The burden of asthma and COPD among patients is high and people affected are frequently hospitalized due to exacerbations. There are numerous reasons for the lack of disease control in asthma and COPD patients. It is associated with non-adherence to guidelines on the part of the health care provider and with poor inhalation technique and/or non-adherence to the prescribed treatment plan by the patient. This study aims to present data on inhaler technique and its impact on quality of life (QoL) and symptom control in a typical population of patients with chronic lung disease from a randomized controlled trial on medication adherence. For this cross-sectional analysis, 165 asthma and COPD patients were analyzed. Correct application of inhaler devices was tested using pre-defined checklists for each inhaler type. QoL and symptom control were investigated using COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Asthma Control Test (ACT). Spirometry was used to measure forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). Overall, incorrect inhalation technique ranged from 0 to 53% depending on the type of inhaler. COPD patients with incorrect device application had a higher CAT sum score compared to those with a correct device application (P = .02). Moreover, COPD patients with incorrect device application were more likely to suffer from cough (P = .03) and were more breathless while walking uphill or a flight of stairs (P = .02). While there was no significance found in asthma patients, COPD patients who used their devices correctly had a significantly better mean FEV1% predicted at baseline compared to those who applied their devices incorrectly (P = .04). Correct inhalation of prescribed medication is associated with improved health status and lung function. These findings should encourage health professionals to provide instructions on correct inhalation technique and to regularly re-evaluate the patients’ inhalation technique. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0238672 , Registered 14 February 2014.

Background: Poor medication-adherence is common in chronic lung patients, resulting in reduced health-outcomes and increased healthcare-costs. This study aimed to investigate the impact of an acoustic reminder and support calls on adherence to inhaled therapy in asthma and COPD patients and to determine their effect on exacerbations.Methods: This single-blinded randomized controlled trial investigated asthma and COPD patients during 6 months in an ambulatory setting. The intervention consisted of daily alarm clock and support phone calls, whenever use of rescue medication doubled or inhaled medication was not taken as prescribed. Primary outcome was time to next exacerbation. Frequency of exacerbations, adherence to inhaled medication and quality of life scores were secondary outcomes. Cox and Poisson regression were used to determine intervention effect on time to exacerbation and frequency of exacerbations, respectively.Results: Seventy-five participants were assigned to the intervention group and 74 to usual follow-up care. During a median follow-up of 6.2 months, 22 and 28% in the intervention and control groups respectively, experienced at least one exacerbation. Intervention had no effect on time to first exacerbation (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.07,P = .24), but showed a trend toward a 39% decreased frequency of exacerbations (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.03,P = .070) for the adjusted models, respectively. The intervention group had significantly more days with 80–100% taking adherence regarding puff inhalers (82 ± 14% vs. 60 ± 30%,P < .001) and dry powder capsules (90 ± .10% vs. 80 ± 21%,P = .01). Timing adherence in participants using puff inhalers was higher in the intervention group (69 ± 25% vs. 51 ± 33%,P < .001). No significant differences in QoL were found between the two groups.Conclusion: Participants assigned to the intervention group had significantly better taking and timing adherence of inhaled medication resulting in a trend towards a decreased frequency of exacerbations. However, no effect on time to next exacerbation was observed.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02386722, Registered 14 February 2014.

Background Activation of the vasopressin system plays a key role for the maintenance of osmotic, cardiovascular, and stress hormone homeostasis during disease. We investigated levels of copeptin, the C-terminal segment of the vasopressin prohormone, that mirrors the production rate of vasopressin in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods We measured levels of copeptin on admission and after days 3/4, 5/6, and 7/8 in 74 consecutive hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients and compared its prognostic accuracy to that of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (n = 876) and acute or chronic bronchitis (n = 371) from a previous study by means of logistic regression analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause 30-day mortality. Results Median admission copeptin levels in COVID-19 patients were almost 4-fold higher in nonsurvivors compared with survivors (49.4 pmol/L [iterquartile range (IQR) 24.9–68.9 pmol/L] vs 13.5 pmol/L [IQR 7.0–26.7 pmol/L]), resulting in an age- and gender-adjusted odds ratio of 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–40.3), p < 0.03 for mortality. Higher copeptin levels in nonsurvivors persisted during the short-term follow-up. Compared with the control group patients with acute/chronic bronchitis and pneumonia, COVID-19 patients did not have higher admission copeptin levels. Conclusions A pronounced activation of the vasopressin system in COVID-19 patients is associated with an adverse clinical course in COVID-19 patients. This finding, however, is not unique to COVID-19 but similar to other types of respiratory infections.

Background: Mid-Regional pro-Adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is an inflammatory biomarker that improves the prognostic assessment of patients with sepsis, septic shock and organ failure. Previous studies of MR-proADM have primarily focussed on bacterial infections. A limited number of small and monocentric studies have examined MR-proADM as a prognostic factor in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, however there is need for multicenter validation. An evaluation of its utility in predicting need for hospitalisation in viral infections was also performed. Methods: An observational retrospective analysis of 1861 patients, with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by RT-qPCR, from 10 hospitals across Europe was performed. Biomarkers, taken upon presentation to Emergency Departments (ED), clinical scores, patient demographics and outcomes were collected. Multiclass random forest classifier models were generated as well as calculation of area under the curve analysis. The primary endpoint was hospital admission with and without death. Results: Patients suitable for safe discharge from Emergency Departments could be identified through an MR-proADM value of ≤ 1.02 nmol/L in combination with a CRP (C-Reactive Protein) of ≤ 20.2 mg/L and age ≤ 64, or in combination with a SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score < 2 if MR-proADM was ≤ 0.83 nmol/L regardless of age. Those at an increased risk of mortality could be identified upon presentation to secondary care with an MR-proADM value of > 0.85 nmol/L, in combination with a SOFA score ≥ 2 and LDH > 720 U/L, or in combination with a CRP > 29.26 mg/L and age ≤ 64, when MR-proADM was > 1.02 nmol/L. Conclusions: This international study suggests that for patients presenting to the ED with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, MR-proADM in combination with age and CRP or with the patient’s SOFA score could identify patients at low risk where outpatient treatment may be safe.

Despite progress in pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment in recent years, the burden of disease among patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is high and patients are frequently hospitalized due to exacerbations. Reasons for uncontrolled diseases are manifold, but are often associated with poor inhalation technique and non-adherence to the prescribed treatment plan. This causes substantial mortality, morbidity, and costs to the healthcare system. In this respect, the study of causes for non-adherence and the development of measures to increase and maintain treatment adherence in chronic diseases is of major clinical importance. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the impact of using specific, validated electronic devices on adherence to inhaled medication in patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases such as asthma and COPD. Furthermore, it aims to assess the impact of a reminder and close supervision of the course of disease and quality of life. In this ongoing prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study, adherence to inhaled medication is analyzed over a 6-month period in at least 154 in- and outpatients with asthma or COPD who have experienced at least 1 exacerbation during the last year. Adherence is measured using electronic data capture devices, which save the date and time of each inhalative device actuation and transfer these data daily via a wireless connection to a Web-based database. Patients are randomly assigned to either the intervention or the control group. The clinical intervention consists of an automated and personal reminder. The intervention group receives an audio reminder and support calls in case medication has not been taken as prescribed or if rescue medication is used more frequently than pre-specified in the study protocol. During the study, participants are assessed every 2 months in the form of clinical visits. Recruitment started in January 2014. To date, a total of 169 patients have been recruited. Follow-up assessments are still ongoing. The study will be concluded in the first quarter of 2017. Data analysis will take place during 2017. Few studies have investigated medication adherence in patients with chronic obstructive lung diseases. With this prospective study design and the use of state-of-the-art devices for measuring adherence, we expect scientifically relevant and clinically meaningful results that will have a substantial and positive impact on the provision of healthcare in chronically ill patients suffering from asthma or COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02386722; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02386722 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oJq1fel0).

Objective: To conduct a nationwide retrospective cohort study to assess trends and hospitalizationassociated outcomes in patients with Wernicke encephalopathy. Patients and Methods: In this nationwide retrospective cohort study, we used in -hospital claims data of patients hospitalized with Wernicke encephalopathy in Switzerland from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2020. We estimated incidence rates per 100,000 person -years among the overall Swiss population strati fi ed by alcohol and non - alcohol-induced Wernicke encephalopathy. The primary outcome was all-cause in -hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression to Korsakoff syndrome and 1-year hospital readmission. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes. Results: It was found that 4098 of 4393 hospitalizations (93.3%) for Wernicke encephalopathy during the 8-year study were alcohol-related. Incidence rates for hospitalizations were 14-fold higher in alcohol-related compared with non - alcohol-related Wernicke encephalopathy (5.43 vs 0.39 per 100,000 person -years). The risk for in -hospital mortality was signi fi cantly lower in patients with alcohol-related vs non - alcohol-related Wernicke encephalopathy (3.2% vs 8.5%; adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.62). Patients with alcohol-related Wernicke encephalopathy had higher risk for development of Korsakoff syndrome (16.9% vs 1.7%; adjusted OR, 10.64; 95% CI, 4.37 to 25.92) and 1-year hospital readmission (31.6% vs 18.7%; adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.88). Conclusion: In this Swiss nationwide cohort study, Wernicke encephalopathy was a rare but serious cause for hospitalization and mainly alcohol-related. Patients with alcohol-related Wernicke encephalopathy had lower risks of in -hospital mortality but were more likely to develop Korsakoff syndrome and be readmitted to the hospital. (c) 2023 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) center dot Mayo Clin Proc. 2024 ; 99(5):740-753