-
Frontiers in Medicine 2019The opportunity of a multidisciplinary evaluation for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonias highlighted a major change in the diagnostic approach to diffuse lung...
The opportunity of a multidisciplinary evaluation for the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonias highlighted a major change in the diagnostic approach to diffuse lung disease. The new American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Latin American Thoracic Society guidelines for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have reinforced this assumption and have underlined that the exclusion of connective tissue disease related lung involvement is mandatory, with obvious clinical and therapeutic impact. The multidisciplinary team discussion consists in a moment of interaction among the radiologist, pathologist and pulmonologist, also including the rheumatologist when considered necessary, to improve diagnostic agreement and optimize the definition of those cases in which pulmonary involvement may represent the first or prominent manifestation of an autoimmune systemic disease. Moreover, the proposal of classification criteria for interstitial lung disease with autoimmune features (IPAF) represents an effort to define lung involvement in clinically undefined autoimmune conditions. The complexity of autoimmune diseases, and in particular the lack of classification criteria defined for pathologies such as anti-synthetase syndrome, makes the involvement of the rheumatologist essential for the correct interpretation of the autoimmune element and for the application of classification criteria, that could replace clinical pictures initially interpreted as IPAF in defined autoimmune disease, minimizing the risk of misdiagnosis. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence about the efficiency and efficacy of different multidisciplinary team approaches, in order to standardize the professional figures and the core set procedures that should be necessary for a correct approach in diagnosing patients with interstitial lung disease.
PubMed: 31750308
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00246 -
Clinical Medicine Insights.... 2019is one of the primary cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) worldwide. However, scant data are available on the prevalence of etiological organisms for CAP in...
BACKGROUND
is one of the primary cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) worldwide. However, scant data are available on the prevalence of etiological organisms for CAP in adolescent and adult Indian population.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the contribution of in the causation of CAP in Indian patients aged 12 years or above.
METHODOLOGY
We performed a systematic search of both indexed and non-indexed publications using PubMed, databases of National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), Annotated Bibliography of Indian Medicine (ABIM), Google Scholar, and hand search including cross-references using key terms 'community acquired pneumonia AND India'. All studies, published between January 1990 and January 2017, that evaluated Indian patients aged above 12 years with a confirmed diagnosis of CAP were eligible for inclusion. Our search retrieved a total of 182 studies, of which only 17 and 12 qualified for inclusion in the systematic review of all etiological organisms, and meta-analysis of , respectively.
RESULTS
A total of 1435 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of patients with infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12%-26%; I = 94.5% where I represents heterogeneity, < .01). Other major etiological agents are (15.5% [1.1%-35.5%]), (10.5% [1.6%-24.0%]), and (7.3% [2.5%-23.8%]).
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis found approximately a one-fifth proportion of adult Indian patients of CAP with infection, suggesting it as a leading organism for causing CAP compared with other etiological organisms.
PubMed: 31391784
DOI: 10.1177/1179548419862790 -
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases... Jul 2019Metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are commonly prescribed for inhalation therapy, but correct use is critical to promoting effective medication delivery. This systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are commonly prescribed for inhalation therapy, but correct use is critical to promoting effective medication delivery. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluates the overall and step-by-step prevalence of errors among adults with obstructive lung diseases in the United States who used MDIs.
METHODS
Electronic and manual searches conducted between 1979-2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google identified 10 articles that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language, (b) U.S. adults diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and (c) MDI use error rates. Meta-analytic techniques using random-effects models were applied to calculate effect sizes, weighted proportions, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed by the I statistic.
RESULTS
Aggregate findings revealed that 86.7% of patients (n=390, 95% CI 77.5-96.0) made at least 1 inhalation technique error, and 76.9% (n=885, 95% CI 65.8-87.9) incorrectly performed ≥ 20% of device use steps. The most prevalent step-by-step errors across the studies (n=1105) were failure to: (a) exhale fully and away from the inhaler before inhalation (65.5% [95% CI 52.0, 78.9]); (b) hold breath for 5-10 seconds (41.9% [95% CI 29.8, 53.9]); (c) inhale slowly and deeply (39.4% [95% CI 26.2, 52.5]); (d) exhale after inhalation (35.9% [95% CI 17.0, 54.8]); and (e) shake the inhaler before use (34.2% [95% CI 30.6, 37.7]).
CONCLUSIONS
Across the studies used in this meta-analysis more than three-fourths of U.S. adults with obstructive lung diseases used MDIs incorrectly. Our findings suggest the need for ongoing patient education and consideration of alternative devices to mitigate errors.
PubMed: 31342732
DOI: 10.15326/jcopdf.6.3.2018.0168