Background Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) has previously been shown to improve asthma control out to 2 years in patients with severe persistent asthma. Objective To assess effectiveness and safety of BT in asthma patients 5 years post therapy. Methods BT-treated subjects from the Asthma Intervention Research 2 (AIR2) Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01350414) were evaluated annually for 5 years to assess long-term safety of BT and durability of treatment effect. Outcomes assessed post-BT included severe exacerbations, adverse events, healthcare utilization, spirometry data, and high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. Results 162/190 BT-treated subjects (85.3%) from the AIR2 Trial completed 5 years of follow-up. The proportion of subjects experiencing severe exacerbations and Emergency Room visits, and the rates of events in each of years 1 to 5 remained low and were less than those observed in the 12 months prior to BT treatment (average 5 year reduction in proportions: 44% for exacerbations and 78% for ER visits). Respiratory adverse events and respiratory-related hospitalizations remained unchanged in Years 2 through 5 as compared to the first year after BT. Pre-BD FEV1 values remained stable between years 1 and 5 after BT, despite a 17% reduction in average daily inhaled corticosteroid dose. HRCT scans from baseline to 5 years after BT showed no structural abnormalities that could be attributed to BT. Conclusions These data demonstrate the 5-year durability of the benefits of BT with regard to both asthma control (based on maintained reduction in severe exacerbations and ER visits for respiratory symptoms) and safety. BT has become an important addition to our treatment armamentarium and should be considered for patients with severe persistent asthma who remain symptomatic despite taking ICS (inhaled corticosteroids) and LABA (long-acting-β2-agonists).

The objective of this study was to test whether a telehealth intervention could improve the compliance with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by patients with sleep apnea. These patients had been nonadherent for the initial 3 months of therapy even after receiving the initial standard and then supplemental audiotaped/videotaped patient education for adhering to CPAP nightly. The materials and methods included a randomized testing of experimental and placebo interventions. Interventions were delivered by nurses to two groups in their homes by telehealth over a 12-week period. The placebo intervention was used to control for Hawthorne effect, time and attention influences and the novelty of having telehealth in the home. Results following the telehealth interventions were that significantly more patients in the experimental group 1 (n ‫؍‬ 10) than the placebo group 2 (n ‫؍‬ 9) were adhering nightly to CPAP ( 2 ‫؍‬ 4.55, p ‫؍‬ 0.033). Group 1 patients reported greater satisfaction with their intervention. However, both groups rated telehealth delivery positively. The mean cost of each 20-minute telehealth visit was $30 while the total cost of the telehealth intervention for each patient was $420. These costs included telehealth equipment, initial installation, longdistance telephone charges, nurse salary, and intervention materials. Conclusions are that telehealth interventions are a potentially cost-effective service for increasing adherence to prescribed medical treatments. Replication studies with large samples and in other clinical groups are recommended.

Uncontrolled pilot studies demonstrated promising results of endoscopic lung volume reduction using emphysematous lung sealant (ELS) in patients with advanced, upper lobe predominant emphysema. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELS in a randomised controlled setting. Patients were randomised to ELS plus medical treatment or medical treatment alone. Despite early termination for business reasons and inability to assess the primary 12-month end-point, 95 out of 300 patients were successfully randomised, providing sufficient data for 3- and 6-month analysis. 57 patients (34 treatment and 23 control) had efficacy results at 3 months; 34 (21 treatment and 13 control) at 6 months. In the treatment group, 3-month lung function, dyspnoea, and quality of life improved significantly from baseline when compared to control. Improvements persisted at 6 months with >50% of treated patients experiencing clinically important improvements, including some whose lung function improved by >100%. 44% of treated patients experienced adverse events requiring hospitalization (2.5-fold more than control, p=0.01), with two deaths in the treated cohort. Treatment responders tended to be those experiencing respiratory adverse events. Despite early termination, results show that minimally invasive ELS may be efficacious, yet significant risks (probably inflammatory) limit its current utility.

BioLVR improves physiology and functional outcomes up to 6 months with an acceptable safety profile in upper lobe predominant emphysema. Overall improvement was greater and responses more durable with 20 ml per site than 10 ml per site dosing. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00435253 and NCT 00515164).

No abstract