MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 82 asthmatic participants in Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) conducted between December 2020 till January 2022. Participants performed pre- and post-bronchodilator IOS and spirometry within the same day. Correlation between spirometry and IOS parameters and FEF25%-75% with IOS were determined and analysed.
RESULTS: The change of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was statistically correlated with a change of R5 in IOS. A decrement of 14.5% in R5 can be correlated with positive bronchodilator response (BDR) with a sensitivity of 63.9% and specificity of 60.9%, p=0.007. Pre-bronchodilator FEF25%-75% correlated with all parameters of SAD in IOS, e.g., R5-R20, reactance at 5Hz (X5) and area of reactance (AX), p < 0.05. IOS detection for SAD is higher compared to FEF25%-75% in the BDR negative group (91.3% vs 58.7%).
CONCLUSION: IOS detected both bronchodilator reversibility and SAD hence can be considered as an alternative tool to spirometry for diagnosis of asthma in adults. IOS detected SAD more than FEF25%-75%, especially in BDR-negative group.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of statins as an adjunct therapy for asthma in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched for studies in the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP and Embase Ovid SP, from their inception dates We handsearched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences. We also searched clinical trials registries for completed, ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews to identify additional studies. The search is current to 7 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group design that assessed statins for at least 12 weeks' duration. We considered all participants with a clinical diagnosis of asthma to be eligible, regardless of age, sex, disease severity and previous or current treatment. We planned to include studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and selected the studies, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We resolved any disagreement through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS: We found only one trial involving a total of 60 people living with asthma. The trial compared the effect of atorvastatin with a placebo (dummy treatment containing lactose) in treating people with chronic asthma. The trial did not report data for the primary outcomes or adverse events. There was uncertainty about the relative effect on forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) in the atorvastatin group compared with the placebo group. The study did not report serious adverse effects for the interventions. The included study had internal discrepancies in its reported data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence was of very low certainty, so we are unable to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of statins to treat asthma. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess the effect of statins on people with asthma. Well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples and longer duration of treatment are required, which assess outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and costs, to provide better quality evidence. Future studies that include subgroups of obese people with asthma are also required.
METHODS: Dyspnoea was assessed, and lung function measured in 25,806 adult participants of the multinational Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study. Dyspnoea was defined as ≥2 on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale. The prevalence of dyspnoea was estimated for each of the study sites and compared across countries and world regions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of dyspnoea with lung function in each site. Results were then pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of dyspnoea varied widely across sites without a clear geographical pattern. The mean prevalence of dyspnoea was 13.7 % (SD=8.2 %), ranging from 0 % in Mysore (India) to 28.8 % in Nampicuan-Talugtug (Philippines). Dyspnoea was strongly associated with both spirometry restriction (FVC
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through August 2024 for randomized controlled trials evaluating ensifentrine in COPD patients over a minimum of four weeks. Data extraction and screening utilized Knowledge software, and meta-analyses were performed using R v4.4 with a random-effects model.
RESULTS: From 206 studies identified, four met our inclusion criteria. Ensifentrine improved FEV1 significantly at a dose of 3 mg (LS mean difference: 40.90 mL; 95 % CI: 19.65-62.15). It also improved dyspnea as measured by the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) (LS mean difference: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.61-1.21) and quality of life according to the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire-C (SGRQ-C) scores (LS mean difference: -1.92; 95 % CI: -3.28 to -0.55). Safety profiles were comparable between the ensifentrine and placebo groups, with no significant increase in treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (RR: 1.02; 95 % CI: 0.94-1.10).
CONCLUSION: Ensifentrine significantly enhances lung function, reduces dyspnea, and improves quality of life in COPD patients, especially at a 3 mg dose. These benefits, coupled with a stable safety profile, support its use as an adjunctive therapy in COPD management.