It Is Not Just the FEV1 That Matters, but the Personal Goals We Reach Along the Way: Qualitative, Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted the use of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) telemonitoring in pediatric asthma, but a consensus on its most efficient and effective implementation is still lacking. To find answers, it is important to study how such an intervention is perceived, experienced, and used by both patients and health care professionals (HCPs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide perspectives on how FEV1 home monitoring should be used in pediatric asthma. METHODS: This is a qualitative, multicenter, prospective, observational study which included patients with asthma aged 6-16 and HCPs. Primary outcomes were results of 2 surveys that were sent to all participants at study start and after 3-4 months. Secondary outcomes consisted of FEV1 device usage during 4 months after receiving the FEV1 device. RESULTS: A total of 39 participants (26 patients and 13 HCPs) were included in this study. Survey response rates were 97% (38/39) at the start and 87% (34/39) at the end of the study. Both patients and HCPs were receptive toward online FEV1 home monitoring and found it contributive to asthma control, self-management, and disease perception. The main concerns were about reliability of the FEV1 device and validity of home-performed lung function maneuvers. FEV1 devices were used with a median frequency of 7.5 (IQR 3.3-25.5) during the 4-month study period. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and HCPs are receptive toward online FEV1 home monitoring. Frequency of measurements varied largely among individuals, yet perceived benefits remained similar. This emphasizes that online FEV1 home monitoring strategies should be used as a means to reach individual goals, rather than being a goal on their own.

The utility of moment ratios and abbreviated endpoints of the multiple breath washout test in preschool children with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The multiple breath washout (MBW) test may be most useful in tracking disease progression over time to inform treatment decisions. In the clinical setting, alternative outcomes, which can be obtained quickly and easily, may facilitate interpretation of clinically relevant changes in lung function. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of data from 78 cystic fibrosis (CF) and 72 healthy control (HC) subjects between the ages of 2.6 and 5.9 years, MBW was performed at enrollment, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, as well as during symptomatic visits using the Exhalyzer D (EcoMedics AG, Duernten, Switzerland). The lung clearance index, LCI2.5, was compared to moment ratios (M1 /M0 and M2 /M0 ) at the standard cutoff (1/40th of starting tracer gas concentration) as well as LCI5 and moment ratios at 1/20th of the starting concentration (M1 /M0 at LCI5 , and M2 /M0 at LCI5 ). RESULTS: All outcomes were able to distinguish between health and disease. LCI5 reduced testing time by 40% and increased feasibility by more than 10%. The limits of biological reproducibility in healthy children were similar between LCI2.5 (15%), LCI5 (12%), M1 /M0 at LCI2.5 (14%), and M1 /M0 at LCI5 (12%), but markedly larger for M2 /M0 at LCI2.5 (30%) and M2 /M0 at LCI5 (25%). Each outcome deteriorated significantly with worsening pulmonary symptoms, the magnitude of deterioration was greatest for M2 /M0 . CONCLUSIONS: In preschool children with CF, LCI5 was more feasible to obtain and track disease progression. The second moment ratio was most sensitive to pulmonary symptoms, but had the greatest variability both within and between subjects.

Evaluation of Prolonged vs Short Courses of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Following Ear, Nose, Throat, and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Antibiotic prophylaxis is widely used after surgical procedures operating on the mucosal tissues of the aerodigestive tract, but the optimal duration of these prophylactic therapies is often unclear. Objective: To compare short-course antibiotic prophylaxis (≤24 hours) vs extended-course antibiotic prophylaxis (≥72 hours) after ear, nose, throat, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Data Sources and Study Selection: Literature searches of PubMed were completed in October 2017 and included prospective trials that compared antibiotic prophylaxis courses of 24 hours or less vs 72 hours or more after ear, nose, throat, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Some studies were also handpicked from reference lists of studies found with the initial search terms. All analysis was performed between September 2017 and October 2018. Data Extraction and Synthesis: All review stages were conducted in consensus by 2 reviewers. Data extraction and study quality assessment were performed with the Cochrane data extraction form and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for reporting. The fixed-effects Mantel-Haenszel method was used for meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative risk (RR) of surgical site infections, microbial origins of surgical site infections, adverse events, duration of hospital stay, and treatment costs. Results: Included in the meta-analysis were 21 articles with a cumulative 1974 patients. In patients receiving 24 hours or shorter vs 72 hours or longer antibiotic prophylaxis regimens, no significant difference was found in the occurrence of postoperative infections in the pooled population (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19), or in the ear, nose, throat (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.54-1.45), and oral and maxillofacial populations (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.63-1.21), separately. No heterogeneity was observed overall or in the subgroups. Patients receiving extended-course antibiotic prophylaxis were significantly more likely to develop adverse events unrelated to the surgical site (RR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.20-3.54). Conclusions and Relevance: No difference was found in the occurrence of postoperative infections between short-course and extended-course antibiotic prophylaxis after ear, nose, throat, and oral and maxillofacial surgery. Therefore, a short course of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended unless documented conditions are present that would be best treated with an extended course. Using short-course antibiotics could avoid additional adverse events, antibiotic resistance development, and higher hospital costs. Future research should focus on identifying risk groups that might benefit from prolonged prophylaxis.