Auscultation with stethoscope has been an essential tool for diagnosing the patients with respiratory disease. Although auscultation is non-invasive, rapid, and inexpensive, it has intrinsic limitations such as inter-listener variability and subjectivity, and the examination must be performed face-to-face. Conventional stethoscope could not record the respiratory sounds, so it was impossible to share the sounds. Recent innovative digital stethoscopes have overcome the limitations and enabled clinicians to store and share the sounds for education and discussion. In particular, the recordable stethoscope made it possible to analyze breathing sounds using artificial intelligence, especially based on neural network. Deep learning-based analysis with an automatic feature extractor and convoluted neural network classifier has been applied for the accurate analysis of respiratory sounds. In addition, the current advances in battery technology, embedded processors with low power consumption, and integrated sensors make possible the development of wearable and wireless stethoscopes, which can help to examine patients living in areas of a shortage of doctors or those who need isolation. There are still challenges to overcome, such as the analysis of complex and mixed respiratory sounds and noise filtering, but continuous research and technological development will facilitate the transition to a new era of a wearable and smart stethoscope.

Asthma control in older asthmatics is often less effective, which may be attributed to small airway dysfunction and poor inhalation technique. We compared the efficacy of 2 inhalers (fluticasone propionate/formoterol treatment using a pressurized metered-dose inhaler [p-MDI group] vs. fluticasone propionate/salmeterol treatment using a dry powder inhaler [DPI group]) in older asthmatics. We conducted a 12-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-designed trial in older patients (over 55 years old) with moderate-to-severe asthma, and compared the efficacy and safety for asthma control between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses on disease duration and air trapping were performed. Clinical parameters, including changes in lung function parameters, inhaler technique and adherence, were compared with monitoring adverse reactions between the 2 groups. A total of 68 patients underwent randomization, and 63 (30 in the p-MDI group and 33 in the DPI group) completed this study. The p-MDI group was non-inferior to the DPI group with regard to the rate of well-controlled asthma (53.3% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.001; a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%). In subgroup analyses, the proportion of patients who did not reach well-controlled asthma in the p-MDI group was non-inferior to that in the DPI group; the difference was 12.7% among those with a longer disease duration (≥ 15 years) and 17.5% among those with higher air-trapping (RV/TLC ≥ 45%), respectively (a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in lung function parameters, inhalation techniques, adherence and adverse reactions between the 2 groups. These results suggest that the p-MDI group may be comparable to the DPI group in the management of older asthmatics in aspects of efficacy and safety.

Ye YM, et al. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2021 May;13(3):390-403. https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2021.13.3.390

Jang JH, et al. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2021 Mar;13(2):330-338. https://doi.org/10.4168/aair.2021.13.2.330

Choosing effective devices (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]-long-acting β2 agonist [LABA] combination inhalers) as maintenance treatment is critical for managing patients with asthma. We aimed to compare ICS/LABA combination efficacy, safety, and adherence across inhaler types and components in patients newly diagnosed with asthma. Utilizing South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service data, we conducted a population-based cohort study involving patients aged 18–80 years, newly diagnosed with asthma who received ICS/LABA combination therapy between January 2016 and December 2020. Outcomes assessed included treatment adherence, asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, emergency-department visits, mortality, and safety outcomes within 3-month and 1-year post-index periods. Overall, 13,850 eligible patients were included, with subgroups categorized and compared according to inhaler type and component (metered dose inhalers [MDIs] vs. dry powder inhalers [DPIs], budesonide vs. fluticasone, and formoterol vs. salmeterol). Efficacy and safety profiles did not significantly differ across device types or ICS/LABA combination components during the 3-month and 1-year follow-up periods. However, the DPI group exhibited a significantly higher mean proportion of days covered (0.67 ± 0.23 vs. 0.62 ± 0.23; P < 0.001) and a lower risk of discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.867; 95% confidence interval, 0.804–0.927; P < 0.001) than did the MDI group, with no significant differences observed between the other subgroups. The choice of inhaler device (MDI vs. DPI) and specific ICS/LABA combination components does not significantly impact efficacy and safety profiles in patients newly diagnosed with asthma. However, DPI use may be associated with improved adherence. These results provide valuable insights for clinicians in selecting appropriate and individually tailored inhaler therapies in real-world settings.