Take home message: The novel coronavirus can be transmitted from person to person with infection ranging from mild disease to severe pneumonia and radiological abnormalities on chest CT for most patients improved after RT-PCR conversion.

Both COPD and emphysema are associated with an increased incidence of lung cancer, but the impacts of these comorbidities on lung cancer prognosis are still unclear. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to clarify whether the presence of these comorbidities indicates poor survival in patients with lung cancer. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ASCO Abstracts and Cochrane library for articles published before 1 June 2015. Papers referenced by the obtained articles were also reviewed. Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with lung cancer. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Of 58 full texts reviewed, 26 met our inclusion criteria that were derived from 21 and seven studies examining the impacts of COPD and emphysema on survival of lung cancer, respectively. Metaanalyses revealed that concomitant COPD was associated with poorer OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10-1.25, n = 20), which was independent of tumour staging, diagnostic criteria of COPD or location, and DFS (HR, 1.52; 95% CI: 1.04-2.23, n = 6) with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 78%). The presence of emphysema in patients with lung cancer predicted worse OS (HR, 1.66; 95% CI: 1.25-2.22, n = 7), but not poorer DFS. The presence of COPD and emphysema are robust predictors of poor survival in patients with lung cancer. Early detection of these diseases should be taken into account for lung cancer surveillance and management.

While identifying the underlying aetiology is a key part of bronchiectasis management, the prevalence and impact of identifying the aetiologies on clinical management remain unclear. We aimed to determine the etiological spectrum of bronchiectasis, and how often etiological assessment could lead to the changes in patients' management. A comprehensive search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE for observational studies published before October 2015 reporting aetiologies in adults with bronchiectasis. Of the 8216 citations identified, 56 studies including 8608 adults with bronchiectasis were relevant for this systematic review. The crude prevalence for the identified aetiologies ranged from 18% to 95%, which possibly resulted from the differences in the geographic regions and diagnostic workup. Post-infective (29.9%), immunodeficiency (5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (3.9%), connective tissue disease (3.8%), ciliary dysfunction (2.5%), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (2.6%) were the most common aetiologies. In 1577 patients (18.3%), identifying the aetiologies led to changes in patient's management. Aetiologies varied considerably among different geographic regions (P < 0.001). Intensive investigations of these aetiologies might help change patient's management and therefore should be incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Idiopathic, post-infectious and immunodeficiency constitute major bronchiectasis aetiologies in Guangzhou. Clinical characteristics of patients between known aetiologies and idiopathic bronchiectasis were similar. Ethnicity and geography only account for limited differences in aetiologic spectra. These findings will offer rationales for early diagnosis and management of bronchiectasis in future studies and clinical practice in China.

BackgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) has proved to be a useful technique for breathing support. However, complications, discomfort, and failure of NIV were commonly caused by the mask. Therefore, the helmet was developed to improve performance and reduce complications; however, there has been no conclusive results on its effect until now. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of NIV with a helmet versus the control strategy in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).MethodsWe searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, and Embase databases and bibliographies of relevant articles published before June 2016. Randomized and case-control studies that adopted the helmet as an NIV interface and compared it with another interface were included. The primary outcomes were hospital mortality, intubation rate, and complications. The secondary outcomes included the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gas exchange, and respiratory rate. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference by the inverse variance method in a fixed effect model or random effects model according to the heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 11 studies involving 621 patients were included. The overall hospital mortality was 17.53 % in the helmet NIV group versus 30.67 % in the control group. Use of the helmet was associated with lower hospital mortality (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.26 to 0.69, p = 0.0005), intubation rate (OR 0.32, 95 % CI 0.21 to 0.47, P < 0.00001), and complications (OR 0.6, 95 % CI 0.4 to 0.92, P = 0.02). In contrast, there was no significant difference in gas exchange and ICU stay (P >0.05). Subgroup analysis found the helmet reduced mortality mainly in hypoxemic ARF patients (P < 0.05) and a lower intubation rate was shown in randomized trials; fewer complications caused by the helmet might be restricted to case-control trials. Additionally, the effect of the helmet on PaCO2 was influenced by type of ARF and ventilation mode (P <0.00001).ConclusionNIV with a helmet was associated with reduced hospital mortality and intubation requirement. The helmet was as effective as the mask in gas exchange with no additional advantage. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide more robust evidence.