Efficacy-based comparison between adults and children regarding using advanced counseling for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma advanced counseling using smartphone applications has recently become one of the most effective and commonly used methods among adults and children with asthma. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the advanced counseling effectiveness between adults and children with asthma. METHODS: A cohort prospective parallel study was performed on a group of adults and children nonsmoking patients with asthma, using a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI). The patients were divided into two groups namely adults with asthma with ages ranging from 19 to 60 years and Children with asthma with ages ranging from 11 to 18 years, the two groups received a 2-month course of advanced counseling using "Asthma software" and "Asthma Dodge" smartphone applications, during which the two groups were monitored using the forced expiratory volume in the first second to the forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) ratio and asthma control test (ACT). The study has obtained ethical approval with the serial number REC-H-PhBSU-23002, adhering to the principles outlined in The Declaration of Helsinki, from the Ethical Approval Committee of Beni-Suef University Faculty of Pharmacy. RESULTS: With a total of 60 patients with asthma (N = 60), 31 adults (N = 31), and 29 children (N = 29), We found that starting from the first-month visit of counseling the children group showed superiority over the adult group in terms of the pulmonary function improvement p = .006. Also, regarding ACT scores the children group showed a superiority over the adult group this significance started from the first-month visit and continued to the second-month visit with p values = .032 and .011, respectively. CONCLUSION: The advanced counseling achieved better asthma control and pulmonary function improvement in children and adults; however, the improvement was much better in children with asthma than adults with asthma.

Application of different counseling strategies for better adult asthma control.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of three distinct counseling methods to determine the most effective approach. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study with a two-month follow-up, A group of non-smoking adults, aged 19-60 years, were randomly collected at outpatients clinic with prior asthma diagnosis, based on the forced expiratory volume in one seconds to forced vital capacity ratio (FEV1/FVC) and the guidelines outlined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), At the baseline assessment, all patients, underwent FEV1/FVC measurements, asthma symptom evaluations using Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and GINA symptoms control assessment questionnaire, and assessment of pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) usage. The patients were divided into three groups, each assigned a distinct counseling strategy: traditional verbal counseling, advanced counseling utilizing the Asthma smartphone-application, and a combination of advanced-verbal counseling. We conducted a two-month monitoring period for all three groups. RESULTS: Significant differences (p < .001) were observed among the three counseling groups in ACT, FEV1/FVC ratio, and GINA symptoms control assessment scores from the first month to the second month visit. Regarding ACQ, the study unveiled a noteworthy disparity in ACQ scores during the second week, with a significant difference (p = .025) observed between the verbal and advanced-verbal counseling groups. Similarly, a significant difference (p = .016) was noted between the advanced counseling group and the advanced-verbal counseling groups. CONCLUSION: The study findings indicate that the combining advanced-verbal counseling by incorporating the Asthma smartphone-application alongside traditional verbal counseling is a more effective approach for improving asthma control in adults.

A Comparison of 3D Conformal and Deep Inspiratory Breath Holding vs. 4D-CT Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients with Left Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multimodality is required for the treatment of breast cancer. Surgery, radiation (RT), and systemic therapy were traditionally used. Pharmacotherapy includes different drug mechanisms, such as chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapies, alone or in combination with radiotherapy. While radiation offers numerous benefits, it also has certain harmful risks. such as cardiac and pulmonary toxicity, lymphedema, and secondary cancer. Modern radiation techniques have been developed to reduce organs at risk (OAR) doses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective feasibility trial conducted at the Fayium Oncology Center on patients with left breast cancer receiving adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy after either breast conservative surgery (BCS) or modified radical mastectomy (MRM). This study aimed to assess the proportion of patients who are fit both physically and intellectually to undergo breast radiotherapy using the deep inspiratory breath-holding (DIBH) technique, comparing different dosimetric outcomes between the 3D dimensional conformal with DIBH and 4D-CT IMRT plans of the same patient. RESULTS: D95 of the clinical target volume (CTV) of the target is significantly higher in the 3D DIBH plan than in the IMRT plan, with an average of 90.812% vs. 86.944%. The dosimetry of the mean heart dose (MHD) in the 4D-CT IMRT plan was significantly lower than in the 3D conformal with the DIBH plan (2.6224 vs. 4.056 Gy, p < 0.0064), and no significant difference between the two plans regarding mean left anterior descending artery (LAD) (14.696 vs. 13.492 Gy, p < 0.58), maximum LAD (39.9 vs. 43.5 Gy, p < 0.35), and V20 of the ipsilateral lung (18.66% vs. 16.306%, p < 0.88) was observed. Internal mammary chain (IMC) irradiation was better in the 4D-CT IMRT plan. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy of the breast and chest wall with the 4D-CT IMRT technique appears not to be inferior to the 3D conformal with the DIBH technique and can be used as an alternative to the 3D conformal with the DIBH technique in patients meeting the exclusion criteria for performing the DIBH maneuver concerning coverage to target volumes or unacceptably high doses to OAR.

Effect of pressures and type of ventilation on aerosol delivery to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

Background: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) show some evidence to have efficacy in COVID-19 patients. Delivery during noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) or HFNC gives faster and more enhanced clinical effects than when aerosols are given without assisted breath. The present work aimed to compare the effect of BiPhasic Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) mode at two different pressures; low BiPAP (Inspiratory Positive Airway Pressure (IPAP)/Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP) of 10/5 cm water) and high BiPAP (IPAP/EPAP of 20/5 cm water), with HFNC system on pulmonary and systemic drug delivery of salbutamol. On the first day of the experiment, all patients received 2500 µg salbutamol using Aerogen Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer. Urine samples 30 min post-dose and cumulative urinary salbutamol during the next 24 h were collected on the next day. On the third day, the ex-vivo filter was inserted before the patient to collect the delivered dose to the patient of the 2500 µg salbutamol. Salbutamol was quantified using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Results: Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest amount delivered to the lung after 30 min followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. But the significant difference was only observed between low and high-pressure BiPAP modes (p = 0.012). Low-pressure BiPAP showed the highest delivered systemic delivery amount followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.017) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). No significant difference was reported between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. The ex-vivo filter was the greatest in the case of low-pressure BiPAP followed by HFNC then high-pressure BiPAP. Low-pressure BiPAP was significantly higher than HFNC (p = 0.033) and high-pressure BiPAP (p = 0.008). Also, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high-pressure BiPAP. Conclusions: Our results of pulmonary, systemic, and ex-vivo drug delivery were found to be consistent. The low BiPAP delivered the highest amount followed by the HFNC then the high BiPAP with the least amount. However, no significant difference was found between HFNC and high BiPAP.

Aerosol drug-delivery and short-term clinical outcomes of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM OF WORK: Suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is highly prevalent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients owing to the mismatch of their own PIFR with the corresponding inhaler-device resistance. This study aimed to evaluate aerosol drug-delivery and short-term clinical outcomes of suboptimal PIFR in COPD subjects. METHODS: Twenty optimal and suboptimal COPD subjects were crossed over in this prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label study. They were tested for urinary salbutamol amount (USAL30) and spirometric response 30 min poststudy dose (200 µg salbutamol) through Aerolizer® and Handihaler® after assessment of their own PIFR through In-Check™ Dial G16. Urine samples were extracted through solid-phase extraction and assayed through a high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. RESULTS: Mean USAL30 was significantly higher in the optimal group than in the suboptimal group (P = .001). There was no significant difference in ΔFEV1% predicted and ΔFVC% predicted between optimal and suboptimal groups, with higher values in optimal Aerolizer® and Handihaler® than in suboptimal groups. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal PIFR was associated with a significantly lower drug delivery in COPD subjects at hospital discharge, and a slightly lower pulmonary function response 30 min postbronchodilation if compared with optimal PIFR.

Aerosol delivery aspects within a high-flow therapy system in COPD patients.

There is a lack of information about the influence of patient interfaces such as facemasks or mouthpieces on the effective dose of aerosolised drugs while using high-flow therapy in a clinical setting. These interfaces can improve pulmonary drug delivery over nasal cannulas but patient preference and comfort should also be considered. The present work was to determine the effect of three different interfaces (nasal cannula, valved face mask, and mouthpiece) when combined with titrated oxygen flow on aerosol delivery in patients with COPD hospitalised due to acute exacerbation. The variations between these interfaces were addressed in terms of change in lung function measurements pre-and post-inhalation, the delivered salbutamol dose, and patient tolerance to each interface. A high-flow nasal cannula was the most comfortable interface used. However, its pulmonary drug delivery was significantly lower than both the valved face mask and mouthpiece (p<0.05). Although drug delivery was different with the three tested interfaces, the lung function improvements were similar.

Relative Frequency and Risk Factors of COVID-19 Related Headache in a Sample of Egyptian Population: A Hospital-Based Study.

OBJECTIVES: Headache is considered one of the most frequent neurological manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This work aimed to identify the relative frequency of COVID-19-related headache and to clarify the impact of clinical, laboratory findings of COVID-19 infection on headache occurrence and its response to analgesics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Recovered COVID-19 patients. SUBJECTS: In total, 782 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were obtained from the hospital medical records. Regarding patients who developed COVID-19 related headache, a trained neurologist performed an analysis of headache and its response to analgesics. RESULTS: The relative frequency of COVID-19 related headache among our sample was 55.1% with 95% confidence interval (CI) (.516-.586) for the estimated population prevalence. Female gender, malignancy, primary headache, fever, dehydration, lower levels of hemoglobin and platelets and higher levels of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and CRP were significantly associated with COVID-19 related headache. Multivariate analysis revealed that female gender, fever, dehydration, primary headache, high NLR, and decreased platelet count were independent predictors of headache occurrence. By evaluating headache response to analgesics, old age, diabetes, hypertension, primary headache, severe COVID-19, steroid intake, higher CRP and ferritin and lower hemoglobin levels were associated with poor response to analgesics. Multivariate analysis revealed that primary headache, steroids intake, moderate and severe COVID-19 were independent predictors of non-response to analgesics. DISCUSSION: Headache occurs in 55.1% of patients with COVID-19. Female gender, fever, dehydration, primary headache, high NLR, and decreased platelet count are considered independent predictors of COVID-19 related headache.

Determinants of incorrect inhaler technique in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

AIMS: There is a lack of an overview of determinants of incorrect inhaler technique among chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) subjects. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and possible determinants of incorrect inhaler technique in COPD subjects with common inhalers. METHODS: A cross over study was conducted in 180 COPD subjects. Baseline assessment of inhaler technique was evaluated in 10 placebo inhalers including: [pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI), Aerolizer, Handihaler, Turbohaler, Discus, Breezhaler, Ellipta, Easyhaler, Diskhaler and Respimat] without receiving any instructions. Subjects were then crossed over to other inhalers in random order. Inhaler technique was assessed. The proper technique of inhalers was demonstrated and the number of counselling attempts needed to achieve a correct technique was recorded. Patient past-experience, demographics/clinical variables were recorded. RESULTS: Incorrect inhaler techniques were highly prevalent among COPD subjects, ranging from 80% of participants demonstrated incorrect use, a minimum of 1 error, with Ellipta, to 100% with Respimat/Diskhaler (P < .001). Past-experience (OR = 14.639 at P < .001) and inhaler-type (OR = 10.397 at P < .001, 4.267 at P =. 007, 2.664 at P =. 057, 8.666 at P =. 001, 10.250 at P < .001, 0.613 at P =. 212 and 0.265 at P< .001 for pMDI, Aerolizer, Handihaler, Turbohaler, Discus, Breezhaler and Ellipta, respectively) were the strongest determinants of incorrect technique followed by gender (OR = 0.310 at P < .001), age category (OR = 0.307 at P < .001) and GOLD group (OR = 2.289 at P =. 005). CONCLUSION: Incorrect inhaler techniques are highly prevalent among COPD subjects. Lack of past-experience, certain inhaler types, female gender, older age and lower GOLD group are the most significant determinants of incorrect technique.

Real-life assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient performance with different inhalers.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate handling of six common inhalers and to determine correlations between correct inhaler technique and patient demographics/ clinical variables. METHODS: A total of 180 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients were crossed-over to handle their past-experienced inhalers among (pMDI, Aerolizer, Handihaler, Breezhaler, Turbohaler, and Diskus) randomly, without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction (baseline assessment). Inhaler technique was assessed using previously defined checklists. The correct use of the inhaler was then demonstrated and the patient was evaluated for inhaler use again. Demonstration was repeated until a correct technique was achieved. Number of counselling attempts needed to a complete right handling, patient demographics and clinical variables were recorded. RESULTS: The mean percentage of total correct steps showed that pMDI is significantly lower than all other inhalers (76.01 ± 12.61 vs 84.18 ± 10.87, 84.60 ± 12.10, 85.91 ± 9.82, 90.63 ± 9.29 and 91 ± 10.22 for Diskus, Turbohaler, Aerolizer, Handihaler and Breezhaler, respectively, at P < .001). Breezhaler showed the lowest percentage of participants with at least 1 critical error (20%) however, pMDI showed the highest percentage (85.19%) at P < .05. Breezhaler showed that the highest percentage of participants achieved a complete right handling after 1st counselling attempt, however, pMDI was the only inhaler included in a 3rd and 4th counselling attempts (5.93% and 0.74%, respectively). Weak and very weak correlations were found between total correct steps and demographics/clinical variables. CONCLUSIONS: pMDI is not preferable for handling by COPD patients. DPIs vary in ease of use, so that inhaler therapy must be individualised on basis of patient handling assessment with repeated counselling.

The impact of changing patient interfaces on delivering aerosol with titrated oxygen in the high flow system.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the widespread oxygen-culture as more is better in prehospital and hospital settings, the use of titrated oxygen-flow within a high-flow system can be beneficial especially when combined with aerosol-delivery and also save the patient from unnecessary-hyperoxia. METHODS: Forty-five COPD patients were included in this study where they allocated in three-groups (nasal-delivery, oral-delivery, and oronasal-delivery groups). All patients were received their inhaled-salbutamol dose using Aerogen Solo nebuliser by one of the three interfaces, eg, nasal-cannula, mouthpiece, and facemask in two conditions; with oxygen-flow and without any oxygen-flow. Pulmonary and systemic salbutamol deposition was estimated by collecting two urine-samples from the patient; 30 min post-inhalation and cumulatively 24 hr post-inhalation. The quantity of salbutamol in these collected samples was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Lung function measurement was performed pre-bronchodilator inhalation and 30 min post-bronchodilator to estimate the change in pulmonary functions post-inhalation regarding all tested interfaces. RESULTS: COPD patients showed the highest salbutamol percentage excreted 30 min post-inhalation of 5.7% (1.4) with mouthpiece interface when combined with oxygen at P < .002. While with the same condition using oxygen, valved-facemask showed the highest salbutamol percentage excreted in 24 hr post inhalation samples but the difference is only significantly compared with nasal cannula (P < .006). Moreover, without oxygen delivery, mouthpiece and valved facemask showed approximately the same salbutamol percentage excreted in 30 min post-inhalation samples, higher than that delivered by nasal cannula (P < .001). Of note, salbutamol delivery is significantly increased with oxygen flow for all interfaces (P < .05) except with nasal cannula. CONCLUSIONS: The nasal cannula is a more comfortable and tolerable interface despite the lower fraction of the delivered drug compared with other tested interfaces. The use of oxygen-flow with aerosol delivery within a high flow system positively affects the delivered drug fraction and the pulmonary deposition of the drug.

First-time handling of different inhalers by chronic obstructive lung disease patients.

Background: There is a lack of guidance on inhaler device selection and how to individualize inhaler choice when prescribed for the first-time.Aim of the work: To compare different inhalers regarding ease of use and number of counseling attempts needed for correct handling in subjects with a first experience to such inhalers; also, to investigate if there is a correlation between total correct steps achievements and patient demographics/clinical variables.Method: An open-label, non-drug interventional, cross-over study was conducted including 180 Egyptian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study evaluated handling of the most common inhalers in subjects with a first experience with them before hospital discharge. Subjects were randomized to handle 10 placebo inhalers including: [metered dose inhaler (pMDI), Aerolizer, Handihaler, Turbohaler, Diskus, Breezhaler, Ellipta, Easyhaler, Diskhaler, and Respimat] without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction with allowable access to the patient information leaflets in native language supported by figures with enough time to read (baseline assessment). Subjects were then crossed-over to other inhalers with a first experience randomly. Inhalers with a reported past-experience were excluded. Inhaler-technique was assessed by using previously defined checklists, including essential steps and critical errors. The whole handling of the inhaler was demonstrated and the number of counseling attempts needed to correct handling was recorded. Patient demographics and clinical variables were recorded and correlated with correct handling steps.Results: The baseline percentages of total correct steps achievements as mean ± SD were 50 ± 19, 52 ± 16, 58 ± 14, 60 ± 17, 64 ± 10, 67 ± 16, 72 ± 17, 73 ± 11, 77 ± 14 and 86 ± 11% for Respimat, pMDI, Diskhaler, Diskus, Aerolizer, Handihaler, Easyhaler, Turbohaler, Breezhaler, and Ellipta respectively with p < 0.001. Baseline percentages of participants with at least 1 critical error significantly differed between inhalers (p < 0.05) with Ellipta showing the lowest percentage (37%). pMDI, Diskhaler, and Respimat showed the highest percentages (100%, 97% and 94% respectively). The number of counseling attempts needed to reach correct handling showed a significant difference among inhalers (p < 0.05). Ellipta showed the highest percentage of participants with correct handling with no counseling (20%) and the highest percentage of participants achieved with one counseling attempt (78%). Diskhaler, pMDI, and Respimat were the only inhalers included in a fourth counseling attempt (15%, 9%, and 6% respectively). Weak and very weak correlations were found between patient demographics/clinical variables and percentages of total correct steps achievements.Conclusion: Inhalers techniques greatly vary in their ease of use (self-explaining) ranging from easy inhalers (Ellipta) to intermediate inhalers (breezhaler, Easyhaler, Turbohaler, Aerolizer, Handihaler, and Diskus) followed by the most difficult inhalers (pMDI, Diskhaler, and Respimat). That must be considered when prescribing inhalers for the first time; choice of the inhaler should, in part, be based on ease of use and to be accompanied by repeated counseling.

Prevalence and predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate in COPD patients.

The aim of this study was to determine prevalence and possible clinical predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) with different dry powder inhalers. PIFR was measured across all resistance ranges of In-Check Dial® in 180 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects before hospital discharge. COPD subjects were defined as suboptimal if measured PIFR was suboptimal with any resistance representative of specific inhalers (R1-R5). Demographics and clinical data were collected, including COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scores, Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage spirometry by Spirodoc® and peak flow meter measurements with portable peak inspiratory and expiratory flow meters. All were correlated with In-Check Dial PIFRs. Suboptimal PIFR was 44.44% prevalent in COPD subjects. 55% of the suboptimal cohort was female which represent 57.14% of the total female population in the study. The distribution of suboptimal PIFR included 43.75% with R1, 67.5% with R2, 100% with R3, 13.75% with R4, and 21.25% with R5. In the suboptimal cohort, CAT score was significantly higher and spirometry demonstrated significantly lower lung function results compared to the optimal cohort (p < 0.05). The only parameter to show strong and moderate correlation with In-Check Dial PIFRs was PIFR measured by peak flow meter (p < 0.001). Suboptimal PIFR is common among COPD subjects at hospital discharge. Female gender and peak flow meter PIFR was the only predictor of suboptimal PIFR. Inhaler therapy for COPD patients must be personalized based on simple routine measurement of In-Check Dial PIFRs or peak flow meter PIFR to optimize clinical benefits .