Inclusion of functional measures and frailty in the development and evaluation of medicines for older adults.

The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E7, the guidance for the conduct of clinical trials in people older than age 65 years, dates from 1994. Since then, the inclusion of older people in clinical trials has hardly improved, particularly for the oldest old age group (individuals older than age 75 years), which is the fastest growing demographic bracket in the EU. Even though most medications are taken by this group, relevant endpoints and safety outcomes for this cohort are rarely included and reported, both in clinical trials and regulatory approval documents. To improve the critical appraisal and the regulatory review of medicines taken by frail older adults, eight recommendations are presented and discussed in this Health Policy. These recommendations are brought together from different perspectives and experience of the treatment of older patients. On one side, the perspective of medical practitioners from various clinical disciplines, with their direct experience of clinical decision making; on the other, the perspective of regulators assessing the data submitted in medicine registration dossiers, their relevance to the risk-benefit balance for older patients, and the communication of the findings in the product information. Efforts to improve the participation of older people in clinical trials have been in place for more than a decade, with little success. The recommendations presented here are relevant for stakeholders, authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and researchers alike, as the implementation of these measures is not under the capacity of a single entity. Improving the inclusion of frail older adults requires awareness, focus, and action on the part of those who can effect a much needed change.

A glimpse of the ERS International Congress 2022.

An overview of what to expect from the European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress 2022, including the top picks of the International Congress Programme Committee and a summary of the Early Career Member session. https://bit.ly/3tNTlgY.

Effect of adaptive servo ventilation on central sleep apnea and sleep structure in systolic heart failure patients: polysomnography data from the SERVE-HF major sub study.

This SERVE-HF (Treatment of Predominant Central Sleep Apnea by Adaptive Servo Ventilation in Patients With Heart Failure) sub study analysis evaluated polysomnography (PSG) data in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and predominant central sleep apnea (CSA) randomised to guideline-based medical therapy, with or without adaptive servo ventilation (ASV). Patients underwent full overnight PSG at baseline and at 12 months. All PSG recordings were analysed by a core laboratory. Only data for patients with baseline and 3- or 12-month values were included. The sub study included 312 patients; the number with available PSG data differed for each variable (94-103 in the control group, 77-99 in the ASV group). After 12 months, baseline-adjusted respiratory measures were significantly better in the ASV group versus control. Although some between-group differences in sleep measures were seen at 12 months (e.g., better sleep efficiency in the ASV group), these were unlikely to be clinically significant. The number of periodic leg movements during sleep (PLMS) increased in the ASV group (p = 0.039). At 12 months, the respiratory arousal index was significantly lower in the ASV versus control group (p < 0.001), whilst the PLMS-related arousal index was significantly higher in the ASV group (p = 0.04 versus control). ASV attenuated the respiratory variables characterising sleep apnea in patients with HFrEF and predominant CSA in SERVE-HF. Sleep quality improvements during ASV therapy were small and unlikely to be clinically significant. The increase in PLMS and PLMS-related arousals during ASV warrants further investigation, particularly relating to their potential association with increased cardiovascular risk.

Psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and shielding in adults and children with early-onset neuromuscular and neurological disorders and their families: a mixed-methods study.

AIM: To describe and evaluate the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and measures to reduce the risk of transmission on patients with early-onset neuromuscular and neurological disorders (NMDs) and their families. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study in which data were collected between 17 September 2020 and 31 December 2020 using a semi-structured telephone questionnaire developed specifically to meet research aims, and were analysed using quantitative methods and qualitative inductive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Forty questionnaires were completed by patients with NMDs (eg, muscular dystrophies, spinal muscular atrophy) or their parent. 70% (n=28) of patients were male, aged 2-48 years. 90% (n=36) were wheelchair users; 72.5% (n=29) required long-term non-invasive or tracheostomy ventilation. RESULTS: Strict adherence to risk mitigation strategies, for example, shielding, were reported at the start of the pandemic. Over half continued some or all measures after official limitations were relaxed. 67.5% (n=27) reported changes to personal care assistance arrangements including temporary cessation of outside carers. Three themes were identified: (1) Concern regarding the health impact of COVID-19; (2) Perceptions of strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission; (3) Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The level and pervasiveness of frequently reported negative psychological effects, for example, anxiety and fear fluctuated, and were related to the perceived risk of COVID-19, concern about attending hospital, and perceived lack of access to intensive care management if severe COVID-19 infection occurred. Support, particularly from family and healthcare services, were considered to have positive psychosocial effects. CONCLUSIONS: Measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19 have greatly affected patients with NMDs and their families. For most, negative psychosocial impacts have and will continue to improve, but this may depend on the incidence of further pandemic waves. Consistent, up-to-date and accessible information on clinical outcomes and risk mitigation must be provided to support patients' physical and mental well-being.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination from hospitalised patients with COVID-19 receiving aerosol-generating procedures.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.

Sleep Disordered Breathing and Cardiovascular Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Sleep disordered breathing causes repetitive episodes of nocturnal hypoxemia, sympathetic nervous activation, and cortical arousal, often associated with excessive daytime sleepiness. Sleep disordered breathing is common in people with, or at risk of, cardiovascular (CV) disease including those who are obese or have hypertension, coronary disease, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation. Current therapy of obstructive sleep apnea includes weight loss (if obese), exercise, and positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. This improves daytime sleepiness. Obstructive sleep apnea is associated with increased CV risk, but treatment with PAP in randomized trials has not been shown to improve CV outcome. Central sleep apnea (CSA) is not usually associated with daytime sleepiness in heart failure or atrial fibrillation and is a marker of increased CV risk, but PAP has been shown to be harmful in 1 randomized trial. The benefits of better phenotyping, targeting of higher-risk patients, and a more personalized approach to therapy are being explored in ongoing trials.

Nasal versus oronasal masks for home non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic hypercapnia: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal interface for the delivery of home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to treat chronic respiratory failure has not yet been determined. The aim of this individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was to compare the effect of nasal and oronasal masks on treatment efficacy and adherence in patients with COPD and obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS). METHODS: We searched Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 1 month's duration, published between January 1994 and April 2019, that assessed NIV efficacy in patients with OHS and COPD. The main outcomes were diurnal PaCO2, PaO2 and NIV adherence (PROSPERO CRD42019132398). FINDINGS: Of 1576 articles identified, 34 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and IPD were obtained for 18. Ten RCTs were excluded because only one type of mask was used, or mask data were missing. Data from 8 RCTs, including 290 IPD, underwent meta-analysis. Oronasal masks were used in 86% of cases. There were no differences between oronasal and nasal masks for PaCO2 (0.61 mm Hg (95% CI -2.15 to 3.38); p=0.68), PaO2 (-0.00 mm Hg (95% CI -4.59 to 4.58); p=1) or NIV adherence (0·29 hour/day (95% CI -0.74 to 1.32); p=0.58). There was no interaction between the underlying pathology and the effect of mask type on any outcome. INTERPRETATION: Oronasal masks are the most used interface for the delivery of home NIV in patients with OHS and COPD; however, there is no difference in the efficacy or tolerance of oronasal or nasal masks.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes. METHODS: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.