-
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports Mar 2024The ongoing coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) still urgently requires effective...
The ongoing coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) still urgently requires effective treatments. The 3C-like (3CL) protease of SARS-CoV-2 is a highly conserved cysteine protease that plays an important role in the viral life cycle and host inflammation, providing an ideal target for developing broad-spectrum antiviral drugs. Herein, we describe the discovery of a large number of herbs mainly produced in Heilongjiang Province, China, that exhibited different inhibitory activities against SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease. We confirmed that , which is used for clinical treatment of chronic bronchitis and asthma, is a specific and potent inhibitor of 3CL protease. A 70 % ethanol extract of dose-dependently inhibited the cleavage activity of 3CL protease in a fluorescence resonance energy transfer assay with an IC value of 0.0018 mg/mL, but had minimal effect in pseudovirus-based cell entry and luciferase-based RNA-dependent RNA polymerase assays. These results suggest that will be a potential leading candidate for COVID-19 treatment.
PubMed: 38371528
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrep.2023.101626 -
Journal of Advanced Veterinary and... Dec 2023Aspergillosis is a disease that affects several species of birds and causes substantial losses in the poultry business. The purpose of the investigation was to identify...
OBJECTIVE
Aspergillosis is a disease that affects several species of birds and causes substantial losses in the poultry business. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the pathogen responsible for a respiratory outbreak among juvenile ducklings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An epidemic of Aspergillosis infected a total of 800 Muscovy ducks that were being reared in El-Beheira Governorate. Tissue samples were obtained to isolate suspected fungi from diseased birds and the hatchery environment. In addition, identification and molecular characterization were performed on the obtained fungal isolates.
RESULTS
Affected birds displayed acute respiratory manifestations such as difficulty breathing, gasping for air, nasal discharge, and a mortality rate of up to 28.1%. Postmortem examination revealed bronchitis, tracheitis, congested lungs, air sacculitis, severe multifocal granulomatous pneumonia, a congested, enlarged liver, and a congested kidney with nephritis. Mycological examination revealed seven ( spp. isolates from ducklings and six from hatcheries. Isolate colonial morphology and microscopical examination were as follows: , and four untypable isolates. These isolates were further identified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and the internal transcribed spacers (ITSs) gene was detected. Four representative isolates were submitted for sequencing and further phylogenetic analysis. The source of duckling infection might be linked to the hatchery environment due to the observed similarity of isolates from both affected birds and the hatchery, as evidenced by phylogenetic analysis.
CONCLUSION
Our findings demonstrated the significance of appropriate hatchery control in preventing infection in young ducklings. Furthermore, the use of molecular identification techniques would be helpful for tracing the source of infection and rapid diagnosis of in the field.
PubMed: 38370888
DOI: 10.5455/javar.2023.j732 -
European Journal of Preventive... Feb 2024We assessed the association of temperature and temperature variability with cause-specific emergency hospitalizations and mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory...
AIMS
We assessed the association of temperature and temperature variability with cause-specific emergency hospitalizations and mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in Spain, as well as the effect modification of this association by individual and contextual factors.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We collected data on health (hospital admissions and mortality), weather (temperature and relative humidity), and relevant contextual indicators for 48 Spanish provinces during 2004-2019. The statistical analysis was separately performed for the summer (June-September) and winter (December-March) seasons. We first applied a generalized linear regression model with quasi-Poisson distribution to estimate daily province-specific temperature-health associations, and then we fitted multilevel multivariate meta-regression models to the evaluate effect modification of the contextual characteristics on heat- and cold-related risks. High temperature increased the risk of mortality across all cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, with the strongest effect for hypertension (relative risk (RR) at 99th temperature percentile vs. optimum temperature: 1.510 [95% empirical confidence interval {eCI} 1.251 to 1.821]), heart failure (1.528 [1.353 to 1.725]), and pneumonia (2.224 [1.685 to 2.936]). Heat also had an impact on all respiratory hospitalization causes (except asthma), with similar risks between pneumonia (1.288 [1.240 to 1.339]), acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis (1.307 [1.219 to 1.402]), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.260 [1.158 to 1.372]). We generally found significant risks related to low temperature for all cardiovascular and respiratory causes, with heart failure (RR at 1st temperature percentile vs. optimum temperature: 1.537 [1.329 to 1.779]) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.885 [1.646 to 2.159]) exhibiting the greatest risk for hospitalization, and acute myocardial infarction (1.860 [1.546 to 2.238]) and pneumonia (1.734 [1.219 to 2.468]) for mortality. Women and the elderly were more vulnerable to heat, while people with secondary education were less susceptible to cold compared to those not achieving this educational stage. Results from meta-regression showed that increasing heating access to the highest current provincial value (i.e. 95.6%) could reduce deaths due to cold by 59.5% (57.2 to 63.5).
CONCLUSION
Exposure to low and high temperatures was associated with a greater risk of morbidity and mortality from multiple cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, and heating was the most effective societal adaptive measure to reduce cold-related mortality.
PubMed: 38364198
DOI: 10.1093/eurjpc/zwae021 -
La Revue Du Praticien Oct 2023RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS VACCINES. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for lower respiratory infections, particularly in children under five years of age...
RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS VACCINES. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for lower respiratory infections, particularly in children under five years of age (acute infant bronchiolitis) and the elderly over 60. Monoclonal antibodies (palivizumab and nirsevimab) are used to prevent bronchiolitis. Four types of vaccine are currently under development: subunit vaccines composed of recombinant proteins or viral pseudoparticles, messenger RNA vaccines, recombinant vector vaccines and live attenuated vaccines. They are indicated for pregnant women to protect infants against bronchiolitis in the first months of life, and for people over 60 or with comorbidities.
Topics: Pregnancy; Child; Aged; Infant; Humans; Female; Child, Preschool; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Respiratory Tract Infections; Bronchiolitis
PubMed: 38354016
DOI: No ID Found -
Veterinary Pathology Jul 2024Between September and November 2021, 5 snow leopards () and 1 lion () were naturally infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and developed...
Between September and November 2021, 5 snow leopards () and 1 lion () were naturally infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and developed progressive respiratory disease that resulted in death. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 sequencing identified the delta variant in all cases sequenced, which was the predominant human variant at that time. The time between initial clinical signs and death ranged from 3 to 45 days. Gross lesions in all 6 cats included nasal turbinate hyperemia with purulent discharge and marked pulmonary edema. Ulcerative tracheitis and bronchitis were noted in 4 cases. Histologically, there was necrotizing and ulcerative rhinotracheitis and bronchitis with fibrinocellular exudates and fibrinosuppurative to pyogranulomatous bronchopneumonia. The 4 cats that survived longer than 8 days had fungal abscesses. Concurrent bacteria were noted in 4 cases, including those with more acute disease courses. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was detected by hybridization using probes against SARS-CoV-2 and genes and by immunohistochemistry. Viral nucleic acid and protein were variably localized to mucosal and glandular epithelial cells, pneumocytes, macrophages, and fibrinocellular debris. Based on established criteria, SARS-CoV-2 was considered a contributing cause of death in all 6 cats. While mild clinical infections are more common, these findings suggest that some SARS-CoV-2 variants may cause more severe disease and that snow leopards may be more severely affected than other felids.
Topics: Animals; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Female; Male; Lions; Panthera; Lung; Cats; Felidae; Cat Diseases
PubMed: 38323378
DOI: 10.1177/03009858231225500 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2023Infectious bronchitis (IB) is a highly contagious and acute viral disease of chicken caused by the infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) of the family Coronaviridae. Even...
Infectious bronchitis (IB) is a highly contagious and acute viral disease of chicken caused by the infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) of the family Coronaviridae. Even with extensive vaccination against IB by the poultry industry, the occurrence of new IBV genotypes is a continuous challenge encountered by the global poultry industry. This experiment was designed to compare the pathogenicity of two IBV strains belonging to Massachusetts (Mass) and Delmarva DMV/1639 genotypes. Specific pathogen-free laying hens were challenged during the peak of production (30 weeks), keeping a mock-infected control group. During 21 days of observation following infection, a significant drop in egg production with miss-shaped and soft shells was observed in the DMV/1639 IBV-infected hens only. The DMV/1639 IBV infected group showed prolonged and higher cloacal viral shedding compared with the Mass IBV-infected group. At the end of the study (21 days post-infection), the viral genome loads in the respiratory, urogenital, and immune tissues were significantly higher in the DMV/1639 IBV-infected group compared with the Mass IBV-infected group. Macroscopic lesions such as distorted ova leading to egg peritonitis were observed only in the DMV/1639 IBV-infected group. Moreover, microscopic lesion scores were significantly higher in the lung, kidney, cecal tonsils, and oviduct of the DMV/1639 IBV-infected group compared with the Mass IBV-infected group. Finally, the apoptosis index in the kidney, ovary, magnum, isthmus, and shell gland was significantly higher in the DMV/1639 IBV-infected group compared with the control and Mass-infected groups. This study examined the pathogenicity of two IBV genotypes that are impacting the layer industry in North America.
PubMed: 38313768
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1329430 -
The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine Apr 2024Exposure to household air pollution from polluting domestic fuel (solid fuel and kerosene) represents a substantial global public health burden and there is an urgent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Estimated health effects from domestic use of gaseous fuels for cooking and heating in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
BACKGROUND
Exposure to household air pollution from polluting domestic fuel (solid fuel and kerosene) represents a substantial global public health burden and there is an urgent need for rapid transition to clean domestic fuels. Gas for cooking and heating might possibly affect child asthma, wheezing, and respiratory health. The aim of this review was to synthesise the evidence on the health effects of gaseous fuels to inform policies for scalable clean household energy.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarised the health effects from cooking or heating with gas compared with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) and clean energy (eg, electricity and solar energy). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Environment Complete, GreenFile, Google Scholar, Wanfang DATA, and CNKI for articles published between Dec 16, 2020, and Feb 6, 2021. Studies eligible for inclusion had to compare gas for cooking or heating with polluting fuels (eg, wood or charcoal) or clean energy (eg, electricity or solar energy) and present data for health outcomes in general populations. Studies that reported health outcomes that were exacerbations of existing underlying conditions were excluded. Several of our reviewers were involved in screening studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (including risk of bias) of included studies; 20% of studies were independently screened, extracted and quality assessed by another reviewer. Disagreements were reconciled through discussion with the wider review team. Included studies were appraised for quality using the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tools. Key health outcomes were grouped for meta-analysis and analysed using Cochrane's RevMan software. Primary outcomes were health effects (eg, acute lower respiratory infections) and secondary outcomes were health symptoms (eg, respiratory symptoms such as wheeze, cough, or breathlessness). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021227092.
FINDINGS
116 studies were included in the meta-analysis (two [2%] randomised controlled trials, 13 [11%] case-control studies, 23 [20%] cohort studies, and 78 [67%] cross-sectional studies), contributing 215 effect estimates for five grouped health outcomes. Compared with polluting fuels, use of gas significantly lowered the risk of pneumonia (OR 0·54, 95% CI 0·38-0·77; p=0·00080), wheeze (OR 0·42, 0·30-0·59; p<0·0001), cough (OR 0·44, 0·32-0·62; p<0·0001), breathlessness (OR 0·40, 0·21-0·76; p=0·0052), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 0·37, 0·23-0·60; p<0·0001), bronchitis (OR 0·60, 0·43-0·82; p=0·0015), pulmonary function deficit (OR 0·27, 0·17-0·44; p<0·0001), severe respiratory illness or death (OR 0·27, 0·11-0·63; p=0·0024), preterm birth (OR 0·66, 0·45-0·97; p=0·033), and low birth weight (OR 0·70, 0·53-0·93; p=0·015). Non-statistically significant effects were observed for asthma in children (OR 1·04, 0·70-1·55; p=0·84), asthma in adults (OR 0·65, 0·43-1·00; p=0·052), and small for gestational age (OR 1·04, 0·89-1·21; p=0·62). Compared with electricity, use of gas significantly increased risk of pneumonia (OR 1·26, 1·03-1·53; p=0·025) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 1·15, 1·06-1·25; p=0·0011), although smaller non-significant effects were observed for higher-quality studies. In addition, a small increased risk of asthma in children was not significant (OR 1·09, 0·99-1·19; p=0·071) and no significant associations were found for adult asthma, wheeze, cough, and breathlessness (p>0·05). A significant decreased risk of bronchitis was observed (OR 0·87, 0·81-0·93; p<0·0001).
INTERPRETATION
Switching from polluting fuels to gaseous household fuels could lower health risk and associated morbidity and mortality in resource-poor countries where reliance on polluting fuels is greatest. Although gas fuel use was associated with a slightly higher risk for some health outcomes compared with electricity, gas is an important transitional option for health in countries where access to reliable electricity supply for cooking or heating is not feasible in the near term.
FUNDING
WHO.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Air Pollution, Indoor; Heating; Cross-Sectional Studies; Charcoal; Premature Birth; Asthma; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Cooking; Dyspnea; Cough; Bronchitis; Pneumonia
PubMed: 38310914
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00427-7 -
Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi =... Feb 2024The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a standard evaluation method of assessing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and its severity, and has significant clinical value...
The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a standard evaluation method of assessing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and its severity, and has significant clinical value in the diagnosis and treatment of bronchial asthma. A consensus working group consisting of experts from the Pulmonary Function and Clinical Respiratory Physiology Committee of the Chinese Association of Chest Physicians, the Task Force for Pulmonary Function of the Chinese Thoracic Society, and the Pulmonary Function Group of Respiratory Branch of the Chinese Geriatric Society jointly developed this consensus. Based on the "" published in 2014, the issues encountered in its use, and recent developments, the group has updated the Through an extensive collection of expert opinions, literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, and multiple rounds of online and offline discussions, the consensus addressed the eleven core issues in MCT's clinical practice, including indications, contraindications, preparation of provocative agents, test procedures and methods, quality control, safety management, interpretation of results, and reporting standards. The aim was to provide clinical pulmonary function practitioners in healthcare institutions with the tools to optimize the use of this technique to guide clinical diagnosis and treatment. Who is suitable for conducting MCT? What are contraindications for performing MCT?Patients with atypical symptoms and a clinical suspicion of asthma, patients diagnosed with asthma requiring assessment of the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness, individuals with allergic rhinitis who are at risk of developing asthma, patients in need of evaluating the effectiveness of asthma treatment, individuals in occupations with high safety risks due to airway hyperresponsiveness, patients with chronic diseases prone to airway hyperresponsiveness, others requiring assessment of airway reactivity.Absolute contraindications: (1) Patients who are allergic to methacholine (MCh) or other parasympathomimetic drugs, with allergic reactions including rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face, tongue, and throat), severe dizziness, and dyspnea; (2) Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma attacks or those who have required mechanical ventilation for asthma attacks in the past three months; (3) Patients with moderate to severe impairment of baseline pulmonary function [Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV) less than 60% of the predicted value or FEV<1.0 L]; (4) Severe urticaria; (5) Other situations inappropriate for forced vital capacity (FVC) measurement, such as myocardial infarction or stroke in the past three months, poorly controlled hypertension, aortic aneurysm, recent eye surgery, or increased intracranial pressure.Relative contraindications: (1) Moderate or more severe impairment of baseline lung function (FEV%pred<70%), but individuals with FEV%pred>60% may still be considered for MCT with strict observation and adequate preparation; (2) Experiencing asthma acute exacerbation; (3) Poor cooperation with baseline lung function tests that do not meet quality control requirements; (4) Recent respiratory tract infection (<4 weeks); (5) Pregnant or lactating women; (6) Patients currently using cholinesterase inhibitors (for the treatment of myasthenia gravis); (7) Patients who have previously experienced airway spasm during pulmonary function tests, with a significant decrease in FEV even without the inhalation of provocative. How to prepare and store the challenge solution for MCT?Before use, the drug must be reconstituted and then diluted into various concentrations for provocation. The dilution concentration and steps for MCh vary depending on the inhalation method and provocation protocol used. It is important to follow specific steps. Typically, a specified amount of diluent is added to the methacholine reagent bottle for reconstitution, and the mixture is shaken until the solution becomes clear. The diluent is usually physiological saline, but saline with phenol (0.4%) can also be used. Phenol can reduce the possibility of bacterial contamination, and its presence does not interfere with the provocation test. After reconstitution, other concentrations of MCh solution are prepared using the same diluent, following the dilution steps, and then stored separately in sterile containers. Preparers should carefully verify and label the concentration and preparation time of the solution and complete a preparation record form. The reconstituted and diluted MCh solution is ready for immediate use without the need for freezing. It can be stored for two weeks if refrigerated (2-8 ℃). The reconstituted solution should not be stored directly in the nebulizer reservoir to prevent crystallization from blocking the capillary opening and affecting aerosol output. The temperature of the solution can affect the production of the nebulizer and cause airway spasms in the subject upon inhaling cold droplets. Thus, refrigerated solutions should be brought to room temperature before use. What preparation is required for subjects prior to MCT?(1) Detailed medical history inquiry and exclusion of contraindications.(2) Inquiring about factors and medications that may affect airway reactivity and assessing compliance with medication washout requirements: When the goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of asthma treatment, bronchodilators other than those used for asthma treatment do not need to be discontinued. Antihistamines and cromolyn have no effect on MCT responses, and the effects of a single dose of inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers are minimal, thus not requiring cessation before the test. For patients routinely using corticosteroids, whether to discontinue the medication depends on the objective of the test: if assisting in the diagnosis of asthma, differential diagnosis, aiding in step-down therapy for asthma, or exploring the effect of discontinuing anti-inflammatory treatment, corticosteroids should be stopped before the provocation test; if the patient is already diagnosed with asthma and the objective is to observe the level of airway reactivity under controlled medication conditions, then discontinuation is not necessary. Medications such as IgE monoclonal antibodies, IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies, traditional Chinese medicine, and ethnic medicines may interfere with test results, and clinicians should decide whether to discontinue these based on the specific circumstances.(3) Explaining the test procedure and potential adverse reactions, and obtaining informed consent if necessary. What are the methods of the MCT? And which ones are recommended in current clinical practice?Commonly used methods for MCT in clinical practice include the quantitative nebulization method (APS method), Forced Oscillalion method (Astograph method), 2-minute tidal breathing method (Cockcroft method), hand-held quantitative nebulization method (Yan method), and 5-breath method (Chai 5-breath method). The APS method allows for precise dosing of inhaled Methacholine, ensuring accurate and reliable results. The Astograph method, which uses respiratory resistance as an assessment indicator, is easy for subjects to perform and is the simplest operation. These two methods are currently the most commonly used clinical practice in China. What are the steps involved in MCT?The MCT consists of the following four steps:(1) Baseline lung function test: After a 15-minute rest period, the subjects assumes a seated position and wear a nose clip for the measurement of pulmonary function indicators [such as FEV or respiratory resistance (Rrs)]. FEV should be measured at least three times according to spirometer quality control standards, ensuring that the best two measurements differ by less than 150 ml and recording the highest value as the baseline. Usually, if FEV%pred is below 70%, proceeding with the challenge test is not suitable, and a bronchodilation test should be considered. However, if clinical assessment of airway reactivity is necessary and FEV%pred is between 60% and 70%, the provocation test may still be conducted under close observation, ensuring the subject's safety. If FEV%pred is below 60%, it is an absolute contraindication for MCT.(2) Inhalation of diluent and repeat lung function test for control values: the diluent, serving as a control for the inhaled MCh, usually does not significantly impact the subject's lung function. the higher one between baseline value and the post-dilution FEV is used as the reference for calculating the rate of FEV decline. If post-inhalation FEV decreases, there are usually three scenarios: ①If FEV decreases by less than 10% compared to the baseline, the test can proceed, continue the test and administer the first dose of MCh. ②If the FEV decreases by≥10% and<20%, indicating a heightened airway reactivity to the diluent, proceed with the lowest concentration (dose) of the provoking if FEV%pred has not yet reached the contraindication criteria for the MCT. if FEV%pred<60% and the risk of continuing the challenge test is considerable, it is advisable to switch to a bronchodilation test and indicate the change in the test results report. ③If FEV decreases by≥20%, it can be directly classified as a positive challenge test, and the test should be discontinued, with bronchodilators administered to alleviate airway obstruction.(3) Inhalation of MCh and repeat lung function test to assess decline: prepare a series of MCh concentrations, starting from the lowest and gradually increasing the inhaled concentration (dose) using different methods. Perform pulmonary function tests at 30 seconds and 90 seconds after completing nebulization, with the number of measurements limited to 3-4 times. A complete Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) measurement is unnecessary during testing; only an acceptable FEV measurement is required. The interval between two consecutive concentrations (doses) generally should not exceed 3 minutes. If FEV declines by≥10% compared to the control value, reduce the increment of methacholine concentration (dose) and adjust the inhalation protocol accordingly. If FEV declines by≥20% or more compared to the control value or if the maximum concentration (amount) has been inhaled, the test should be stopped. After inhaling the MCh, close observation of the subject's response is necessary. If necessary, monitor blood oxygen saturation and auscultate lung breath sounds. The test should be promptly discontinued in case of noticeable clinical symptoms or signs.(4) Inhalation of bronchodilator and repeat lung function test to assess recovery: when the bronchial challenge test shows a positive response (FEV decline≥20%) or suspiciously positive, the subject should receive inhaled rapid-acting bronchodilators, such as short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) or short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA). Suppose the subject exhibits obvious symptoms of breathlessness, wheezing, or typical asthma manifestations, and wheezing is audible in the lungs, even if the positive criteria are not met. In that case, the challenge test should be immediately stopped, and rapid-acting bronchodilators should be administered. Taking salbutamol as an example, inhale 200-400 μg (100 μg per puff, 2-4 puffs, as determined by the physician based on the subject's condition). Reassess pulmonary function after 5-10 minutes. If FEV recovers to within 10% of the baseline value, the test can be concluded. However, if there is no noticeable improvement (FEV decline still≥10%), record the symptoms and signs and repeat the bronchodilation procedure as mentioned earlier. Alternatively, add Ipratropium bromide (SAMA) or further administer nebulized bronchodilators and corticosteroids for intensified treatment while keeping the subject under observation until FEV recovers to within 90% of the baseline value before allowing the subject to leave. What are the quality control requirements for the APS and Astograph MCT equipment?(1) APS Method Equipment Quality Control: The APS method for MCT uses a nebulizing inhalation device that requires standardized flowmeters, compressed air power source pressure and flow, and nebulizer aerosol output. Specific quality control methods are as follows:a. Flow and volume calibration of the quantitative nebulization device: Connect the flowmeter, an empty nebulization chamber, and a nebulization filter in sequence, attaching the compressed air source to the bottom of the chamber to ensure airtight connections. Then, attach a 3 L calibration syringe to the subject's breathing interface and simulate the flow during nebulization (typically low flow:<2 L/s) to calibrate the flow and volume. If calibration results exceed the acceptable range of the device's technical standards, investigate and address potential issues such as air leaks or increased resistance due to a damp filter, then recalibrate. Cleaning the flowmeter or replacing the filter can change the resistance in the breathing circuit, requiring re-calibration of the flow.b. Testing the compressed air power source: Regularly test the device, connecting the components as mentioned above. Then, block the opening of the nebulization device with a stopper or hand, start the compressed air power source, and test its pressure and flow. If the test results do not meet the technical standards, professional maintenance of the equipment may be required.c. Verification of aerosol output of the nebulization chamber: Regularly verify all nebulization chambers used in provocation tests. Steps include adding a certain amount of saline to the chamber, weighing and recording the chamber's weight (including saline), connecting the nebulizer to the quantitative nebulization device, setting the nebulization time, starting nebulization, then weighing and recording the post-nebulization weight. Calculate the unit time aerosol output using the formula [(weight before nebulization-weight after nebulization)/nebulization time]. Finally, set the nebulization plan for the provocation test based on the aerosol output, considering the MCh concentration, single inhalation nebulization duration, number of nebulization, and cumulative dose to ensure precise dosing of the inhaled MCh.(2) Astograph method equipment quality control: Astograph method equipment for MCT consists of a respiratory resistance monitoring device and a nebulization medication device. Perform zero-point calibration, volume calibration, impedance verification, and nebulization chamber checks daily before tests to ensure the resistance measurement system and nebulization system function properly. Calibration is needed every time the equipment is turned on, and more frequently if there are significant changes in environmental conditions.a. Zero-point calibration: Perform zero-point calibration before testing each subject. Ensure the nebulization chamber is properly installed and plugged with no air leaks.b. Volume calibration: Use a 3 L calibration syringe to calibrate the flow sensor at a low flow rate (approximately 1 L/s).c. Resistance verification: Connect low impedance tubes (1.9-2.2 cmHO·L·s) and high impedance tubes (10.2-10.7 cmHO·L·s) to the device interface for verification.d. Bypass check: Start the bypass check and record the bypass value; a value>150 ml/s is normal.e. Nebulization chamber check: Check each of the 12 nebulization chambers daily, especially those containing bronchodilators, to ensure normal spraying. The software can control each nebulization chamber to produce spray automatically for a preset duration (e.g., 2 seconds). Observe the formation of water droplets on the chamber walls, indicating normal spraying. If no nebulization occurs, check for incorrect connections or blockages. How to set up and select the APS method in MCT?The software program of the aerosol provocation system in the quantitative nebulization method can independently set the nebulizer output, concentration of the methacholine agent, administration time, and number of administrations and combine these parameters to create the challenge test process. In principle, the concentration of the methacholine agent should increase from low to high, and the dose should increase from small to large. According to the standard, a 2-fold or 4-fold incremental challenge process is generally used. In clinical practice, the dose can be simplified for subjects with good baseline lung function and no history of wheezing, such as using a recommended 2-concentration, 5-step method (25 and 50 g/L) and (6.25 and 25 g/L). Suppose FEV decreases by more than 10% compared to the baseline during the test to ensure subject safety. In that case, the incremental dose of the methacholine agent can be reduced, and the inhalation program can be adjusted appropriately. If the subject's baseline lung function declines or has recent daytime or nighttime symptoms such as wheezing or chest tightness, a low concentration, low dose incremental process should be selected. What are the precautions for the operation process of the Astograph method in MCT?(1) Test equipment: The Astograph method utilizes the forced oscillation technique, applying a sinusoidal oscillating pressure at the mouthpiece during calm breathing. Subjects inhale nebulized MCh of increasing concentrations while continuous monitoring of respiratory resistance (Rrs) plots the changes, assessing airway reactivity and sensitivity. The nebulization system employs jet nebulization technology, comprising a compressed air pump and 12 nebulization cups. The first cup contains saline, cups 2 to 11 contain increasing concentrations of MCh, and the 12th cup contains a bronchodilator solution.(2) Provocation process: Prepare 10 solutions of MCh provocant with gradually increasing concentrations.(3) Operational procedure: The oscillation frequency is usually set to 3 Hz (7 Hz for children) during the test. The subject breathes calmly, inhales saline solution nebulized first, and records the baseline resistance value (if the subject's baseline resistance value is higher than 10 cmHO·L·s, the challenge test should not be performed). Then, the subject gradually inhales increasing concentrations of methacholine solution. Each concentration solution is inhaled for 1 minute, and the nebulization system automatically switches to the next concentration for inhalation according to the set time. Each nebulizer cup contains 2-3 ml of solution, the output is 0.15 ml/min, and each concentration is inhaled for 1 minute. The dose-response curve is recorded automatically. Subjects should breathe tidally during the test, avoiding deep breaths and swallowing. Continue until Rrs significantly rises to more than double the baseline value, or if the subject experiences notable respiratory symptoms or other discomfort, such as wheezing in both lungs upon auscultation. At this point, the inhalation of the provocant should be stopped and the subject switchs to inhaling a bronchodilator until Rrs returns to pre-provocation levels. If there is no significant increase in Rrs, stop the test after inhaling the highest concentration of MCh. How to interpret the results of the MCT?The method chosen for the MCT determines the specific indicators used for interpretation. The most commonly used indicator is FEV, although other parameters such as Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) and Rrs can also be used to assess airway hyperresponsiveness. The test results can be classified as positive, suspiciously positive, or negative, based on a combination of the judgment indicators and changes in the subject's symptoms. If FEV decreases by≥20% compared to the baseline value after not completely inhaling at the highest concentration, the result can be judged as positive for Methacholine bronchial challenge test. If the patient has obvious wheezing symptoms or wheezing is heard in both lungs, but the challenge test does not meet the positive criteria (the highest dose/concentration has been inhaled), and FEV decreases between 10% and 20% compared to the baseline level, the result can also be judged as positive. If FEV decreases between 15% and 20% compared to the baseline value without dyspnea or wheezing attacks, the result can be judged as suspiciously positive. Astograph method: If Rrs rises to 2 times or more of the baseline resistance before reaching the highest inhalation concentration, or if the subject's lungs have wheezing and severe coughing, the challenge test can be judged as positive. Regardless of the result of the Methacholine bronchial challenge test, factors that affect airway reactivity, such as drugs, seasons, climate, diurnal variations, and respiratory tract infections, should be excluded. When using the APS method, the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness can be graded based on PD-FEV or PC-FEV. Existing evidence suggests that PD shows good consistency when different nebulizers, inhalation times, and starting concentrations of MCh are used for bronchial provocation tests, whereas there is more variability with PC. Therefore, PD is often recommended as the quantitative assessment indicator. The threshold value for PD with the APS method is 2.5 mg.The Astograph method often uses the minimum cumulative dose (Dmin value, in Units) to reflect airway sensitivity. Dmin is the minimum cumulative dose of MCh required to produce a linear increase in Rrs. A dose of 1 g/L of the drug concentration inhaled for 1-minute equals 1 unit. It's important to note that with the continuous increase in inhaled provocant concentration, the concept of cumulative dose in the Astograph method should not be directly compared to other methods. Most asthma patients have a Dmin<10 Units, according to Japanese guidelines. The Astograph method, having been used in China for over twenty years, suggests a high likelihood of asthma when Dmin≤6 Units, with a smaller Dmin value indicating a higher probability. When Dmin is between 6 and 10 Units, further differential diagnosis is advised to ascertain whether the condition is asthma.A negative methacholine challenge test (MCT) does not entirely rule out asthma. The test may yield negative results due to the following reasons:(1) Prior use of medications that reduce airway responsiveness, such as β2 agonists, anticholinergic drugs, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, theophylline, corticosteroids, etc., and insufficient washout time.(2) Failure to meet quality control standards in terms of pressure, flow rate, particle size, and nebulization volume of the aerosol delivery device.(3) Poor subject cooperation leads to inadequate inhalation of the methacholine agent.(4) Some exercise-induced asthma patients may not be sensitive to direct bronchial challenge tests like the Methacholine challenge and require indirect bronchial challenge tests such as hyperventilation, cold air, or exercise challenge to induce a positive response.(5) A few cases of occupational asthma may only react to specific antigens or sensitizing agents, requiring specific allergen exposure to elicit a positive response.A positive MCT does not necessarily indicate asthma. Other conditions can also present with airway hyperresponsiveness and yield positive results in the challenge test, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, viral upper respiratory infections, allergic alveolitis, tropical eosinophilia, cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, bronchiectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, post-cardiopulmonary transplant, congestive heart failure, and more. Furthermore, factors like smoking, air pollution, or exercise before the test may also result in a positive bronchial challenge test. What are the standardized requirements for the MCT report?The report should include: (1) basic information about the subject; (2) examination data and graphics: present baseline data, measurement data after the last two challenge doses or concentrations in tabular form, and the percentage of actual measured values compared to the baseline; flow-volume curve and volume-time curve before and after challenge test; dose-response curve: showing the threshold for positive challenge; (3) opinions and conclusions of the report: including the operator's opinions, quality rating of the examination, and review opinions of the reviewing physician. What are the adverse reactions and safety measures of MCT?During the MCT, the subject needs to repeatedly breathe forcefully and inhale bronchial challenge agents, which may induce or exacerbate bronchospasm and contraction and may even cause life-threatening situations. Medical staff should be fully aware of the indications, contraindications, medication use procedures, and emergency response plans for the MCT.
Topics: Child; Humans; Female; Aged; Methacholine Chloride; Bronchial Provocation Tests; Bronchodilator Agents; Respiratory Sounds; Lactation; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Asthma; Respiratory Hypersensitivity; Dyspnea; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Histamine Antagonists; Phenols; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 38309959
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112147-20231019-00247 -
Advances in Virology 2024Acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among children worldwide. The majority of acute respiratory infections in...
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among children worldwide. The majority of acute respiratory infections in children are caused by viruses, with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) being the most frequently encountered. Other important viral pathogens include human metapneumovirus, human coronaviruses, adenovirus, and influenza. These infections can lead to complications such as bronchitis and pneumonia. So, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of influenza viruses A and B, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and human metapneumovirus (HMPV) in children with ARTI.
METHODS
The molecular diagnostic of polymerase chain reaction approach was used to detect influenza (A and B), metapneumovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and adenovirus in respiratory samples of children with acute respiratory infection hospitalization in a teaching hospital of the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in January 2016-March 2017.
RESULTS
Of the 340 patients examined, 208 (61.20%) were male and the median age was 3.13 ± 2.38 years. Respiratory viruses were found in 179 (52.64%) patients. The male-to-female ratio was 1.63 : 1 in patients who were viral positive. Detection rates for influenza A, adenovirus, influenza B, RSV, and HMPV were 28.23%, 24.70%, 8.52%, 3.23%, and 2.64%, respectively, and coinfections were detected in 24.02%. The most common combination of two-virus coinfections was IFVA/AdV, followed by IFVB/AdV, AdV, IFVB/IFVA, RSV/IFVA, HMPV/AdV, RSV/AdV, and HMPV/IFVA.
CONCLUSION
The high prevalence of respiratory viruses in children hospitalized with ARTI suggests that viral infection may play a role in disease pathogenesis. This should be confirmed through the conduct of case-control studies and may inform the role of vaccination to prevent respiratory viral infections.
PubMed: 38292215
DOI: 10.1155/2024/7613948 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Aug 2024This study aimed to clarify other diseases claimed simultaneously with acute upper respiratory infection (URI), antibiotic prescriptions, and examinations associated...
Characteristics of pediatric patients claimed with acute upper respiratory infection during otorhinolaryngology consultations: A descriptive study of a large Japanese medical claims database.
This study aimed to clarify other diseases claimed simultaneously with acute upper respiratory infection (URI), antibiotic prescriptions, and examinations associated with infectious diseases in pediatric patients with acute URI insurance claims at otorhinolaryngology outpatient visits. Pediatric patients who visited an otolaryngology department between 2019 and 2021 and were definitively diagnosed with URI were selected using a large Japanese medical claims database. Patient backgrounds, antibiotic use, and examinations were descriptively evaluated. In total, 8010 patients were included in the analysis. The median number (interquartile range) of diseases claimed in the same month as acute URI was 4 (3-6). Only 519 (6.5 %) patients were claimed as acute URI alone. Regardless of the prescription of antibiotics, the most commonly redundantly claimed disease in these patients was allergic rhinitis, followed by acute bronchitis, acute sinusitis, and earwax impaction. The frequently prescribed antibiotics were third-generation cephalosporins, macrolides, and penicillins with extended-spectrum, including amoxicillin which was recommended by the Japanese manual; the proportion of patients with examinations was low (2.9-21.7 %). Among patients with acute URI, diagnoses requiring antibiotics were also claimed; therefore, when evaluating acute URI using the Japanese medical claims database, care must be taken in patient selection. Moreover, the implementation rate of examinations necessary for diagnosis was low, so there is an urgent need to develop an environment where examinations can be conducted in outpatient settings.
Topics: Humans; Japan; Respiratory Tract Infections; Child; Female; Male; Child, Preschool; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Databases, Factual; Infant; Acute Disease; Otolaryngology; Adolescent; Referral and Consultation; Sinusitis; Insurance Claim Review; Bronchitis; East Asian People
PubMed: 38272261
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2024.01.015