Background: Complete blood count parameters provide novel inflammatory markers, namely neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR). We aimed to assess any differences in these novel inflammatory markers according to exacerbation severity in patients with COPD in both eosinophilic and neutrophilic endotypes. Method: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary education hospital. Previously diagnosed COPD patients admitted to the hospital with acute COPD exacerbation (AECOPD) were enrolled into the study. Patients were grouped according to COPD endotype, eosinophilic (peripheral blood eosinophil rate ≥2%) and neutrophilic (peripheral blood eosinophil rate <2%), and further subdivided according to place of admission (outpatient clinic, ward, or intensive care unit [ICU]) as an indicator of disease severity. Complete blood count, biochemistry, C-reactive protein (CRP), NLR, PLR, and platelet to mean platelet volume values were recorded from an electronic hospital database system and compared among all groups. Results: Of the 10,592 patients included in the study, 7,864 were admitted as outpatients, 2,233 to the wards, and 495 to ICU. Neutrophilic COPD patients (n=6,536, 62%) had increased inflammatory markers compared with eosinophilic COPD patients (n=4,056, 38%); median NLR was 5.11 vs 2.62 (P<0.001), PLR was 175.66 vs 130.00 (P<0.001), and CRP was 11.6 vs 7.7 (P<0.001). All values increased relative to admission to the outpatient clinic, ward, or ICU: median NLR was 3.20, 6.33, and 5.94, respectively, median PLR was 140.43, 208.46, and 207.39, respectively, and median CRP was 6.4, 15.0, and 22.8, respectively. The median NLR values of patients in outpatients/ward/ICU increased in neutrophilic and eosinophilic endotypes: 4.21/7.57/8.60 (P<0.001) and 2.50/3.43/3.42 (P=0.81), respectively. CRP showed a similar increased pattern according to severity of AECOPD endotypes. Conclusion: In COPD exacerbation, the inflammatory markers show different increases in each COPD endotypes. These findings may be crucial for defining exacerbation endotypes, the severity of exacerbation, and treatment response during follow-up in COPD patients.

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate errors in inhaler technique in COPD vs asthma patients and to investigate the association of poor inhaler technique with patient demographics and clinical variables. Patients and methods: A total of 509 adult patients with COPD (n=328) or asthma (n=181) who were currently using an inhaler device were included in this study. Data on patient demographics, duration of disease, type and duration of inhaler therapy, and assessment of inhaler technique were recorded. Results: Metered dose inhaler (MDI) was the most common type of inhaler used by a similarly high percentage of patients in both COPD (83.2%) and asthma (77.3%) groups. Failure to exhale before inhaling through device (75.8% and 68.5% for MDIs; 73.2% and 71.8% for Aerolizer^®/Handihaler^®; 53.1% and 66.7% for Turbuhaler^®) was the most common error in inhaler technique, in both COPD and asthma groups. Device-specific errors in inhaler techniques were more common in asthma patients as compared with COPD patients, particularly for MDIs (P-values ranged from 0.046 to 0.0005), as associated with female gender (failure to press the buttons on both sides of Aerolizer^®/Handihaler^®, P=0.006), shorter duration of disease (failure to hold MDI or head in a vertical position, P<0.001, and to keep Turbuhaler^® upright, P=0.005), and shorter duration of inhaler usage (failure to hold head in a vertical position during MDI usage, P=0.006, and to keep Turbuhaler^® upright, P=0.012). Conclusion: In conclusion, our findings revealed that errors in inhaler technique in terms of inhalation maneuvers and device handling were similarly common in COPD and asthma patients. Errors in certain device handling maneuvers, particularly with MDIs, were more common among asthma patients than among COPD patients and associated with female gender and shorter durations of disease and inhaler therapy.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of exposure to biomass smoke vs cigarette smoke on serum inflammatory markers and pulmonary function parameters in patients with chronic respiratory failure (CRF). Patients and methods: A total of 106 patients with CRF divided into age and gender-matched groups of cigarette-smoke exposure (n=55, mean [SD] age: 71.0 [12.0] years, 92.7% were females) and biomass smoke exposure (n=51, mean [SD] age: 73.0 [11.0] years, 94.1% were females) were included in this retrospective study. Data on patient demographics (age and gender), inflammatory markers, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, platelet/mean platelet volume ratio, arterial blood gas analysis, and pulmonary function test findings, including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV₁/FVC were obtained from medical records. Results: Carbon dioxide partial pressure levels were significantly higher in the biomass smoke exposure than in the cigarette smoke exposure group (mean [SD] 51.0 [8.0] vs 47.0 [8.0] mmHg, p=0.026, respectively). Spirometry revealed similarly low levels for FEV₁ (%) (38.0 [16.0] vs 40.0 [12.0]%) and FVC (%) (45.0 [19.0] vs 39.0 [19.0]%) in cigarette-smoke and biomass smoke exposure groups, whereas biomass smoke exposure was associated with significantly higher FEV₁/FVC (75.0 [14.0] vs 58.0 [12.0]%, p=0.001), lower FVC (mL) (mean [SD] 744.0 [410.0] vs 1,063.0 [592.0] mL, p=0.035) and lower percentage of patients with FEV₁/FVC <70% (36.8% vs 82.0%, p70% and more prominent loss of vital capacity than cigarette smoke exposure seems to indicate the likelihood of at least 18 years of biomass exposure to be sufficiently high to be responsible for both obstructive and restrictive pulmonary diseases.

Turkthoracj, Turkish Thoracic Journal

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the influence of gender on the inhaler technique of subjects on inhaler therapy and to determine the factors predicting the correct inhaler technique and a change of inhaler device. METHODS: A total of 568 adult subjects (276 male, 292 female) on inhaler therapy were included in this cross-sectional, observational study. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, inhaler therapy, subject-reported difficulties, and technician-reported errors in inhaler technique were recorded. RESULTS: A change of inhaler device was noted in 71.0% of male subjects and 77.4% of female subjects, and this was based on the physicians’ decision in most cases (41.7% and 51.7%, respectively). A higher percentage of female subjects reported difficulties with using inhalers (63.7% vs 40.6%, P < .001). Overall, having received training on the inhaler technique was associated with a higher likelihood of correct inhaler technique (odds ratio 12.56, 95% CI 4.44–35.50, P < .001) and a lower risk of device change (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.77, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Errors in the inhaler technique, including inhalation maneuvers and device handling, were common in subjects on inhaler therapy. Subject-reported difficulties with using inhalers were more prevalent among female subjects, whereas errors in the inhaler technique identified by direct observation were similarly high in both genders. Overall, a lack of training on the inhaler technique predicted a higher likelihood of errors in the inhaler technique and a change of inhaler device.

Turkthoracj, Turkish Thoracic Journal