Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common among patients with COVID-19. However, AKI incidence may increase when COVID-19 patients develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Thus, this systemati...

Background: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. Methods: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. Results: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12– 16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. Conclusion: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.

Background: Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) is commonly used in the diagnosis of lung disease. Although small airways dysfunction is a feature of asthma and COPD, physiological tests of small airways are not included in guidelines for BDR testing. This systematic review assessed the current evidence of BDR using small airways function in asthma and COPD. Methods: The systematic review used standard methodology with the protocol prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020164140). Electronic medical databases (EMBASE and Medline) were searched using related keywords. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Studies that reported the change of physiological small airways function and FEV₁ were included in the review. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCT and NIH quality assessment tool for cohort and cross-sectional studies were used to evaluate the studies. Results: A total of 934 articles were identified, with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Ten studies included asthma patients, 1 study included COPD patients and 1 study included both asthma and COPD. A total of 1104 participants were included, of whom 941 were asthmatic, 64 had COPD and 109 were healthy controls. Studies were heterogeneous in design including the device, dose and time intervals for BDR assessment. A small airway BDR was seen for most tests in asthma and COPD, including oscillometry (R5-20, reactance (X5), area of reactance (AX) and resonant frequency (Fres)) and Maximal Mid Expiratory Flow. Conclusion: There is a measurable BDR in the small airways. However, with no consensus on how to assess BDR, studies were heterogeneous. Further research is needed to inform how BDR should be assessed, its clinical impact and place in routine clinical practice.

Asthma is a common, chronic, and heterogeneous disease with a global impact and substantial economic costs. It is also associated with significant mortality and morbidity and the burden of undiagnosed asthma is significant. Asthma can be difficult to diagnose as there is no gold standard test and, while spirometry is central in diagnosing asthma, it may not be sufficient to confirm or exclude the diagnosis. The most commonly reported spirometric measures (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity assess function in the larger airways. However, small airway dysfunction is highly prevalent in asthma and some studies suggest small airway involvement is one of the earliest disease manifestations. Moreover, there are new inhaled therapies with ultrafine particles that are specifically designed to target the small airways. Potentially, tests of small airways may more accurately diagnose early or mild asthma and assess the response to treatment than spirometry. Furthermore, some assessment techniques do not rely on forced ventilatory manoeuvres and may, therefore, be easier for certain groups to perform. This review discusses the current evidence of small airways tests in asthma and future research that may be needed to further assess their utility.

Background Asthma is a common, heterogeneous disease that is characterised by chronic airway inflammation and variable expiratory airflow limitation. Current guidelines use spirometric measures for asthma assessment. This systematic review aimed to assess whether the most commonly reported tests of small airways function could contribute to the diagnosis of asthma. Methods Standard systematic review methodology was used, and a range of electronic databases was searched (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, DARE). Studies that included physiological tests of small airways function to diagnose asthma in adults were included, with no restrictions on language or date. The risk of bias and quality assessment tools used were Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality tool for cross-sectional studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies. Results 7072 studies were identified and 10 studies met review criteria. 7 included oscillation techniques and 5 included maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF). Studies were small and of variable quality. In oscillometry, total resistance (R5) and reactance at 5 Hz (X5) was altered in asthma compared with healthy controls. The percentage predicted of MMEF was lower in patients with asthma compared with controls in all studies and lower than the % predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s. In DTA of oscillometry, R5 showed a sensitivity between 69% and 72% and specificity between 61% and 86%. Conclusion There were differences in the results of physiological tests of small airway function in patients with asthma compared with controls. However, studies are small and heterogeneous. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of these tests on a larger scale, including studies to determine which test methodology is the most useful in asthma.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is diagnosed and its severity graded by traditional spirometric parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV₁, respectively) but these parameters are considered insensitive for identifying early pathology. Measures of small airway function, including forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity (FEF_25-75), may be more valuable in the earliest phases of COPD. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of low FEF_25-75 in ever-smokers with and without airflow limitation (AL) and to determine whether FEF_25-75 relates to AL severity. Method: A retrospective analysis of lung function data of 1458 ever-smokers suspected clinically of having COPD. Low FEF_25-75 was defined by z-score<−0.8345 and AL was defined by FEV₁/FVC z-scores<−1.645. The severity of AL was evaluated using FEV₁ z-scores. Participants were placed into three groups: normal FEF_25-75/ no AL (normal FEF_25-75/AL−); low FEF_25-75/ no AL (low FEF_25-75/AL−) and low FEF_25-75/ AL (low FEF_25-75/AL+). Results: Low FEF_25-75 was present in 99.9% of patients with AL, and 50% of those without AL. Patients in the low FEF_25-75/AL− group had lower spirometric measures (including FEV₁ FEF_25-75/FVC and FEV₃/FVC) than those in the normal FEF_25-75/AL− group. FEF_25-75 decreased with AL severity. A logistic regression model demonstrated that in the absence of AL, the presence of low FEF_25-75 was associated with lower FEV₁ and FEV₁/FVC even when smoking history was accounted for. Conclusions: Low FEF_25-75 is a physiological trait in patients with conventional spirometric AL and likely reflects early evidence of impairment in the small airways when spirometry is within the ‘normal range’. FEF_25-75 likely identifies a group of patients with early evidence of pathological lung damage who warrant careful monitoring and reinforced early intervention to abrogate further lung injury.