Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate or more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The authors investigated the approach of dual bronchodilation using indacaterol, a once-daily long-acting β2 agonist, and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium, compared with tiotropium alone.MethodsIn two identically designed, double-blind, 12-week studies, patients with moderate to severe COPD were randomised to indacaterol 150 μg once daily or matching placebo. All patients concurrently received open-label tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary outcome was standardised area under the curve of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) from 5 min to 8 h post dose at week 12. The key secondary outcome was 24 h post-dose (‘trough’) FEV1 at week 12. Resting inspiratory capacity (IC) was measured in a subgroup.Results1134 and 1142 patients were randomised in studies 1 and 2; 94% and 94% completed. Compared with monotherapy, concurrent therapy increased FEV1 (area under the curve by 130 and 120 ml, trough by 80 and 70 ml; all p<0.001) and trough IC (by 130 and 100 ml, p<0.01). Cough was more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium (10% and 9%) than with tiotropium alone (4% and 4%). Most cases (∼90%) of cough were mild. Other adverse events were similar for the treatment groups.ConclusionsCompared with tiotropium monotherapy, indacaterol plus tiotropium provided greater bronchodilation and lung deflation (reflected by increased resting IC). Adverse events were similar between treatments apart from mild cough being more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium. These results support COPD guideline recommendations to combine bronchodilators with different mechanisms of action.Trial registration numbersNCT00846586 and NCT00877383.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the ratio of fluoroquinolone (FQ) exposure before the diagnosis of patients with a new case of active pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and to investigate the correlation of this treatment with the emergence of FQ-resistant strains. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective comparative case series study, a total of 132 patients, who had been diagnosed with adult, culture-positive, active pulmonary TB were reviewed. The FQ group had 30 patients who had had ≥1 time and ≥7 days of FQ exposure within 1 year before the diagnoses. The control group included an equal number of patients with TB with similar demographic characteristics (non-FQ group). Ofloxacin (OFX) and moxifloxacin (MFX) resistance were examined at 2 different concentrations (2 and 4 mg/L for OFX; 0.25 and 0.5 mg/L for MFX). RESULTS: Of the 132 patients, 30 (22%) had 7 days or longer of FQ monotherapy within 1 year of initiation of anti-TB treatment. FQ resistance was detected in 2 (3.3%) patients. In the FQ group, MFX resistance at 0.25 mg/L concentration was observed in 1 patient, whereas another patient had OFX and MFX resistance at 4 mg/L and 0.5 mg/L concentrations, respectively. In the non-FQ group, no FQ resistance was detected in any of the patients. No statistically significant difference in terms of development of FQ resistance was found between the ratios of FQ and non-FQ groups (p=0.492). Although there was no statistically significant difference, 2 patients, in whom resistance was detected, had FQ exposure before their diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The FQ exposure ratio before the diagnosis is high (22%) in this cohort that includes patients with new active pulmonary TB, and the presence of patients with FQ resistance (even if only a few) should be a noteworthy and cautionary result in terms of FQ exposure and resistance development.

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is being increasingly used in hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients but the most appropriate ventilation mode is still not known. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate if assisted pressure-controlled ventilation (APCV) can be a better alternative to pressure-support ventilation (PSV) for NIV in COPD patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: In this prospective randomized study, we evaluated the early effects of noninvasive APCV and PSV in 34 consecutive COPD patients with AHRF. Patients were randomized into 1 of the 2 modes, and respiratory and hemodynamic values were compared before and after 1 h of NIV. Results: Baseline values did not differ between the 2 groups. There were significant improvements in partial arterial carbon dioxide pressure and pH levels in the APCV group when compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Cardiac output and cardiac index decreased in both groups (p < 0.05) but more significantly in the PSV group (p < 0.0001). The decreases in stroke volume index and increases in arterial oxygen content after NIV were also considerable in both groups (p < 0.05). Central venous pressure and systemic vascular resistance index values increased notably only after PSV (p < 0.05). Conclusions: From these data, we deduce that APCV can be a better alternative to PSV for NIV in COPD patients with AHRF owing to its more beneficial physiological effects.