[Effects of drugs on preventing recurrent myocardial infarction in patients with healed myocardial infarction].

K. Ishikawa,K. Kanamasa,J. Hama,I. Ogawa,T. Takenaka,T. Naito,N. Kamata,S. Nakai,T. Yamamoto,M. Oyaizu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1253/JCJ.58.SUPPLEMENTIV_1288

1995-01-20

Japanese Circulation Journal

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Getting to best: physician development as a developmental process.

D. Schumacher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-13-00443.1

2014-03-19

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

Abstract:In this issue of the Journal of Graduate Medical Education, Rosenbluth and colleagues1 interviewed faculty and asked them to describe the “best” residents. They identified components of physicians that can be developed over time as well as personality traits. In describing the need for their work, they argue that defining these areas is important because “there are many stakeholders [including patients, fellowship directors, and employers] who value greater differentiation among residents” than competency-based medical education may offer.1 A competency-based approach seeks to ensure that minimum levels of development are attained to be entrusted with unsupervised practice after training, yet it does not seek “to ensure that all residents will meet a uniform [emphasis added] standard of competence before leaving residency,” as suggested by Rosenbluth et al.1 This raises 2 important points when considering the study by Rosenbluth et al.1 First, “residents will likely progress through the Milestones at different rates,” as noted by the authors.1 Although it is somewhat unintentional, this variable progression may help to identify those individuals who are “best.” They will be the ones who are the most developmentally advanced. Second, because competency-based medical education uses a criterion reference,2 it is possible that any number of individuals will be developmentally advanced. This begs the question: do stakeholders in health care desire stratification among physicians, or do they actually desire the most well-developed physicians? Stated differently, would they rather have a physician who is the best among a group of minimally qualified physicians or would they prefer any 1 of many physicians from a group of developmentally advanced physicians? To meet the needs of patients, I believe our primary goal should be to produce the most developmentally advanced physicians during residency training. To reach this goal, a primary focus on the “best” resident may not prove to be the most useful for trainees or for the faculty responsible for ensuring and assessing their professional development. Instead, it may be better to consider physician development as a formative effort that continually focuses on next steps, similar to child development. The foundation of competency-based education and assessment entails defining the outcomes that are required of training to meet the needs of patients and populations and then working toward achieving these goals.3 Using a description of “best” to define these end goals is helpful and necessary, yet a focus on the end goal alone will not be as helpful as a focus on the next goal for facilitating development. Consider the development of reading skills in children, for example. A typical 5-year-old is just beginning to understand that letters make sounds and that those sounds form words. This child will hopefully read a book someday, but telling him to do this now is futile. While he knows that words create stories in books because his parents read to him, reading a book on his own is so many developmental steps ahead of where he is that he cannot consider how he might get there. Instead, it is more useful to focus on the next steps (eg, putting letters and sounds together to form words) that lead to the outcome of interest (ie, reading), rather than the ultimate outcome, to drive his learning and development. Within the context of a competency-based residency curriculum, this focus on a developmental path or process before outcome works for medical learners as well. Research in self-guided skill development has shown that providing process goals (a focus on how to do something) rather than outcome goals (a focus on the product of doing something) leads to better skill acquisition and retention.4–6 As an example, Brydges et al6 found that medical students learning to suture retain skills better when provided with process goals (loading the needle driver two-thirds along its length, entering perpendicular to the skin, taking the same size bite on each side of the wound, and ensuring each throw is down square by either crossing the sutures or the hands) than outcome goals. Their outcome goals focused on broader, less specific instructions to “complete each interrupted suture and knot tie in a timely manner. Be sure to equally space the sutures, evert the skin edges, and ensure that every knot is square.” 6 Only after a focus on process is it useful to bring back the focus on outcome. In fact, it is important to shift to outcome after achieving sufficient success in process to continue to make improvements.4 Although much of this work investigates the development of motor skills, this strategy seems to be true for cognitive skills as well.5 The utility of focusing on process for optimizing learning and improvement has notable implications for how supervisors approach helping trainees to develop by emphasizing the importance of discussing next steps. The Milestone project facilitates this by defining the developmental trajectories for various physician competencies. In fact, residents and faculty have noted that Milestones provide them with just such a roadmap for learning by defining the process to achieve the outcome.7,8 With additional corroboration beyond the work of Rosenbluth and colleagues,1 how experienced teachers define the “best” residents will be helpful in revising future iterations of Milestones as well as setting individual goals for residents who are developmentally ready to make the shift from a focus on process to a focus on outcome for their continued improvement. While personality traits may not be modifiable, several components of the “best” residents revealed in the study by Rosenbluth et al1 can be developed during training through learner-centered experiences, feedback, and mentoring. These areas included teamwork, personal improvement, and multiple components of Kennedy's trustworthiness framework, such as knowledge and skill, discernment, and conscientiousness.9 Indeed, personal and professional development, which includes trustworthiness, has been suggested as a seventh competency domain and interprofessional teamwork as a potential eighth domain.10,11 Regardless of the competency of interest to be developed, 2 things seem clear: a focus on “best” helps define the end goal to strive for, but focusing on next steps in development works best until considerable progress has been made toward that ultimate outcome.
Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efthymia Papadopoulou,Sulaiman Bin Safar,Ali Khalil,Jan Hansel,Ran Wang,Alexandru Corlateanu,Konstantinos Kostikas,Stavros Tryfon,Jørgen Vestbo,Alexander G. Mathioudakis,Papadopoulou,E.,Bin Safar,S.,Khalil,A.,Hansel,J.,Wang,R.,Corlateanu,A.,Kostikas,K.,Tryfon,S.,Vestbo,J.,Mathioudakis,A. G.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0151-2023

IF: 7.5

2024-03-20

European Respiratory Review

Abstract:This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for COPD exacerbations. Following a pre-registered protocol, we appraised eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to Cochrane methodology, performed random-effects meta-analyses for all outcomes prioritised in the European Respiratory Society COPD core outcome set and rated the certainty of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We included 20 RCTs totalling 2140 participants with moderate or severe exacerbations. All trials were at high risk of methodological bias. Low-certainty evidence did not reveal significant differences between inhaled and systemic corticosteroids for treatment failure rate (relative risk 1.75, 95% CI 0.76–4.02, n=569 participants); breathlessness (mean change: standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.11, 95% CI –0.36–0.15, n=239; post-treatment scores: SMD –0.18, 95% CI –0.41–0.05, n=293); serious adverse events (relative risk 1.47, 95% CI 0.56–3.88, n=246); or any other efficacy outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence implied a tendency for fewer adverse events with inhaled compared to systemic corticosteroids (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.64–1.0, n=480). Hyperglycaemia and oral fungal infections were observed more frequently with systemic and inhaled corticosteroids, respectively. Limited available evidence suggests potential noninferiority of inhaled to systemic corticosteroids in COPD exacerbations. Appropriately designed and powered RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.

respiratory system
Effect and its clinical significance of different dose of glucocorticoids on inflammation mediators in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases

Baiqiang Zhong,Lifen Qian,Baoxian Huang,Shuqing Fang,Jianying Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-9026.2014.04.011

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective To explore the effect and its clinical significance of different dose of glucocorticoids on inflammation mediators in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.Methods 45 patients admitted to our hospitals from March 2007 to March 2011 were randomly divided into 3 groups:methylprednisolone 40 mg group (methylprednisolone 40mg,iv,qd),methylprednisolone 80 mg group (methylprednisolone 80mg,iv,bid),and control group (without any glucocorticoids).The changes of dyspnea scores,arterial blood gas analysis,clinical symptom scores and serum IL-6,IL-8 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) levels were detected in patients of each group before and at the 7th day after treatment.The related adverse drug reactions were recorded.Results The improvements in clinical symptom scores,Borg scores,PaCO2,PaO2 after treatment were higher in methylprednisolone 40 mg group and methylprednisolone 80 mg group than in control group (F=3.6747.162 and 42.88,respectively,P＜0.01 or 0.001),and the above improvements was better in methylprednisolone 80 mg group than in methylprednisolone 40 mg group (all P＜0.05).The decreases in levels of serum IL-8,TNF-α,IL-6,C-RP after the treatment were more significant in methylprednisolone 40 mg group and methylprednisolone 80 mg group than in control group (F=12.65,16.17,30.99,respectively,all P＜0.001),and the decrements were more significant in methylprednisolone 80 mg group than in methylprednisolone 40 mg group(all P＜0.05).NO serious adverse drug reactions happened during the course of treatment in the three groups.Conelusions Short-term and moderate dose of glucocorticoid treatment is effective and safe in treating the patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.Methylprednisolone 80 mg injection daily can more obviously improve AECOPD symptoms,and reduce the levels of inflammatory factors better.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE OVARIAN ASCORBIC ACID DEPLETION TESTS FOR LUTEINIZING HORMONE.

E. Bell,J. Loraine,S. Mukerji,P. Visutakul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1677/JOE.0.0320001

1965-04-01

Journal of Endocrinology

Abstract:
Corticosteroid Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: a Multicenter, Retrospective Study

Li Yiming,Meng Qinghe,Rao Xin,Wang Binbin,Zhang Xingguo,Dong Fang,Yu Tao,Li Zhongyi,Feng Huibin,Zhang Jinpeng,Chen Xiangyang,Li Hunian,Cheng Yi,Hong Xiaoyang,Wang Xiang,Yin Yimei,Zhang Zhongheng,Wang Dawei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03429-w

IF: 15.1

2020-01-01

Critical Care

Abstract:Abstract Background Corticoid therapy has been recommended in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, yet its efficacy is currently still under evaluation. We investigated the effect of corticosteroid treatment on 90-day mortality and SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in severe patients with COVID-19. Methods 294 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were recruited between December 30, 2019 and February 19, 2020. Logistic regression, Cox proportional-hazards model and marginal structural modeling (MSM) were applied to evaluate the associations between corticosteroid use and corresponding outcome variables. Results Out of the 294 critically ill patients affected by COVID-19, 183 (62.2%) received corticosteroids, with methylprednisolone as the most frequently administered corticosteroid (175 accounting for 96%). Of those treated with corticosteroids, 69.4% received corticosteroid prior to ICU admission. When adjustments and subgroup analysis were not performed, no significant associations between corticosteroids use and 90-day mortality or SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance were found. However, when stratified analysis based on corticosteroid initiation time was performed, there was a significant correlation between corticosteroid use (≤ 3 day after ICU admission) and 90-day mortality (logistic regression adjusted for baseline: OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.17–17.25, p = 0.025; Cox adjusted for baseline and time varying variables: HR 3.89, 95% CI 1.94–7.82, p < 0.001; MSM adjusted for baseline and time-dependent variants: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.16–4.65, p = 0.017). No association was found between corticosteroid use and SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance even after stratification by initiation time of corticosteroids and adjustments for confounding factors (corticosteroids use ≤ 3 days initiation vs no corticosteroids use) using MSM were performed. Conclusions Early initiation of corticosteroid use (≤ 3 days after ICU admission) was associated with an increased 90-day mortality. Early use of methylprednisolone in the ICU is therefore not recommended in patients with severe COVID-19.
Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

Andrea Georgiou,Reshma Ramesh,Peter Schofield,Patrick White,Timothy H Harries

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S436525

2024-06-21

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. It should only be prescribed to COPD patients who are not adequately controlled by dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy and who have ≥2 exacerbations per year and a blood eosinophil count ≥300cells/µL. ICS therapy is widely prescribed outside guidelines to COPD patients, making ICS withdrawal an important consideration. This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the effect of ICS withdrawal on exacerbation frequency, change in lung function (FEV1) and to determine the proportion of COPD patients who resume ICS therapy following withdrawal. Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies which compared ICS withdrawal with ICS continuation treatment were included. Cochrane Central, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase and OVID Medline were searched. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quality assessment of RCTs was conducted using GRADE. Meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses of RCTs of ICS withdrawal, stratified by blood eosinophil count (BEC), was undertaken. Results: Ten RCTs (6642 patients randomised) and 6 observational studies (160,029 patients) were included in the results. When ICS was withdrawn and long-acting bronchodilator therapy was maintained, there was no consistent difference in exacerbation frequency or lung function change between the ICS withdrawal and continuation trial arms. The evidence for these effects was of moderate quality. There was insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion on the proportion of patients who resumed ICS therapy following withdrawal (estimated range 12-93% of the participants). Discussion: Withdrawal of ICS therapy from patients with COPD is safe and feasible but should be accompanied by maintenance of bronchodilation therapy for optimal outcomes.
The influence of prior use of inhaled corticosteroids on COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chao-Hsien Chen,Cheng-Yi Wang,Ching-Yi Chen,Ya-Hui Wang,Kuang-Hung Chen,Chih-Cheng Lai,Yu-Feng Wei,Pin-Kuei Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295366

IF: 3.7

2024-01-19

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The influence of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COVID-19 outcomes remains uncertain. To address this, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzing 30 studies, to investigate the impact of ICS on patients with COVID-19. Our study focused on various outcomes, including mortality risk, hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation (MV) utilization, and length of hospital stay. Additionally, we conducted a subgroup analysis to assess the effect of ICS on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Our findings suggest that the prior use of ICS did not lead to significant differences in mortality risk, ICU admission, hospitalization, or MV utilization between individuals who had used ICS previously and those who had not. However, in the subgroup analysis of patients with COPD, prior ICS use was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared to non-users (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00). Overall, while the use of ICS did not significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes in general, it may have beneficial effects specifically for patients with COPD. Nevertheless, more research is needed to establish a definitive conclusion on the role of ICS in COVID-19 treatment. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021279429.
Inhaled corticosteroid withdrawal may improve outcomes in elderly patients with COPD exacerbation: a nationwide database study

Taisuke Jo,Hideo Yasunaga,Yasuhiro Yamauchi,Akihisa Mitani,Yoshihisa Hiraishi,Wakae Hasegawa,Yukiyo Sakamoto,Hiroki Matsui,Kiyohide Fushimi,Takahide Nagase

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00246-2019

IF: 4.239

2020-01-01

ERJ Open Research

Abstract:Background Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are used for advanced-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The application and safety of ICS withdrawal remain controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the association between ICS withdrawal and outcomes in elderly patients with COPD with or without comorbid bronchial asthma, who were hospitalised for exacerbation. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from July 2010 to March 2016 . We identified patients aged ≥65 years who were hospitalised for COPD exacerbation. Re-hospitalisation for COPD exacerbation or death, frequency of antimicrobial medicine prescriptions and frequency of oral corticosteroid prescriptions after discharge were compared between patients with withdrawal and continuation of ICSs using propensity score analyses, namely 1–2 propensity score matching and stabilised inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Among 3735 eligible patients, 971 and 2764 patients had ICS withdrawal and continuation, respectively. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of re-hospitalisation for COPD exacerbation or death for ICS withdrawal compared to continuation were 0.65 (0.52–0.80) in the propensity score matching and 0.71 (0.56–0.90) in the inverse probability of treatment weighting. The frequency of antimicrobial prescriptions but not corticosteroid prescriptions within 1 year was significantly less in the ICS withdrawal group. Among patients with comorbid bronchial asthma, ICS withdrawal was significantly associated with reduced re-hospitalisation for COPD exacerbation or death only in the propensity score matching analysis. Conclusion ICS withdrawal after COPD exacerbation was significantly associated with reduced incidences of re-hospitalisation or death among elderly patients, including those with comorbid bronchial asthma.
Comparison Of The Clinical Outcomes Between Nebulized And Systemic Corticosteroids In The Treatment Of Acute Exacerbation Of Copd In China (Contain Study): A Post Hoc Analysis

Yahong Chen,Yang Liu,Jing Zhang,Wanzhen Yao,Jingping Yang,Fan Li,Liwen Lu,Jinping Zheng,Xiaowen Han,Jin-Fu Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S255475

2020-01-01

Abstract:Background and Objective: Although corticosteroids have been widely used in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of nebulized corticosteroids (NCS), systemic corticosteroids (SCS), and NCS plus SCS in the management of AECOPD in China. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of NCS, SCS, and NCS plus SCS in Chinese patients with AECOPD.Patients and Methods: This was a real-world study of AECOPD patients at 43 sites from January to September 2014. During hospitalization, patients treated with nebulized budesonide (NCS group, n=1091), SCS (SCS group, n=709), or both (NCS+SCS group, n=1846) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) and subgroup analyses were performed. The primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, mortality, and change in arterial blood gases from baseline.Results: Multivariable analysis showed that the three treatments at the same severity of AECOPD were not significantly different regarding intubation rates, rates of pneumonia improvement at discharge, rates of new-onset pneumonia in hospital, and mortality. Following PSM, NCS+SCS was associated with greater length of hospital stay than both NCS and SCS (in patients without respiratory failure [RF, P<0.001] and with type I RF [P=0.022]), and more hospitalization costs than the other two treatments (in patients without RF [P<0.001]).Conclusion: NCS is effective for patients with AECOPD, which may be an alternative treatment option. Further clinical trials are urgently needed to better understand the efficacy of NCS, SCS, and NCS+SCS in AECOPD management in China.
Systemic steroid therapy for pneumonic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: A retrospective cohort study

Akihiro Shiroshita,Keisuke Anan,Masafumi Takeshita,Yuki Kataoka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290647

IF: 3.7

2023-09-27

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The effectiveness of systemic steroid therapy on mortality in patients with pneumonic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation is unclear. We evaluated the association between systemic steroid therapy and 30-day mortality after adjusting for known confounders, using data from the Health, Clinic, and Education Information Evaluation Institute in Japan, which longitudinally followed up patients in the same hospital. We selected patients aged ≥40 years admitted for pneumonic COPD exacerbation. The exclusion criteria were censoring within 24 h, comorbidity with other respiratory diseases, and daily steroid use. Systemic steroid therapy was defined as oral/parenteral steroid therapy initiated within two days of admission. The primary outcome was the 30-day mortality rate. To account for known confounders, each patient was assigned an inverse probability of treatment weighting. The outcome was evaluated using logistic regression. Among 3,662 patients showing pneumonic COPD exacerbation, 30-day mortality in the steroid therapy and non-steroid therapy groups was 27.6% (169/612) and 21.9% (668/3,050), respectively. Systemic steroid therapy indicated a slightly higher estimated probability of 30-day mortality (difference in the estimated probabilities, 2.65%; 95% confidence interval, -1.23 to 6.54%, p-value = 0.181). Systemic steroid therapy within two days of admission was associated with higher 30-day mortality rates in pneumonic COPD exacerbation. Further validation studies based on chart reviews will be needed to cope with residual confounders.
The Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroids on the Prognosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Ji Won Park,Yoonki Hong,Chin Kook Rhee,Hye Sook Choi,Kyungjoo Kim,Kwang Ha Yoo,Ki-Suck Jung,Joo Hun Park

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S388367

2023-05-02

International Journal of COPD

Abstract:Ji Won Park, 1, &ast Yoonki Hong, 2, &ast Chin Kook Rhee, 3 Hye Sook Choi, 4 Kyungjoo Kim, 3 Kwang Ha Yoo, 5 Ki-Suck Jung, 6 Joo Hun Park 1 1 Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea; 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, South Korea; 3 Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 4 Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea; 5 Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; 6 Department of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, South Korea &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Joo Hun Park, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Worldcup road 164, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, 16499, South Korea, Tel +82-31-219-5116 ; +82-10-8379-8299, Fax +82-31-219-5124, Email ; Background: A comprehensive analysis of the effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COPD in a real-world setting is required due to safety concerns regarding ICS in COPD. This study aimed to explore the impact of ICS on the prognosis of Asian COPD patients in the real-life world. Methods: We examined 978 COPD patients registered in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) database and with their data linked to Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) data. The outcome measures were ascertained by HIRA from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012. This study enrolled two arms; ICS users (N = 85, mean age = 66.7 ± 8.9 years) and non-ICS users (N = 893, mean age = 63.7 ± 9.7 years). Results: Compared to the non-ICS users, the ICS users had a higher rate of pneumonia, tuberculosis, and acute exacerbations ( P < 0.05). Hospitalization due to respiratory causes was also higher among ICS users ( P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that acute exacerbation was independently associated with the development of pneumonia ( P < 0.05), whereas ICS therapy had a tendency to be associated with pneumonia. Another multivariate analysis demonstrated that old age, FEV 1 , ICS therapy, and pneumonia were independently associated with the occurrence of acute exacerbation ( P < 0.05). The concomitant pneumonia (HR = 3.353, P = 0.004) was independently associated with higher mortality ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that the ICS users had a higher rate of pneumonia and tuberculosis and the concomitant pneumonia was independently associated with higher mortality, highlighting the importance of cautious and targeted administration of ICS in COPD. Keywords: COPD, inhaled corticosteroids, pneumonia, mortality Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been a major public health concern and was expected to rank third among all the causes of death by 2030, there is still no therapeutic intervention that modifies the natural course of COPD. 1,2 The pharmacological treatment of COPD comprises long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), the combination of LAMA and LABA, the combination of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and triple therapy including LABA, LAMA, and ICS. The benefits of ICS in COPD reported by various studies include the reduction of frequency of COPD exacerbations, a lower rate of hospitalization, and a reduction of all-cause mortality in some COPD subgroups. 3–6 However, the use of ICS in COPD is much debated because of the associated safety concerns; 7–10 there is a concern about the attendant side effects of ICS on COPD including pneumonia and tuberculosis. 11,12 Consequently, the withdrawal of ICS in COPD patients is common due to ICS-related adverse events or treatment-related risks outweighing the expected benefits. 13,14 In addition, ICS treatment is associated with several challenges; observational studies suggested that overprescription of ICS is common in patients with COPD and smoking can result in steroid resistance by decreasing the efficacy of ICS in COPD. 13,15,16 However, so far, there are few comprehensive analyses of the effects of ICS on COPD in a real-world setting. Hence, this study was conducted to investigate the impact of ICS on the prognosis of Asian COPD patients in the real world setting by analyzing the Korean National Health and Nutrition -Abstract Truncated-

respiratory system
Association between COPD exacerbations and lung function decline during maintenance therapy

Marjan Kerkhof,Jaco Voorham,Paul Dorinsky,Claudia Cabrera,Patrick Darken,Janwillem Wh Kocks,Mohsen Sadatsafavi,Don D Sin,Victoria Carter,David B Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-214457

Thorax

Abstract:Background: Little is known about the impact of exacerbations on COPD progression or whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use and blood eosinophil count (BEC) affect progression. We aimed to assess this in a prospective observational study. Methods: The study population included patients with mild to moderate COPD, aged ≥35 years, with a smoking history, who were followed up for ≥3 years from first to last spirometry recording using two large UK electronic medical record databases: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD). Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models were used to determine the relationship between annual exacerbation rate following initiation of therapy (ICS vs non-ICS) and FEV1 decline. Effect modification by blood eosinophils was studied through interaction terms. Results: Of 12178 patients included (mean age 66 years; 48% female), 8981 (74%) received ICS. In patients with BEC ≥350 cells/µL not on ICS, each exacerbation was associated with subsequent acceleration of FEV1 decline of 19.4 mL/year (95% CI 12.0 to 26.7, p<0.0001). This excess decline was reduced by 15.1 mL/year (6.6 to 23.6) to 4.3 mL/year (1.9 to 6.7, p<0.0001) in those with BEC ≥350 cells/µL treated with ICS. Conclusion: Exacerbations are associated with a more rapid loss of lung function among COPD patients with elevated blood eosinophils, defined as ≥350 cells/µL, not treated with ICS. More aggressive prevention of exacerbations using ICS in such patients may prevent excess loss of lung function.
COPD patients prescribed inhaled corticosteroid in primary care: time for re-assessment based on exacerbation rate and blood eosinophils?

Osman Savran,Nina Godtfredsen,Torben Sørensen,Christian Jensen,Charlotte Suppli Ulrik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-021-01651-w

IF: 5.8

2021-02-12

Respiratory Research

Abstract:Abstract Background and objective Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy for COPD should be guided by exacerbations and blood-eosinophils according to the GOLD 2020 strategy document. In the present study, we applied these recent recommendations in a large cohort of COPD patients recruited from general practice. Methods The participating general practitioners (n = 144) recruited patients with a diagnosis of COPD currently prescribed ICS and reported data on exacerbation history and blood-eosinophils. Clinical variables were compared using two-sample t-tests. Results The study cohort comprised 1,567 COPD patients (44% males and mean age 72 years). In the past 12 months, 849 (54%) of the COPD patients currently prescribed ICS had no exacerbation, whereas 383 (24%) and 328 (21%) patients, respectively, had a history of one exacerbation and two or more exacerbations. Compared to patients with one or no exacerbation, patients with ≥ 2 exacerbations (21%) per year reported more dyspnea (p < 0.001) and had higher degree of airflow obstruction (p < 0.001). Among patients with no and at least one exacerbation within the preceding 12 months, 30% and 26%, respectively, had a blood-eosinophil count ≥ 0.3 × 10 9 /L. In patients with two or more exacerbations within the last 12 months, 77% had a blood-eosinophil count of ≥ 0.1 × 10 9 /L. Furthermore, 166 patients (11%) had at least one hospital admission due to COPD exacerbation, and a blood-eosinophil count of ≥ 0.1 × 10 9 /L. Conclusion This study of a large cohort of COPD patients currently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids suggests the need for re-evaluating the management strategy to increase benefit and reduce adverse effects of ICS treatment in COPD patients managed in primary care.

respiratory system
Inhaled Corticosteroids Particle Size and Risk of Hospitalization Due to Exacerbations and All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Nationwide Cohort Study

Christian Kjer Heerfordt,Christian Rønn,Josefin Eklöf,Pradeesh Sivapalan,Zitta Harboe,Charlotte Hyldgaard,Andreas Fløe,Alexander Mathioudakis,Mats Lassen,Tor Biering-Sørensen,Jens-Ulrik Jensen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s453524

2024-09-29

International Journal of COPD

Abstract:Christian Kjer Heerfordt, 1 Christian Rønn, 1 Josefin Eklöf, 1 Pradeesh Sivapalan, 1 Zitta Barrella Harboe, 2, 3 Charlotte Hyldgaard, 4 Andreas Fløe, 5 Alexander G Mathioudakis, 6, 7 Mats Christian Højbjerg Lassen, 8 Tor Biering-Sørensen, 8, 9 Jens-Ulrik Stæhr Jensen 1, 3, 10 1 Section of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark; 2 Department of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital, North Zealand, Hillerød, Denmark; 3 Department of Clinical Medicine Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; 4 Diagnostic Centre, University Research Clinic for Innovative Patient Pathways, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Silkeborg, Denmark; 5 Department of Respiratory Diseases and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 6 Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 7 North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; 8 Department of Cardiology, Herlev & Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; 9 Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark; 10 PERSIMUNE & CHIP: Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Correspondence: Jens-Ulrik Stæhr Jensen, Email Background: Extra-fine particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) improve peripheral airway distribution, but their effect on risk of exacerbations and all-cause mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. Methods: This observational cohort study compares patients with COPD who received extra-fine particle ICS to those who received standard particle size ICS from 2010 to 2017 while followed in outpatient clinics. The primary outcome was the time to a COPD exacerbation that required hospitalization, with all-cause mortality as a secondary outcome. Data were analyzed using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and a competing risk analysis. Two predefined subgroup analyses of patients treated with pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) and patients with a previous exacerbation history, was carried out. Lastly, we created a propensity score matched cohort as a sensitivity analysis. Results: Of the 40,489 patients included, 38,802 (95.8%) received stand particle size ICS and 1,687 (4.2%) received extra-fine particle ICS. In total 7,058 were hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation, and 4,346 died. No significant protective effect of extra-fine particle ICS against hospitalization due to COPD exacerbations (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82– 1.05, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85– 1.17, p=0.99) was found when compared to standard particle size ICS. However, in the subgroup analysis of patients treated with pMDIs, extra-fine particle ICS was associated with reduction in risk of exacerbations (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63– 0.82, p< 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61– 0.86, p< 0.001). Conclusion: The administration of extra-fine particle ICS was not associated with reduced risk of exacerbations or all-cause mortality in our primary analysis. A subgroup consisting of patients treated with pMDIs suggested potential protective benefits. Keywords: COPD, Inhaled Corticosteroids, Particle size, COPD exacerbations Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly used for treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in combination with bronchodilators. 1,2 ICS therapy has been shown to effectively prevent exacerbations in COPD patients with a history of frequent exacerbations and evidence of eosinophilic inflammation. 3–5 The impact of ICS on mortality in these patients is still somewhat uncertain. 2,6 The ETHOS and IMPACT trials suggest beneficial effects on all-cause mortality, although in milder COPD populations compared to our cohort. 7,8 ICS particle size affects the distribution within the lungs. 9,10 The median mass aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) is the measure of particle size for ICS, which typically ranges from 1–5 μm in commonly used devices. 11 Extra-fine ICS particles, with a MMAD of less than 2 μm, are more likely to reach the peripheral airways. 9,12 The increased distribution of ICS in the peripheral airways may potentiall -Abstract Truncated-

respiratory system
Measurement of Pre- or Post-Filter-Ionised Calcium Concentration during Continuous Veno-Venous Haemofiltration

C. Anstey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000453445

2016-12-13

Blood Purification

Abstract:and replace both calcium and magnesium as necessary [1] . With the local discontinuation of the 14 mmol/l citrate solution and the subsequent use of first an 18 mmol/l and now a 15 mmol/l citrate solution, we see no practical requirement to sample post-filter blood; we, however, agree that such measurement may be necessary in the context of poor filter survival, for example, less than 24 h. At present, using a 15 mmol/l solution, our filters have a median survival of 66 h [1] . Our study was primarily concerned with the biochemical abnormalities associated with the different electrolyte compositions of the 2 fluids, notably the occurrence of a non-respiratory alkalemia with the 18 mmol/l solution. It also dealt with the effect that those differences had in patients over time – in those who were functionally anephric and hence unable to renally compensate for disturbances in their major extracellular electrolytes [1, 3] . In our study, filter survival was an interesting but only a secondary concern. Finally, on an issue related to the use of citrate as an anticoagulant, I am motivated to make a remark. It is an erroneous and common misconception to state that citrate is metabolised to bicarbonate. In the Krebs Cycle, citrate is metabolised to carbon dioxide with the coproduction of NADH [5] . Dear Editor, Thank you for publishing the results of our recent prospective, randomised, controlled study and for the commentary by Jacobs et al. in the same issue [1, 2] . In that commentary, the authors raise the issue of the measurement and control of postfilter-ionised calcium concentrations as a means of enhancing filter survival. When we first began using regional citrate anticoagulation as our preferred method of continuous renal replacement therapy approximately 9 years ago, we were using a proprietary 14 mmol/l pre-filter substitution solution as regional citrate anticoagulation for a continuous veno-venous haemofiltration circuit at a rate of 2,000 ml/h [3] . At that time, we sampled post-filter blood for both clearance studies and adequacy of anticoagulation and invariably found that the post-filter [ICa 2+ ] was less than 0.5 mmol/l and that our circuits lasted well. Since then for both purely practical safety reasons around the issues associated with drawing blood from a pressurised circuit using a sharp needle and in accordance with the local Health Department policy around preventing needle stick injuries [4] , we have largely abandoned the practice. We do, however, continue to monitor serum-ionised calcium regularly by safely drawing blood from the indwelling intra-arterial cannula circuit Received: October 6, 2016 Accepted: November 15, 2016 Published online: December 13, 2016
Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment Regimens and Health Outcomes in a UK COPD Population Study

Chloe I Bloom,Ian Douglas,Omar S Usmani,Jennifer K Quint

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S241568

2020-04-02

Abstract:Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a prevailing treatment option for COPD patients but recent guidelines have relegated their use predominantly to patients with frequent exacerbations. Yet large numbers of patients worldwide are currently treated with ICS-containing regimens. We wished to determine in routine clinical practice how common ICS withdrawal is and the differences in health outcomes between patients managed on ICS-containing and non-ICS containing regimens. Patients and methods: COPD patients were identified from the UK primary care electronic healthcare records, between 2014 and 2018. Patients were grouped into three treatment regimens: long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), LABA and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and triple therapy (LABA, LAMA and ICS). Annual incidence of ICS withdrawal was measured. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient factors associated with withdrawal. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to assess the association of exacerbations and hospitalised pneumonia between the ICS-containing regimens (LABA-ICS and triple therapy) and patients prescribed LABA-LAMA. Results: Of 117,046 patients, around three-quarters were prescribed ICS-containing inhalers but ICS withdrawal occurred annually in only approximately 2-3% of patients. Exacerbations in the past year, but not a past history of pneumonia, were associated with ICS withdrawal. A total of 31,034 patients using three treatment regimens (LABA-ICS, LABA-LAMA or triple therapy) were assessed for their relative risk of exacerbations and pneumonia; the exacerbation risk was slightly lower in LABA-ICS users but the same in triple therapy users, as compared to LABA-LAMA users (LABA-ICS adjusted IRR=0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.93), triple adjusted IRR=0.99 (95% CI 0.88-1.11)). There was no difference in the pneumonia risk (LABA-ICS adjusted IRR=0.96 (95% CI 0.71-1.31), triple adjusted IRR=1.16 (95% CI 0.87-1.57)). Conclusion: Use of ICS-containing inhaled medication is prevalent across the UK while ICS withdrawal from established treatment was relatively uncommon. Exacerbations and pneumonia risk was similar between the ICS-containing and non-ICS containing treatment regimens.
Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: systematic review and meta-analysis

Shih-Lung Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s175017

2018-09-01

Abstract:Background: COPD is a highly heterogeneous disease. Potential biomarkers to identify patients with COPD who will derive the greatest benefit from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment are needed. Blood eosinophil count can serve as a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of ICS treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether a blood eosinophil count of ≥2% in patients undergoing ICS therapy was associated with a greater reduction in COPD exacerbation rate and pneumonia incidence.Materials and methods: An electronic search was performed using the keywords "COPD", "eosinophil", and "clinical trial" in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to retrieve articles, up to 2017, relevant to our focus. Data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5 (version 5.3.5).Results: Five studies comprising 12,496 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD were included. At baseline, 60% of the patients had ≥2% blood eosinophils. Our meta-analysis showed a 17% reduction in exacerbation of moderate/severe COPD in patients with ≥2% blood eosinophils undergoing ICS therapy compared to the non-ICS/ICS withdrawal/placebo group. The difference between the two types of treatment was significant (risk ratio [RR], 0.816; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P=0.03). Furthermore, the risk of pneumonia-related events was significantly increased in the subgroup with eosinophil count ≥2% undergoing ICS-containing treatments (RR, 1.969; 95% CI, 1.369-2.833; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the subgroup with eosinophil count <2% (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.888-1.879; P<0.181).Conclusion: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that the 2% threshold for blood eosinophils could accurately predict ICS treatment response in patients with COPD, but increased the risk of pneumonia.

respiratory system
Blueprint for a stronger Food and Drug Administration.

G. Curfman,S. Morrissey,J. Drazen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJME068237

IF: 158.5

2006-10-26

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:Over the past 5 years, a series of recalls of high-profile prescription medications has aroused serious concern about the safety of the nation's drug supply. Faced with a crisis of confidence, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004 called on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a comprehensive review of the safety of prescription drugs. The IOM assembled a distinguished review committee, and after nearly a year and a half of deliberations, a draft of the committee report became public on September 21, 2006 (www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/26341/37329.aspx). The committee recommends a number of specific reforms that . . .
Systemic Steroid and Nebulized Budesonide Combination Therapy Versus Systemic Steroid Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Community Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study

David Nguyen,Trent Larson,Heather Leinbach,Emily Guthrie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018578720965417

2020-10-20

Hospital Pharmacy

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes and costs of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and systemic corticosteroid combination therapy versus systemic corticosteroid monotherapy for treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Methods: Hospitalized patients aged 41 to 85 years old who received ≥40 mg/day of systemic prednisone equivalents between April 3, 2017 to July 31, 2017 and April 3, 2018 to July 31, 2018 with a primary discharge diagnosis of AECOPD. Two cohorts were identified: those who received >2 doses of ICS (combination therapy) and those who received ≤2 doses of ICS (monotherapy) while on systemic corticosteroid therapy. Primary outcomes were progression of respiratory support or ≥20% increase in daily dose of systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), COPD 30-day readmissions, in-hospital mortality, and nebulized budesonide costs. Results: One hundred twenty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Daily corticosteroid dose increases were similar between the combination and monotherapy cohorts (4% vs. 5%, P = 0.76) as was progression in ventilatory support (12% vs. 8%, P = 0.53). In-hospital mortality (4% vs. 1%, P = 0.36) and COPD 30-day readmissions (16% vs. 9%, P = 0.22) were not significantly different, however, patients in the combination arm had longer lengths of stay (4.8 days vs. 3.9 days, P = 0.04). Total nebulized budesonide costs were $1857 with a mean of $37 per patient stay for combination therapy cohort. Conclusion: Outcomes showed no clinical difference between combination therapy and monotherapy. This study suggests monotherapy may be more cost-effective while providing similar outcomes for the treatment of hospitalized patients with AECOPD.
Regular Inhaled Corticosteroids Use May Protect Against Severe COVID-19 Outcome in COPD

Marina Labor,Brian K Kirui,Fredrik Nyberg,Lowie E G W Vanfleteren,Lowie EGW Vanfleteren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S404913

2023-08-08

International Journal of COPD

Abstract:Marina Labor, 1 Brian K Kirui, 2 Fredrik Nyberg, 2 Lowie EGW Vanfleteren 3, 4 1 Cancer and Lung Health Care Unit, University Hospital in Linköping, Linköping, Sweden; 2 School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 3 COPD Center, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; 4 Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden Correspondence: Marina Labor, Cancer and Lung Health Care Unit, University Hospital in Linköping, Linköping, Sweden, Tel +46739238935, Email Purpose: Population-based studies provide conflicting evidence about how inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) impact COVID-19 outcomes among COPD patients. We investigated whether regular ICS exposure affects risk, severity, or survival in SARS-CoV-2 infection, using a nationwide linked Swedish population register database. Patients and Methods: During January–December 2020, we studied two defined Swedish adult populations – Whole population [≥ 40 years] (N = 5243479), and COPD subpopulation [≥ 40 years] (N = 133372), in three study cohorts, respectively: 1. Overall cohort (index date 1 Jan 2020), 2. COVID-19 diagnosed sub-cohort (index date = diagnosis date), and 3. COVID-19 hospitalized sub-cohort (index date = admission date). Regular exposure was defined as ≥ 3 ICS prescriptions in the year before index. Hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes (COVID-19 onset, hospitalization, ICU admission, or death) related to ICS exposure were estimated using Cox regression. Confounding was controlled by propensity score methods applying Average Treatment effect in the Treated (ATT) weighting. Results: Regular ICS use was associated with only very slightly increased onset of COVID-19, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death in the overall whole population cohort and in the overall COPD subpopulation cohort, except for ICU admission (marginally non-significant HRs, up to 1.13); and no clear increase in the diagnosed sub-cohorts. However, in the COVID-19 hospitalized COPD sub-cohort, ICS therapy showed reduced risks against progression to ICU admission and death, significant for death (HR 0.82 95% CI [0.67– 0.99]). Conclusion: For COPD patients, ICS therapy offers some protection against progression to ICU admission and death among COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Our findings alleviate concerns about increased risks of COVID-19 by ICS treatment and provide evidence supporting the continuation of ICS therapy for COPD patients. Keywords: COVID − 19, COPD, mortality Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are of particular interest in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because COPD is a highly prevalent disease that is associated with impaired lung function. Overall, COPD patients seem not to have an increased risk of acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. 1 In contrast, it has been shown that COPD patients with COVID-19 have more than fivefold increased risk of a severe disease course requiring intensive care unit (ICU) support, and higher mortality in comparison to other patient groups, 2 which is at least partly explained by higher age and comorbidity prevalence. 3–6 Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly used in patients with COPD to prevent exacerbations and/or control symptoms. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns were raised related to potential impaired antiviral response associated with ICS use, due to suppression of interferon-mediated innate and adaptive immunity. 7 Consequently, ICS users would have higher risk for severe illness if they acquired COVID-19. To date, published (mostly laboratory) studies and reviews rather suggest a potential preventive effect of pre-morbid and continued use of ICS against a hyperinflammatory response. 8–10 A recent study, in contrast, reported that pre-morbid ICS use in COPD was not protective and even increased risk of developing COVID-19. 11 A systematic review of more recent studies about pre-morbid and continued use of ICS found no evidence that ICS use was associated with worse outcomes, even though results and conclusions are likely confounded by different factors (ICS indication, sample size, lack of adjustment for comorbidities). 6 Current recommendations are that standard maintenance and exacerbation ICS therapy should not be discontinued, because maintenance of optimal pharmacologic treatment generally is the best way to prevent exacerbations and/or redu -Abstract Truncated-

respiratory system

[Effects of drugs on preventing recurrent myocardial infarction in patients with healed myocardial infarction].

Getting to best: physician development as a developmental process.

Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect and its clinical significance of different dose of glucocorticoids on inflammation mediators in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE OVARIAN ASCORBIC ACID DEPLETION TESTS FOR LUTEINIZING HORMONE.

Corticosteroid Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: a Multicenter, Retrospective Study

Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

The influence of prior use of inhaled corticosteroids on COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Inhaled corticosteroid withdrawal may improve outcomes in elderly patients with COPD exacerbation: a nationwide database study

Comparison Of The Clinical Outcomes Between Nebulized And Systemic Corticosteroids In The Treatment Of Acute Exacerbation Of Copd In China (Contain Study): A Post Hoc Analysis

Systemic steroid therapy for pneumonic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: A retrospective cohort study

The Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroids on the Prognosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Association between COPD exacerbations and lung function decline during maintenance therapy

COPD patients prescribed inhaled corticosteroid in primary care: time for re-assessment based on exacerbation rate and blood eosinophils?

Inhaled Corticosteroids Particle Size and Risk of Hospitalization Due to Exacerbations and All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Nationwide Cohort Study

Measurement of Pre- or Post-Filter-Ionised Calcium Concentration during Continuous Veno-Venous Haemofiltration

Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment Regimens and Health Outcomes in a UK COPD Population Study

Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: systematic review and meta-analysis

Blueprint for a stronger Food and Drug Administration.

Systemic Steroid and Nebulized Budesonide Combination Therapy Versus Systemic Steroid Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Community Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Regular Inhaled Corticosteroids Use May Protect Against Severe COVID-19 Outcome in COPD