Did you mean: pulmonologists
-
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Feb 2011Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung... (Review)
Review
International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma.
INTRODUCTION
Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung adenocarcinoma, an international multidisciplinary classification was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. This new adenocarcinoma classification is needed to provide uniform terminology and diagnostic criteria, especially for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), the overall approach to small nonresection cancer specimens, and for multidisciplinary strategic management of tissue for molecular and immunohistochemical studies.
METHODS
An international core panel of experts representing all three societies was formed with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists, molecular biologists, and thoracic surgeons. A systematic review was performed under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society Documents Development and Implementation Committee. The search strategy identified 11,368 citations of which 312 articles met specified eligibility criteria and were retrieved for full text review. A series of meetings were held to discuss the development of the new classification, to develop the recommendations, and to write the current document. Recommendations for key questions were graded by strength and quality of the evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The classification addresses both resection specimens, and small biopsies and cytology. The terms BAC and mixed subtype adenocarcinoma are no longer used. For resection specimens, new concepts are introduced such as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) for small solitary adenocarcinomas with either pure lepidic growth (AIS) or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm invasion (MIA) to define patients who, if they undergo complete resection, will have 100% or near 100% disease-specific survival, respectively. AIS and MIA are usually nonmucinous but rarely may be mucinous. Invasive adenocarcinomas are classified by predominant pattern after using comprehensive histologic subtyping with lepidic (formerly most mixed subtype tumors with nonmucinous BAC), acinar, papillary, and solid patterns; micropapillary is added as a new histologic subtype. Variants include invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (formerly mucinous BAC), colloid, fetal, and enteric adenocarcinoma. This classification provides guidance for small biopsies and cytology specimens, as approximately 70% of lung cancers are diagnosed in such samples. Non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), in patients with advanced-stage disease, are to be classified into more specific types such as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, whenever possible for several reasons: (1) adenocarcinoma or NSCLC not otherwise specified should be tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations as the presence of these mutations is predictive of responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, (2) adenocarcinoma histology is a strong predictor for improved outcome with pemetrexed therapy compared with squamous cell carcinoma, and (3) potential life-threatening hemorrhage may occur in patients with squamous cell carcinoma who receive bevacizumab. If the tumor cannot be classified based on light microscopy alone, special studies such as immunohistochemistry and/or mucin stains should be applied to classify the tumor further. Use of the term NSCLC not otherwise specified should be minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
This new classification strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma that incorporates clinical, molecular, radiologic, and surgical issues, but it is primarily based on histology. This classification is intended to support clinical practice, and research investigation and clinical trials. As EGFR mutation is a validated predictive marker for response and progression-free survival with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, we recommend that patients with advanced adenocarcinomas be tested for EGFR mutation. This has implications for strategic management of tissue, particularly for small biopsies and cytology samples, to maximize high-quality tissue available for molecular studies. Potential impact for tumor, node, and metastasis staging include adjustment of the size T factor according to only the invasive component (1) pathologically in invasive tumors with lepidic areas or (2) radiologically by measuring the solid component of part-solid nodules.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 21252716
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Self-management interventions help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to acquire and practise the skills they need to carry out disease-specific... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Self-management interventions help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to acquire and practise the skills they need to carry out disease-specific medical regimens, guide changes in health behaviour and provide emotional support to enable them to control their disease. Since the 2014 update of this review, several studies have been published.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and respiratory-related hospital admissions. To evaluate the safety of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of respiratory-related mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of other health outcomes and healthcare utilisation. To evaluate effective characteristics of COPD self-management interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, trials registries and the reference lists of included studies up until January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials (CRTs) published since 1995. To be eligible for inclusion, self-management interventions had to include at least two intervention components and include an iterative process between participant and healthcare provider(s) in which goals were formulated and feedback was given on self-management actions by the participant.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by reaching consensus or by involving a third review author. We contacted study authors to obtain additional information and missing outcome data where possible. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), number of respiratory-related hospital admissions, respiratory-related mortality, and all-cause mortality. When appropriate, we pooled study results using random-effects modelling meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies involving 6008 participants with COPD. The follow-up time ranged from two-and-a-half to 24 months and the content of the interventions was diverse. Participants' mean age ranged from 57 to 74 years, and the proportion of male participants ranged from 33% to 98%. The post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of participants ranged from 33.6% to 57.0%. The FEV1/FVC ratio is a measure used to diagnose COPD and to determine the severity of the disease. Studies were conducted on four different continents (Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 8), Asia (n = 1), and Oceania (n = 4); with one study conducted in both Europe and Oceania). Self-management interventions likely improve HRQoL, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (lower score represents better HRQoL) with a mean difference (MD) from usual care of -2.86 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.87 to -0.85; 14 studies, 2778 participants; low-quality evidence). The pooled MD of -2.86 did not reach the SGRQ minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of four points. Self-management intervention participants were also at a slightly lower risk for at least one respiratory-related hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3263 participants; very low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one respiratory-related hospital admission over a mean of 9.75 months' follow-up was 15 (95% CI 8 to 399) for participants with high baseline risk and 26 (95% CI 15 to 677) for participants with low baseline risk. No differences were observed in respiratory-related mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 8 studies, 1572 participants ; low-quality evidence) and all-cause mortality (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 24 studies, 5719 participants; low-quality evidence). We graded the evidence to be of 'moderate' to 'very low' quality according to GRADE. All studies had a substantial risk of bias, because of lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the interventions, which is inherently impossible in a self-management intervention. In addition, risk of bias was noticeably increased because of insufficient information regarding a) non-protocol interventions, and b) analyses to estimate the effect of adhering to interventions. Consequently, the highest GRADE evidence score that could be obtained by studies was 'moderate'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Self-management interventions for people with COPD are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and a lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess respiratory-related and all-cause mortality risks were observed, which strengthens the view that COPD self-management interventions are unlikely to cause harm. By using stricter inclusion criteria, we decreased heterogeneity in studies, but also reduced the number of included studies and therefore our capacity to conduct subgroup analyses. Data were therefore still insufficient to reach clear conclusions about effective (intervention) characteristics of COPD self-management interventions. As tailoring of COPD self-management interventions to individuals is desirable, heterogeneity is and will likely remain present in self-management interventions. For future studies, we would urge using only COPD self-management interventions that include iterative interactions between participants and healthcare professionals who are competent using behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to elicit participants' motivation, confidence and competence to positively adapt their health behaviour(s) and develop skills to better manage their disease. In addition, to inform further subgroup and meta-regression analyses and to provide stronger conclusions regarding effective COPD self-management interventions, there is a need for more homogeneity in outcome measures. More attention should be paid to behavioural outcome measures and to providing more detailed, uniform and transparently reported data on self-management intervention components and BCTs. Assessment of outcomes over the long term is also recommended to capture changes in people's behaviour. Finally, information regarding non-protocol interventions as well as analyses to estimate the effect of adhering to interventions should be included to increase the quality of evidence.
Topics: Aged; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Self-Management
PubMed: 35001366
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002990.pub4 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2022The gold standard for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is microbiological confirmation by reverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The gold standard for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is microbiological confirmation by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) most commonly done using oropharyngeal (OP) and nasopharyngeal swabs (NP). But in suspected cases, where these samples are false-negative, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) may prove diagnostic.
OBJECTIVES
Hence, the diagnostic yield of BAL for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in cases of non-diagnostic upper respiratory tract samples is reviewed.
METHODS
Databases such as MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using a systematic search strategy. The current study has been in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and has been registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020224088).
RESULTS
911 records were identified at initial database extraction, of which 317 duplicates were removed and, 596 records were screened for inclusion eligibility. We included total 19 studies in the systematic review, and 17 were included in metanalysis. The pooled estimate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in BAL was 11% (95%CI: 0.01-0.24). A sensitivity analysis also showed that the results appear to be robust and minimal risk of bias amongst the studies.
CONCLUSION
The current study demonstrates that BAL can be used to diagnose additional cases primary disease and superadded infections in patients with severe COVID-19 lower respiratory tract infection.
Topics: Bronchoalveolar Lavage; COVID-19; Humans; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34929538
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2021.11.011 -
Survey of Ophthalmology 2016Intraocular tuberculosis remains a diagnostic and management conundrum for both ophthalmologists and pulmonologists. We analyze the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Intraocular tuberculosis remains a diagnostic and management conundrum for both ophthalmologists and pulmonologists. We analyze the efficacy and safety of anti-tubercular therapy (ATT) in patients with intraocular tuberculosis and factors associated with favorable outcome. Twenty-eight studies are included in this review, with a total of 1,917 patients. Nonrecurrence of inflammation was observed in pooled estimate of 84% of ATT-treated patients (95% CI 79-89). There was minimal difference in the outcome between patients treated with ATT alone (85% successful outcome; 95% CI 25-100) and those with concomitant systemic corticosteroid (82%; 95% CI 73-90). The use of ATT may be of benefit to patients with suspected intraocular tuberculosis; however, this conclusion is limited by the lack of control group analysis and standardized recruitment and treatment protocols. We propose further prospective studies to better establish the efficacy of ATT and ascertain the factors associated with favorable treatment outcomes.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antitubercular Agents; Disease Management; Humans; Prognosis; Tuberculosis, Ocular
PubMed: 26970263
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2016.03.001 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) increased the already heavy workload in the pulmonary and respiratory departments, which therefore possibly increased the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) increased the already heavy workload in the pulmonary and respiratory departments, which therefore possibly increased the prevalence of burnout among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists. We aimed to compare the differences in burnout among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists pre- and post-COVID-19 by doing a systematic review with meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched pulmonologist, or pulmonary, or respiratory, and burnout up to 29 January 2023 in six databases. We included studies investigating pulmonologists or respiratory therapists and reporting the prevalence of burnout among them. The risk of bias was assessed by a tool for prevalence studies. The overall prevalence of burnout was pooled.
RESULTS
A total of 2859 records were identified and 16 studies were included in the final analysis. The included studies reported 3610 responding individuals and 2336 burnouts. The pooled prevalence of burnout was 61.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 48.6-73.2%; = 96.3%). The pooled prevalence of burnout during COVID-19 was significantly higher than it was prior to the outbreak (68.4% vs. 41.6%, = .01). The result of the meta-regression revealed that COVID-19 coverage was significantly associated with the prevalence of burnout ( = .04).
CONCLUSIONS
Burnout was widely prevalent among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists and increasingly perceived during COVID-19. Therefore, interventions were needed to reduce burnout in this specialty.KEY MESSASGESThe coronavirus disease-19 increased the already heavy workload in the pulmonary and respiratory departments.Burnout was widely prevalent among pulmonologists or respiratory therapists and increasingly perceived during COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pulmonologists; Prevalence; Burnout, Professional; Burnout, Psychological
PubMed: 37459584
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2234392 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Sep 2022Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multisystem disease that often requires otolaryngology care. Individuals with CF commonly have chronic rhinosinusitis but also present with...
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multisystem disease that often requires otolaryngology care. Individuals with CF commonly have chronic rhinosinusitis but also present with hearing loss and dysphonia. Given these manifestations of CF, otolaryngologists are frequently involved in the care of patients with CF; however, there is limited consensus on optimal management of sinonasal, otologic, and laryngologic symptoms.
METHODS
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation convened a multidisciplinary team of otolaryngologists, pulmonologists, audiologists, pharmacists, a social worker, a nurse coordinator, a respiratory therapist, two adults with CF, and a caregiver of a child with CF to develop consensus recommendations. Workgroups developed draft recommendation statements based on a systematic literature review, and a ≥80% consensus was required for acceptance of each recommendation statement.
RESULTS
The committee voted on 25 statements. Eleven statements were adopted recommending a treatment or intervention, while five statements were formulated recommending against a specific treatment or intervention. The committee recommended eight statements as an option for select patients in certain circumstances, and one statement did not reach consensus.
CONCLUSION
These multidisciplinary consensus recommendations will help providers navigate decisions related to otolaryngology consultation, medical and surgical management of CF-CRS, hearing, and voice in individuals with CF. A collaborative and multidisciplinary approach is advocated to best care for our patients with CF. Future clinical research is needed utilizing standardized, validated outcomes with comprehensive reporting of patient outcome, effects of modulator therapies, and genetic characteristics to help continue to advance care, decrease morbidity, and improve the quality of life for individuals with CF.
Topics: Adult; Child; Consensus; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Otolaryngology; Quality of Life; Sinusitis
PubMed: 35089650
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22974 -
Thorax Nov 2014Patients with COPD experience respiratory symptoms, impairments of daily living and recurrent exacerbations. The aim of integrated disease management (IDM) is to... (Review)
Review
Patients with COPD experience respiratory symptoms, impairments of daily living and recurrent exacerbations. The aim of integrated disease management (IDM) is to establish a programme of different components of care (ie, self-management, exercise, nutrition) in which several healthcare providers (ie, nurses, general practitioners, physiotherapists, pulmonologists) collaborate to provide efficient and good quality of care. The aim of this Cochrane systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of IDM on quality of life, exercise tolerance and exacerbation related outcomes. Searches for all available evidence were carried out in various databases. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) consisted of interventions with multidisciplinary (≥2 healthcare providers) and multitreatment (≥2 components) IDM interventions with duration of at least 3 months. Two reviewers independently searched, assessed and extracted data of all RCTs. A total of 26 RCTs were included, involving 2997 patients from 11 different countries with a follow-up varying from 3 to 24 months. In all 68% of the patients were men, with a mean age of 68 years and a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) predicted value of 44.3%. Patients treated with an IDM programme improved significantly on quality of life scores and reported a clinically relevant improvement of 44 m on 6 min walking distance, compared to controls. Furthermore, the number of patients with ≥1 respiratory related hospital admission reduced from 27 to 20 per 100 patients. Duration of hospitalisation decreased significantly by nearly 4 days.
Topics: Disease Management; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 24415716
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204974 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone; Invasive Fungal Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 36385229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is the treatment of choice in case of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). PEA is performed by an increasing number of... (Review)
Review
Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is the treatment of choice in case of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). PEA is performed by an increasing number of surgeons; however, the reported outcomes are limited to a few registries or to individual centers' experiences. This systematic review focuses on pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative procedure and post-operative results in patients submitted to PEA for CTEPH. The literature included was searched using a formal strategy, combining the terms "pulmonary endarterectomy" AND "chronic pulmonary hypertension" and focusing on studies published in the last 5 years (2017-2022) to give a comprehensive overview on the most updated literature. The selection of the adequate surgical candidate is a crucial point, and the decision should always be performed by expert multidisciplinary teams composed of surgeons, pulmonologists and radiologists. In all the included studies, the surgical procedure was performed through a median sternotomy with intermittent deep hypothermic circulatory arrest under cardiopulmonary bypass. In case of residual pulmonary hypertension, alternative combined treatments should be considered (balloon angioplasty and/or medical therapy until lung transplantation in highly selected cases). Short- and long-term outcomes, although not homogenous across the different studies, are acceptable in highly experienced CTEPH centers.
PubMed: 36498551
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236976