwanaga, Jiménez-Maldonado, Taube, Brussino and Price.)

Background: Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches., Methods: This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality., Results: There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis., Conclusions: Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Host factors leading to pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria (PNTM) disease are poorly understood compared with disseminated NTM disease, which is linked to the interleukin 12-interferon gamma signaling pathway. We investigated the tumor necrosis factor receptor associated factor 3 (TRAF3) R338W variant in a patient with recurrent PNTM infection, demonstrating TRAF3- and TNF-α-deficient phenotypes via ex vivo immune and cloning-transfection cellular studies., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Telomere attrition is an established ageing biomarker and shorter peripheral blood leukocyte telomere length has been associated with increased risks of respiratory diseases. However, whether telomere length in disease-relevant sputum immune cells of chronic respiratory disease patients is shortened and which pathways are dysfunctional are not clear. Here we measured telomere length from sputum samples of bronchiectasis and asthmatic subjects and determined that telomere length in sputum of bronchiectasis subjects was significantly shorter (Beta =  - 1.167, P Adj  = 2.75 × 10 -4 ). We further performed global gene expression analysis and identified genes involved in processes such as NLRP3 inflammasome activation and regulation of adaptive immune cells when bronchiectasis sputum telomere length was shortened. Our study provides insights on dysfunctions related to shortened telomere length in sputum immune cells of bronchiectasis patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Approximately 25% to 40% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have the eosinophilic endotype. It is important to identify this group accurately because they are more symptomatic and are at increased risk for exacerbations and accelerated decline in forced expiratory volume in the 1st second. Importantly, this endotype is a marker of treat ment responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), resulting in decreased mortality risk. In this review, we highlight differences in the biology of eosinophils in COPD compared to asthma and the different definitions of the COPD eosinophilic endotype based on sputum and blood eosinophil count (BEC) with the corresponding limitations. Although BEC is useful as a biomarker for eosinophilic COPD endotype, optimal BEC cut-offs can be combined with clinical characteristics to improve its sensitivity and specificity. A targeted approach comprising airway eosinophilia and appropriate clinical and physiological features may improve identification of subgroups of patients who would benefit from biologic therapy or early use of ICS for disease modification.

Introduction: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19 is associated with a high mortality rate, though outcomes of the different lung compliance phenotypes are unclear. We aimed to measure lung compliance and examine other factors associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients with ARDS., Methods: Adult patients with COVID-19 ARDS who required invasive mechanical ventilation at 8 hospitals in Singapore were prospectively enrolled. Factors associated with both mortality and differences between high (<40mL/cm H 2 O) and low (<40mL/cm H 2 O) compliance were analysed., Results: A total of 102 patients with COVID-19 who required invasive mechanical ventilation were analysed; 15 (14.7%) did not survive. Non-survivors were older (median 70 years, interquartile range [IQR] 67-75 versus median 61 years, IQR 52-66; P <0.01), and required a longer duration of ventilation (26 days, IQR 12-27 vs 8 days, IQR 5-15; P <0.01) and intensive care unit support (26 days, IQR 11-30 vs 11.5 days, IQR 7-17.3; P =0.01), with a higher incidence of acute kidney injury (15 patients [100%] vs 40 patients [46%]; P <0.01). There were 67 patients who had lung compliance data; 24 (35.8%) were classified as having high compliance and 43 (64.2%) as having low compliance. Mortality was higher in patients with high compliance (33.3% vs 11.6%; P =0.03), and was associated with a drop in compliance at day 7 (-9.3mL/cm H 2 O (IQR -4.5 to -15.4) vs 0.2mL/cm H 2 O (4.7 to -5.2) P =0.04)., Conclusion: COVID-19 ARDS patients with higher compliance on the day of intubation and a longitudinal decrease over time had a higher risk of death.

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available athttp://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-929). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Patients with severe asthma that remain uncontrolled incur significant medical burden and healthcare costs. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous airway disorder with complex pathophysiological mechanisms which can be broadly divided into type 2 (T2)-high and T2-low inflammatory pathways. Recent advances in asthma therapeutics with the advent of biologics have heralded an era of promising targeted therapy in this group of patients. The current available biologics, including anti-IgE mAb, anti-IL-5/IL-5R mAb and anti-IL-4Rα mAb, mainly target patients with an asthma endotype characterised by T2-high inflammation. While they have delivered positive outcomes in terms of reduction in exacerbations, improving lung function and quality of life, as well as reducing the dependence on oral corticosteroids, they have not functioned as the "panacea" as a significant proportion of patients do not respond completely to these targeted therapies. In addition, there is a lack of markers that can predict treatment response and clinicians are guided only by subjective asthma symptom scores. Suboptimal treatment response is common for individual patients. There has also been a dearth of effective targeted therapy for patients with T2-low asthma and treatment options remain limited for these patients. There is a pipeline of newer biologics targeting cytokines that operate at the interface between innate and adaptive immunity (e.g. IL-17A, thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), IL-25, IL-33, IL-32 and IL-36γ) with potential of modifying and reducing the severity of asthma. This commentary provides an overview of treatment with the current biologics and highlights the limitations, challenges and unmet needs in clinical management. We also summarise up-and-coming potential targets and therapeutic biologics for severe asthma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)