var bibbase_data = {"data":"\"Loading..\"\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n
\n generated by\n \n \"bibbase.org\"\n\n \n
\n \n\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page by copying & pasting\n any of the following snippets.\n\n
\n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n
\n \n <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FNYG2RI7X%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DAfCmNvQz44bDQHYTFDzNWXL7%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n \n
\n\n PHP\n
\n \n <?php\n $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FNYG2RI7X%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DAfCmNvQz44bDQHYTFDzNWXL7%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\");\n print_r($contents);\n ?>\n \n
\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n
\n \n <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FNYG2RI7X%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DAfCmNvQz44bDQHYTFDzNWXL7%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n \n
\n\n

\n For more details see the documention.\n

\n
\n
\n\n
\n\n This is a preview! To use this list on your own web site\n or create a new web site from it,\n create a free account. The file will be added\n and you will be able to edit it in the File Manager.\n We will show you instructions once you've created your account.\n
\n\n
\n\n

To the site owner:

\n\n

Action required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n

    \n
  1. renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
  2. \n
  3. update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n
  4. \n
\n

\n\n

\n \n \n Fix it now\n

\n
\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n  \n 2021\n \n \n (52)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n SMART for the treatment of asthma: A network meta-analysis of real-world evidence.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Rogliani, P.; Beasley, R.; Cazzola, M.; and Calzetta, L.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respiratory Medicine, 188: 106611. November 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"SMARTPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{rogliani_smart_2021,\n\ttitle = {{SMART} for the treatment of asthma: {A} network meta-analysis of real-world evidence},\n\tvolume = {188},\n\tissn = {09546111},\n\tshorttitle = {{SMART} for the treatment of asthma},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095461112100319X},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106611},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2022-03-27},\n\tjournal = {Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Rogliani, Paola and Beasley, Richard and Cazzola, Mario and Calzetta, Luigino},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {106611},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Enhanced airway sensory nerve reactivity in non-eosinophilic asthma.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ali, H.; Brooks, C.; Crane, J.; Beasley, R.; Holgate, S.; Gibson, P.; Pattemore, P.; Tzeng, Y.; Stanley, T.; Pearce, N.; and Douwes, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 8(1): e000974. November 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"EnhancedPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{ali_enhanced_2021,\n\ttitle = {Enhanced airway sensory nerve reactivity in non-eosinophilic asthma},\n\tvolume = {8},\n\tissn = {2052-4439},\n\turl = {https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjresp-2021-000974},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjresp-2021-000974},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              Neural mechanisms may play an important role in non-eosinophilic asthma (NEA). This study compared airway sensory nerve reactivity, using capsaicin challenge, in eosinophilic asthma (EA) and NEA and non-asthmatics.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              \n                Thirty-eight asthmatics and 19 non-asthmatics (aged 14–21 years) underwent combined hypertonic saline challenge/sputum induction, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, atopy and spirometry tests, followed by capsaicin challenge. EA and NEA were defined using a sputum eosinophil cut-point of 2.5\\%. Airway hyperreactivity was defined as a ≥15\\% drop in FEV\n                1\n                during saline challenge. Sensory nerve reactivity was defined as the lowest capsaicin concentration that evoked 5 (C5) coughs.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                Non-eosinophilic asthmatics (n=20) had heightened capsaicin sensitivity (lower C5) compared with non-asthmatics (n=19) (geometric mean C5: 58.3 µM, 95\\% CI 24.1 to 141.5 vs 193.6 µM, 82.2 to 456.0; p{\\textless}0.05). NEA tended to also have greater capsaicin sensitivity than EA, with the difference in capsaicin sensitivity between NEA and EA being of similar magnitude (58.3 µM, 24.1 to 141.5 vs 191.0 µM, 70.9 to 514.0) to that observed between NEA and non-asthmatics; however, this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.07). FEV\n                1\n                was significantly reduced from baseline following capsaicin inhalation in both asthmatics and non-asthmatics but no differences were found between subgroups. No associations with capsaicin sensitivity and atopy, sputum eosinophils, blood eosinophils, asthma control or treatment were observed.\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusion\n              NEA, but not EA, showed enhanced capsaicin sensitivity compared with non-asthmatics. Sensory nerve reactivity may therefore play an important role in the pathophysiology of NEA.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2022-03-27},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open Respiratory Research},\n\tauthor = {Ali, Hajar and Brooks, Collin and Crane, Julian and Beasley, Richard and Holgate, Stephen and Gibson, Peter and Pattemore, Philip and Tzeng, Yu-Chieh and Stanley, Thorsten and Pearce, Neil and Douwes, Jeroen},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e000974},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Neural mechanisms may play an important role in non-eosinophilic asthma (NEA). This study compared airway sensory nerve reactivity, using capsaicin challenge, in eosinophilic asthma (EA) and NEA and non-asthmatics. Methods Thirty-eight asthmatics and 19 non-asthmatics (aged 14–21 years) underwent combined hypertonic saline challenge/sputum induction, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, atopy and spirometry tests, followed by capsaicin challenge. EA and NEA were defined using a sputum eosinophil cut-point of 2.5%. Airway hyperreactivity was defined as a ≥15% drop in FEV 1 during saline challenge. Sensory nerve reactivity was defined as the lowest capsaicin concentration that evoked 5 (C5) coughs. Results Non-eosinophilic asthmatics (n=20) had heightened capsaicin sensitivity (lower C5) compared with non-asthmatics (n=19) (geometric mean C5: 58.3 µM, 95% CI 24.1 to 141.5 vs 193.6 µM, 82.2 to 456.0; p\\textless0.05). NEA tended to also have greater capsaicin sensitivity than EA, with the difference in capsaicin sensitivity between NEA and EA being of similar magnitude (58.3 µM, 24.1 to 141.5 vs 191.0 µM, 70.9 to 514.0) to that observed between NEA and non-asthmatics; however, this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.07). FEV 1 was significantly reduced from baseline following capsaicin inhalation in both asthmatics and non-asthmatics but no differences were found between subgroups. No associations with capsaicin sensitivity and atopy, sputum eosinophils, blood eosinophils, asthma control or treatment were observed. Conclusion NEA, but not EA, showed enhanced capsaicin sensitivity compared with non-asthmatics. Sensory nerve reactivity may therefore play an important role in the pathophysiology of NEA.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Asthma in the anti-inflammatory reliever therapy era.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Baggott, C.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 9(2): 118–119. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AsthmaPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{baggott_asthma_2021,\n\ttitle = {Asthma in the anti-inflammatory reliever therapy era},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {22132600},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213260020304653},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30465-3},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2022-03-27},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Baggott, Christina and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {118--119},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Potential Association Between Dietary Fibre and Humoral Response to the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Cait, A.; Mooney, A.; Poyntz, H.; Shortt, N.; Jones, A.; Gestin, A.; Gell, K.; Grooby, A.; O’Sullivan, D.; Tang, J. S.; Young, W.; Thayabaran, D.; Sparks, J.; Ostapowicz, T.; Tay, A.; Poppitt, S. D.; Elliott, S.; Wakefield, G.; Parry-Strong, A.; Ralston, J.; Beasley, R.; Weatherall, M.; Braithwaite, I.; Forbes-Blom, E.; and Gasser, O.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Frontiers in Immunology, 12: 765528. November 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"PotentialPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{cait_potential_2021,\n\ttitle = {Potential {Association} {Between} {Dietary} {Fibre} and {Humoral} {Response} to the {Seasonal} {Influenza} {Vaccine}},\n\tvolume = {12},\n\tissn = {1664-3224},\n\turl = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.765528/full},\n\tdoi = {10.3389/fimmu.2021.765528},\n\tabstract = {Influenza vaccination is an effective public health measure to reduce the risk of influenza illness, particularly when the vaccine is well matched to circulating strains. Notwithstanding, the efficacy of influenza vaccination varies greatly among vaccinees due to largely unknown immunological determinants, thereby dampening population-wide protection. Here, we report that dietary fibre may play a significant role in humoral vaccine responses. We found dietary fibre intake and the abundance of fibre-fermenting intestinal bacteria to be positively correlated with humoral influenza vaccine-specific immune responses in human vaccinees, albeit without reaching statistical significance. Importantly, this correlation was largely driven by first-time vaccinees; prior influenza vaccination negatively correlated with vaccine immunogenicity. In support of these observations, dietary fibre consumption significantly enhanced humoral influenza vaccine responses in mice, where the effect was mechanistically linked to short-chain fatty acids, the bacterial fermentation product of dietary fibre. Overall, these findings may bear significant importance for emerging infectious agents, such as COVID-19, and associated\n              de novo\n              vaccinations.},\n\turldate = {2022-03-27},\n\tjournal = {Frontiers in Immunology},\n\tauthor = {Cait, Alissa and Mooney, Anna and Poyntz, Hazel and Shortt, Nick and Jones, Angela and Gestin, Aurélie and Gell, Katie and Grooby, Alix and O’Sullivan, David and Tang, Jeffry S. and Young, Wayne and Thayabaran, Darmiga and Sparks, Jenny and Ostapowicz, Tess and Tay, Audrey and Poppitt, Sally D. and Elliott, Sarah and Wakefield, Georgia and Parry-Strong, Amber and Ralston, Jacqui and Beasley, Richard and Weatherall, Mark and Braithwaite, Irene and Forbes-Blom, Elizabeth and Gasser, Olivier},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {765528},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Influenza vaccination is an effective public health measure to reduce the risk of influenza illness, particularly when the vaccine is well matched to circulating strains. Notwithstanding, the efficacy of influenza vaccination varies greatly among vaccinees due to largely unknown immunological determinants, thereby dampening population-wide protection. Here, we report that dietary fibre may play a significant role in humoral vaccine responses. We found dietary fibre intake and the abundance of fibre-fermenting intestinal bacteria to be positively correlated with humoral influenza vaccine-specific immune responses in human vaccinees, albeit without reaching statistical significance. Importantly, this correlation was largely driven by first-time vaccinees; prior influenza vaccination negatively correlated with vaccine immunogenicity. In support of these observations, dietary fibre consumption significantly enhanced humoral influenza vaccine responses in mice, where the effect was mechanistically linked to short-chain fatty acids, the bacterial fermentation product of dietary fibre. Overall, these findings may bear significant importance for emerging infectious agents, such as COVID-19, and associated de novo vaccinations.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audit of oxygen administration to achieve a target oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell medical patients.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J.; Kearns, N.; Bird, G.; McLachlan, R.; Eathorne, A.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Postgraduate Medical Journal,postgradmedj–2020–139511. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AuditPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harper_audit_2021,\n\ttitle = {Audit of oxygen administration to achieve a target oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell medical patients},\n\tissn = {0032-5473, 1469-0756},\n\turl = {https://pmj.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139511},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139511},\n\tabstract = {Purpose of the study\n              \n                To evaluate documentation of a target oxygen saturation (SpO\n                2\n                ) range and ability to achieve this range in acutely unwell inpatients.\n              \n            \n            \n              Study design\n              \n                In this single-centre audit, patients with discharge diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure and exacerbation of asthma or COPD admitted to Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand between 1 June 2019 and 31 August 2019 who received oxygen were identified. In those with a documented target SpO\n                2\n                range, the proportion of SpO\n                2\n                measurements in the observation chart which were within, above and below range were determined as well as the maximum and minimum SpO\n                2\n                . Regression analysis was performed to determine whether these outcomes were influenced by the prescribed range, high-dependency care or the number of adjustments to oxygen administration.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                268 admissions were screened. Of the 100 eligible admissions who received oxygen, a target SpO\n                2\n                range was documented in 62. The mean (SD) proportion of SpO\n                2\n                measurements within range was 56.2 (30.6)\\%. A hypercapnic target SpO\n                2\n                range was associated with a higher probability of an SpO\n                2\n                above range; multivariate OR 5.34 (95\\% CI 1.65 to 17.3, p=0.006) and a lower probability of an SpO\n                2\n                below range; multivariate OR 0.25 (95\\% CI 0.08 to 0.80) p=0.02. The mean (SD) maximum SpO\n                2\n                was similar in those with a target range of 92\\%–96\\% versus a hypercapnic range; 96.2 (3.0)\\% and 95.2 (3.4)\\%, respectively.\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              \n                Oxygen prescription and delivery in this clinical setting was suboptimal. SpO\n                2\n                values above the designated range are common, particularly in patients with a hypercapnic target range.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2022-03-04},\n\tjournal = {Postgraduate Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James and Kearns, Nethmi and Bird, Grace and McLachlan, Robert and Eathorne, Allie and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {postgradmedj--2020--139511},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Purpose of the study To evaluate documentation of a target oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) range and ability to achieve this range in acutely unwell inpatients. Study design In this single-centre audit, patients with discharge diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure and exacerbation of asthma or COPD admitted to Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand between 1 June 2019 and 31 August 2019 who received oxygen were identified. In those with a documented target SpO 2 range, the proportion of SpO 2 measurements in the observation chart which were within, above and below range were determined as well as the maximum and minimum SpO 2 . Regression analysis was performed to determine whether these outcomes were influenced by the prescribed range, high-dependency care or the number of adjustments to oxygen administration. Results 268 admissions were screened. Of the 100 eligible admissions who received oxygen, a target SpO 2 range was documented in 62. The mean (SD) proportion of SpO 2 measurements within range was 56.2 (30.6)%. A hypercapnic target SpO 2 range was associated with a higher probability of an SpO 2 above range; multivariate OR 5.34 (95% CI 1.65 to 17.3, p=0.006) and a lower probability of an SpO 2 below range; multivariate OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.80) p=0.02. The mean (SD) maximum SpO 2 was similar in those with a target range of 92%–96% versus a hypercapnic range; 96.2 (3.0)% and 95.2 (3.4)%, respectively. Conclusions Oxygen prescription and delivery in this clinical setting was suboptimal. SpO 2 values above the designated range are common, particularly in patients with a hypercapnic target range.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Asthma and COVID-19: Preconceptions about Predisposition.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Beasley, R.; Hills, T.; and Kearns, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 203(7): 799–801. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AsthmaPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{beasley_asthma_2021,\n\ttitle = {Asthma and {COVID}-19: {Preconceptions} about {Predisposition}},\n\tvolume = {203},\n\tissn = {1073-449X, 1535-4970},\n\tshorttitle = {Asthma and {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/rccm.202102-0266ED},\n\tdoi = {10.1164/rccm.202102-0266ED},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {7},\n\turldate = {2022-03-04},\n\tjournal = {American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Beasley, Richard and Hills, Thomas and Kearns, Nethmi},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {799--801},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Charting a course for the management of long COVID.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Beasley, R.; Kearns, N.; and Hills, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 9(12): 1358–1360. December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ChartingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{beasley_charting_2021,\n\ttitle = {Charting a course for the management of long {COVID}},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {22132600},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213260021003143},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00314-3},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {12},\n\turldate = {2022-03-04},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Beasley, Richard and Kearns, Nethmi and Hills, Tom},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {1358--1360},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Determination of oxygen saturation compared to a prescribed target range using continuous pulse oximetry in acutely unwell medical patients.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J. C. P.; Semprini, R.; Kearns, N. A.; Hatter, L.; Bird, G. E.; Braithwaite, I.; Eathorne, A.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 21(1): 332. December 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"DeterminationPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harper_determination_2021,\n\ttitle = {Determination of oxygen saturation compared to a prescribed target range using continuous pulse oximetry in acutely unwell medical patients},\n\tvolume = {21},\n\tissn = {1471-2466},\n\turl = {https://bmcpulmmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12890-021-01700-6},\n\tdoi = {10.1186/s12890-021-01700-6},\n\tabstract = {Abstract\n            \n              Background\n              \n                Both inadequate and excessive administration of oxygen to acutely unwell patients results in risk of harm. Guidelines recommend titration of oxygen to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO\n                2\n                ) range. Information regarding whether this is being achieved is limited.\n              \n            \n            \n              Methods\n              \n                In this two-centre non-interventional study we used continuous pulse oximetry in acutely unwell medical patients over a 24-h period to determine the proportion of time spent with SpO\n                2\n                within the prescribed target range and whether this is influenced by the target range, age, care in a high-dependency area and the number of oxygen adjustments.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                Eighty participants were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) proportion of time spent in target range was 55.6\\% (23.6), this was lower in those with a reduced hypercapnic target range (88–92\\% or below) compared to those with a range of 92–96\\%; difference − 13.1\\% (95\\% CI − 3.0 to − 23.2),\n                P\n                 = 0.012. The proportion of time spent above range was 16.2\\% (22.9); this was higher in those with a reduced hypercapnic range; difference 21.6\\% (31.4 to 12),\n                P\n                 {\\textless} 0.001. The proportion of time below range was 28.4\\% (25.2); there was no difference between target ranges. The proportion of time spent in range was higher for those in a high dependency area in the multivariate model; difference 15.5\\% (95\\% CI 2.3 to 28.7),\n                P\n                 = 0.02.\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              \n                Medical patients receiving oxygen in a ward setting spend significant periods of time with SpO\n                2\n                both above and below the prescribed target range while receiving oxygen therapy.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2022-03-04},\n\tjournal = {BMC Pulmonary Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James C. P. and Semprini, Ruth and Kearns, Nethmi A. and Hatter, Lee and Bird, Grace E. and Braithwaite, Irene and Eathorne, Allie and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {332},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Abstract Background Both inadequate and excessive administration of oxygen to acutely unwell patients results in risk of harm. Guidelines recommend titration of oxygen to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) range. Information regarding whether this is being achieved is limited. Methods In this two-centre non-interventional study we used continuous pulse oximetry in acutely unwell medical patients over a 24-h period to determine the proportion of time spent with SpO 2 within the prescribed target range and whether this is influenced by the target range, age, care in a high-dependency area and the number of oxygen adjustments. Results Eighty participants were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) proportion of time spent in target range was 55.6% (23.6), this was lower in those with a reduced hypercapnic target range (88–92% or below) compared to those with a range of 92–96%; difference − 13.1% (95% CI − 3.0 to − 23.2), P  = 0.012. The proportion of time spent above range was 16.2% (22.9); this was higher in those with a reduced hypercapnic range; difference 21.6% (31.4 to 12), P  \\textless 0.001. The proportion of time below range was 28.4% (25.2); there was no difference between target ranges. The proportion of time spent in range was higher for those in a high dependency area in the multivariate model; difference 15.5% (95% CI 2.3 to 28.7), P  = 0.02. Conclusions Medical patients receiving oxygen in a ward setting spend significant periods of time with SpO 2 both above and below the prescribed target range while receiving oxygen therapy.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bird, G.; Braithwaite, I.; Harper, J.; Koorevaar, I.; van den Berg, M.; Maijers, I.; Kearns, N.; Dilcher, M.; Jennings, L.; Fingleton, J.; Shortt, N.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 11(11): e047760. November 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"RhinothermyPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{bird_rhinothermy_2021,\n\ttitle = {Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold: a randomised controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {11},\n\tissn = {2044-6055, 2044-6055},\n\tshorttitle = {Rhinothermy delivered by nasal high flow therapy in the treatment of the common cold},\n\turl = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047760},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047760},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              The common cold is the most common infectious disease affecting humans and has a substantial economic impact on society. Human rhinoviruses, which cause almost two-thirds of colds, have demonstrated temperature-dependent replication which is optimal between 33°C and 35°C.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              This randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial completed at a single-centre in New Zealand, recruited 170 participants aged 18–75 years (mean age 27.5 years) who were within 48 hours of common cold symptom onset and had a symptom score (the Modified Jackson Score (MJS)) ≥7 and a negative point-of-care test for influenza. Participants were blinded to the intervention and randomised (1:1) to 5 days of either nasal high flow rhinothermy (rNHF) (100\\% humidified air delivered at 35 L/min and 41°C for 2 hours daily) (n=85) or ‘sham’ rhinothermy (100\\% humidified air delivered at 10 L/min and 31°C for 10 min daily) (n=85) and completed daily symptom diaries, which included the MJS, for 14 days, to investigate whether rNHF reduced common cold symptom severity and duration compared with ‘sham’ rhinothermy.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              An intention-to-treat superiority analysis included all randomised participants and showed no difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome, the day 4 MJS analysed by analysis of covariance: mean (SD) 6.33 (3.97) for rNHF vs 5.8 (3.15) for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95\\% CI) 0.37 (−0.69 to 1.42), p=0.49. There was no difference in time until resolution of symptoms: mean (SD) 5.96 (4.47) days for rNHF vs 6.42 (4.09) days for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95\\% CI) 1.02 (0.75 to 1.38), p=0.91. There were no serious adverse events related to the study treatments.\n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              This well-powered, single-blind randomised controlled trial does not provide evidence that 5 days of rNHF (100\\% humidified air heated to 41°C delivered at 35 L/min for 2 hours daily) reduces common cold symptom severity or duration. However, investigation of rNHF in the treatment of influenza is warranted.\n            \n            \n              Trial registration number\n              ACTRN12617001340325.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {11},\n\turldate = {2022-03-04},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Harper, James and Koorevaar, Iris and van den Berg, Marthe and Maijers, Ingrid and Kearns, Nethmi and Dilcher, Meik and Jennings, Lance and Fingleton, James and Shortt, Nick and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e047760},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background The common cold is the most common infectious disease affecting humans and has a substantial economic impact on society. Human rhinoviruses, which cause almost two-thirds of colds, have demonstrated temperature-dependent replication which is optimal between 33°C and 35°C. Methods This randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial completed at a single-centre in New Zealand, recruited 170 participants aged 18–75 years (mean age 27.5 years) who were within 48 hours of common cold symptom onset and had a symptom score (the Modified Jackson Score (MJS)) ≥7 and a negative point-of-care test for influenza. Participants were blinded to the intervention and randomised (1:1) to 5 days of either nasal high flow rhinothermy (rNHF) (100% humidified air delivered at 35 L/min and 41°C for 2 hours daily) (n=85) or ‘sham’ rhinothermy (100% humidified air delivered at 10 L/min and 31°C for 10 min daily) (n=85) and completed daily symptom diaries, which included the MJS, for 14 days, to investigate whether rNHF reduced common cold symptom severity and duration compared with ‘sham’ rhinothermy. Results An intention-to-treat superiority analysis included all randomised participants and showed no difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome, the day 4 MJS analysed by analysis of covariance: mean (SD) 6.33 (3.97) for rNHF vs 5.8 (3.15) for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95% CI) 0.37 (−0.69 to 1.42), p=0.49. There was no difference in time until resolution of symptoms: mean (SD) 5.96 (4.47) days for rNHF vs 6.42 (4.09) days for ‘sham’; estimated difference (95% CI) 1.02 (0.75 to 1.38), p=0.91. There were no serious adverse events related to the study treatments. Conclusions This well-powered, single-blind randomised controlled trial does not provide evidence that 5 days of rNHF (100% humidified air heated to 41°C delivered at 35 L/min for 2 hours daily) reduces common cold symptom severity or duration. However, investigation of rNHF in the treatment of influenza is warranted. Trial registration number ACTRN12617001340325.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n COVID-19 border controls prevent a 2021 seasonal influenza epidemic in New Zealand.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hills, T.; Hatter, L.; Kearns, N.; Bruce, P.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Public Health, 200: e6–e7. November 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"COVID-19Paper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{hills_covid-19_2021,\n\ttitle = {{COVID}-19 border controls prevent a 2021 seasonal influenza epidemic in {New} {Zealand}},\n\tvolume = {200},\n\tissn = {00333506},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350621003607},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.puhe.2021.09.013},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2022-03-04},\n\tjournal = {Public Health},\n\tauthor = {Hills, T. and Hatter, L. and Kearns, N. and Bruce, P. and Beasley, R.},\n\tmonth = nov,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e6--e7},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Arabi, Y. M.; Gordon, A. C.; and Investigators\", \". R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Intensive Care Medicine, 47(8): 867–886. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Lopinavir-ritonavirPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{arabi_lopinavir-ritonavir_2021,\n\ttitle = {Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with {COVID}-19: {REMAP}-{CAP} randomized controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {47},\n\tissn = {0342-4642, 1432-1238},\n\tshorttitle = {Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {8},\n\turldate = {2021-10-02},\n\tjournal = {Intensive Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Arabi, Yaseen M. and Gordon, Anthony C. and "the REMAP-CAP Investigators"},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {867--886},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Respiratory syncytial virus: paying the immunity debt with interest.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hatter, L.; Eathorne, A.; Hills, T.; Bruce, P.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health,S2352464221003333. October 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"RespiratoryPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{hatter_respiratory_2021,\n\ttitle = {Respiratory syncytial virus: paying the immunity debt with interest},\n\tissn = {23524642},\n\tshorttitle = {Respiratory syncytial virus},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352464221003333},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00333-3},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-10-28},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Child \\& Adolescent Health},\n\tauthor = {Hatter, Lee and Eathorne, Allie and Hills, Thomas and Bruce, Pepa and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S2352464221003333},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J.; Kearns, N.; Bird, G.; Braithwaite, I.; Eathorne, A.; Shortt, N.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 8(1): e000843. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AutomaticPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harper_automatic_2021,\n\ttitle = {Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {8},\n\tissn = {2052-4439},\n\tshorttitle = {Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness},\n\turl = {https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              \n                Guideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO\n                2\n                ) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO\n                2\n                outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO\n                2\n                within a prescribed target range\n              \n            \n            \n              Methods\n              \n                An open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO\n                2\n                range of 88\\%–92\\% or 92\\%–96\\% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO\n                2\n                within the prescribed range.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2\\% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71\\% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95\\% CI) 24.2\\% (7.9\\% to 35\\%), p{\\textless}0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO\n                2\n                ≥2\\% above and ≥2\\% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1\\% (−8.2\\% to −0.04\\%), p=0.017 and −2.4\\% (−11.5\\% to 0.3\\%), p=0.05 respectively.\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              \n                Nasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO\n                2\n                in target range compared with manual titration.\n              \n            \n            \n              Trial registration\n              The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-10-02},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open Respiratory Research},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James and Kearns, Nethmi and Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Eathorne, Allie and Shortt, Nicholas and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e000843},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Guideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO 2 outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO 2 within a prescribed target range Methods An open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO 2 range of 88%–92% or 92%–96% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO 2 within the prescribed range. Results 20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95% CI) 24.2% (7.9% to 35%), p\\textless0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO 2 ≥2% above and ≥2% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1% (−8.2% to −0.04%), p=0.017 and −2.4% (−11.5% to 0.3%), p=0.05 respectively. Conclusions Nasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO 2 in target range compared with manual titration. Trial registration The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Charting a course for the management of long COVID.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Beasley, R.; Kearns, N.; and Hills, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Respiratory Medicine,S2213260021003143. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ChartingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{beasley_charting_2021-1,\n\ttitle = {Charting a course for the management of long {COVID}},\n\tissn = {22132600},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213260021003143},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00314-3},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-10-02},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Beasley, Richard and Kearns, Nethmi and Hills, Tom},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S2213260021003143},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Preventing adverse cardiac events (PACE) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): study protocol for a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised controlled trial of bisoprolol in COPD.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Martin, A.; Hancox, R. J; Chang, C. L; Beasley, R.; Wrobel, J.; McDonald, V.; Dobler, C. C; Yang, I. A; Farah, C. S; Cochrane, B.; Hillis, G. S; Scowcroft, C. P.; Aggarwal, A.; Di Tanna, G. L.; Balicki, G.; Galgey, S.; and Jenkins, C.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 11(8): e053446. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"PreventingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{martin_preventing_2021,\n\ttitle = {Preventing adverse cardiac events ({PACE}) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ({COPD}): study protocol for a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised controlled trial of bisoprolol in {COPD}},\n\tvolume = {11},\n\tissn = {2044-6055, 2044-6055},\n\tshorttitle = {Preventing adverse cardiac events ({PACE}) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ({COPD})},\n\turl = {https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053446},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053446},\n\tabstract = {Introduction\n              Heart disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common but neglected comorbidity. Patients with COPD are frequently excluded from clinical trials of treatments aimed at reducing cardiac morbidity and mortality, which has led to undertreatment of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. A particular concern in COPD is the underuse of beta (β)-blockers. There is observational evidence that cardioselective β-blockers are safe and may even reduce mortality risk in COPD, although some evidence is conflicting. There is an urgent need to answer the research question: Are cardioselective β-blockers safe and of benefit in people with moderately severe COPD? The proposed study will investigate whether cardioselective β-blocker treatment in patients with COPD reduces mortality and cardiac and respiratory morbidity.\n            \n            \n              Methods and analyses\n              This is a double-blind, randomised controlled trial to be conducted in approximately 26 sites in Australia, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka and other countries as required. Participants with COPD will be randomised to either bisoprolol once daily (range 1.25–5 mg, dependent on tolerated dose) or matched placebo, in addition to receiving usual care for their COPD over the study duration of 24 months.\n              \n                The study will enrol 1164 participants with moderate to severe COPD, aged 40–85 years. Participants will be symptomatic from their COPD and have a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV\n                1\n                ) ≥30\\% and ≤70\\% predicted and a history of at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, antibiotics or both in the prior 24 months.\n              \n            \n            \n              Ethics and dissemination\n              The study protocol has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee at The Concord Repatriation General Hospital.\n            \n            \n              Trial registration numbers\n              \n                NCT03917914\n                ; CTRI/2020/08/027322.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {8},\n\turldate = {2021-10-02},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Martin, Allison and Hancox, Robert J and Chang, Catherina L and Beasley, Richard and Wrobel, Jeremy and McDonald, Vanessa and Dobler, Claudia C and Yang, Ian A and Farah, Claude S and Cochrane, Belinda and Hillis, Graham S and Scowcroft, Caroline Polak and Aggarwal, Ashutosh and Di Tanna, Gian Luca and Balicki, Grace and Galgey, Shane and Jenkins, Christine},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e053446},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Introduction Heart disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common but neglected comorbidity. Patients with COPD are frequently excluded from clinical trials of treatments aimed at reducing cardiac morbidity and mortality, which has led to undertreatment of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. A particular concern in COPD is the underuse of beta (β)-blockers. There is observational evidence that cardioselective β-blockers are safe and may even reduce mortality risk in COPD, although some evidence is conflicting. There is an urgent need to answer the research question: Are cardioselective β-blockers safe and of benefit in people with moderately severe COPD? The proposed study will investigate whether cardioselective β-blocker treatment in patients with COPD reduces mortality and cardiac and respiratory morbidity. Methods and analyses This is a double-blind, randomised controlled trial to be conducted in approximately 26 sites in Australia, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka and other countries as required. Participants with COPD will be randomised to either bisoprolol once daily (range 1.25–5 mg, dependent on tolerated dose) or matched placebo, in addition to receiving usual care for their COPD over the study duration of 24 months. The study will enrol 1164 participants with moderate to severe COPD, aged 40–85 years. Participants will be symptomatic from their COPD and have a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) ≥30% and ≤70% predicted and a history of at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, antibiotics or both in the prior 24 months. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee at The Concord Repatriation General Hospital. Trial registration numbers NCT03917914 ; CTRI/2020/08/027322.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n COVID-19 border controls prevent a 2021 seasonal influenza epidemic in New Zealand.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hills, T.; Hatter, L.; Kearns, N.; Bruce, P.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Public Health,S0033350621003607. September 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"COVID-19Paper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{hills_covid-19_2021-1,\n\ttitle = {{COVID}-19 border controls prevent a 2021 seasonal influenza epidemic in {New} {Zealand}},\n\tissn = {00333506},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033350621003607},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.puhe.2021.09.013},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-09-29},\n\tjournal = {Public Health},\n\tauthor = {Hills, Thomas and Hatter, Lee and Kearns, Nethmi and Bruce, Pepa and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S0033350621003607},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 in Wellington, New Zealand: a retrospective, observational study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kearns, N.; Eathorne, A.; Luff, T.; Kearns, C.; Thornley, C.; Semprini, A.; Beasley, R.; and Nesdale, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n New Zealand Medical Journal, 134(1542): 38–49. September 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ClinicalPaper\n  \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{kearns_clinical_2021,\n\ttitle = {Clinical and epidemiological characteristics of {COVID}-19 in {Wellington}, {New} {Zealand}: a retrospective, observational study},\n\tvolume = {134},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\turl = {https://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/clinical-and-epidemiological-characteristics-of-covid-19-in-wellington-new-zealand-a-retrospective-observational-study},\n\tnumber = {1542},\n\turldate = {2021-09-17},\n\tjournal = {New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Kearns, Nethmi and Eathorne, Allie and Luff, Tessa and Kearns, Ciléin and Thornley, Craig and Semprini, Alex and Beasley, Richard and Nesdale, Annette},\n\tmonth = sep,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {38--49},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Te Ao, B.; Harwood, M.; Fu, V.; Weatherall, M.; McPherson, K.; Taylor, W. J; McRae, A.; Thomson, T.; Gommans, J.; Green, G.; Ranta, A.; Hanger, C.; Riley, J.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation,026921552110407. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"EconomicPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{te_ao_economic_2021,\n\ttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke: {Results} from a randomised trial},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tabstract = {Objective:\n              To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.\n            \n            \n              Design:\n              An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment\n            \n            \n              Setting:\n              Community.\n            \n            \n              Participants:\n              Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.\n            \n            \n              Interventions:\n              The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions).\n            \n            \n              Measures:\n              The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.\n            \n            \n              Results:\n              One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95\\% CI) \\$US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and \\$6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95\\% CI) difference \\$ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95\\% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95\\% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was \\$US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of \\$US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99\\%.\n            \n            \n              Conclusion:\n              Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-09-09},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Te Ao, Braden and Harwood, Matire and Fu, Vivian and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Taylor, William J and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {026921552110407},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objective: To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment Setting: Community. Participants: Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions). Measures: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Results: One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95% CI) $US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and $6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95% CI) difference $ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was $US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of $US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99%. Conclusion: Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Optimising a targeted test reduction intervention for patients admitted to the intensive care unit: The Targeted Intensive Care Test Ordering Cluster Trial intervention.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Litton, E.; Atkinson, H.; Anstey, J.; Anstey, M.; Campbell, L. T.; Forbes, A.; Hahn, R.; Hooper, K.; Kasza, J.; Knapp, S.; McGain, F.; Ngyuen, N.; Pilcher, D.; Reddi, B.; Reid, C.; Robinson, S.; Thompson, K.; Webb, S.; and Young, P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Australian Critical Care,S1036731420303441. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"OptimisingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{litton_optimising_2021,\n\ttitle = {Optimising a targeted test reduction intervention for patients admitted to the intensive care unit: {The} {Targeted} {Intensive} {Care} {Test} {Ordering} {Cluster} {Trial} intervention},\n\tissn = {10367314},\n\tshorttitle = {Optimising a targeted test reduction intervention for patients admitted to the intensive care unit},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1036731420303441},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.aucc.2020.11.003},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-06-10},\n\tjournal = {Australian Critical Care},\n\tauthor = {Litton, Edward and Atkinson, Helen and Anstey, James and Anstey, Matthew and Campbell, Lewis T. and Forbes, Andrew and Hahn, Rebecca and Hooper, Katherine and Kasza, Jessica and Knapp, Sharon and McGain, Forbes and Ngyuen, Nhi and Pilcher, David and Reddi, Benjamin and Reid, Chris and Robinson, Suzanne and Thompson, Kelly and Webb, Steve and Young, Paul},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S1036731420303441},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Cuff Leak Test In Critically Ill Patients: An International Survey of Intensivists.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lewis, K.; Almubarak, Y.; Møller, M. H.; Jaeschke, R.; Perri, D.; Zhang, Y.; Du, B.; Nishida, O.; Ntoumenopoulos, G.; Saxena, M.; Truwit, J.; Young, P. J; Alshamsi, F.; Arabi, Y. M; Rochwerg, B.; Karachi, T.; Szczeklik, W.; Alshahrani, M.; Machado, F. R; Annane, D.; Antonelli, M.; Girard, T. D; Cook, D.; Baw, B.; Nanchal, R.; Piraino, T.; Guyatt, G.; Alhazzani, W.; The GUIDE Group; Thebane, L.; Soth, M.; Mbuagbaw, L.; Belley‐Cote, E.; Dionne, J.; Centofanti, J.; Oczkowski, S.; Sharma, S.; Junek, M.; and Alquraini, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica,aas.13838. May 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{lewis_cuff_2021,\n\ttitle = {The {Cuff} {Leak} {Test} {In} {Critically} {Ill} {Patients}: {An} {International} {Survey} of {Intensivists}},\n\tissn = {0001-5172, 1399-6576},\n\tshorttitle = {The {Cuff} {Leak} {Test} {In} {Critically} {Ill} {Patients}},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aas.13838},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/aas.13838},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-06-10},\n\tjournal = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica},\n\tauthor = {Lewis, Kimberley and Almubarak, Yousef and Møller, Morten Hylander and Jaeschke, Roman and Perri, Dan and Zhang, Ying and Du, Bin and Nishida, Osamu and Ntoumenopoulos, George and Saxena, Manoj and Truwit, Jonathon and Young, Paul J and Alshamsi, Fayez and Arabi, Yaseen M and Rochwerg, Bram and Karachi, Tim and Szczeklik, Wojciech and Alshahrani, Muhammed and Machado, Flavia R and Annane, Djillali and Antonelli, Massimo and Girard, Timothy D and Cook, Deborah and Baw, Bandar and Nanchal, Rahul and Piraino, Thomas and Guyatt, Gordon and Alhazzani, Waleed and {The GUIDE Group} and Thebane, Lehana and Soth, Mark and Mbuagbaw, Lawrence and Belley‐Cote, Emille and Dionne, Joanna and Centofanti, John and Oczkowski, Simon and Sharma, Sunjay and Junek, Mats and Alquraini, Mustafa},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {aas.13838},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Don’t make a hash of it! A thematic review of the literature relating to outcomes of cannabis regulatory change.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Evans, S.; Braithwaite, I.; and Newton-Howes, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy,1–12. June 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Don’tPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_dont_2021,\n\ttitle = {Don’t make a hash of it! {A} thematic review of the literature relating to outcomes of cannabis regulatory change},\n\tissn = {0968-7637, 1465-3370},\n\turl = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687637.2021.1901855},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09687637.2021.1901855},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-06-08},\n\tjournal = {Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Evans, Sean and Braithwaite, Irene and Newton-Howes, Giles},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {1--12},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Whitlock, R. P.; Belley-Cote, E. P.; Paparella, D.; Healey, J. S.; Brady, K.; Sharma, M.; Reents, W.; Budera, P.; Baddour, A. J.; Fila, P.; Devereaux, P.; Bogachev-Prokophiev, A.; Boening, A.; Teoh, K. H.; Tagarakis, G. I.; Slaughter, M. S.; Royse, A. G.; McGuinness, S.; Alings, M.; Punjabi, P. P.; Mazer, C. D.; Folkeringa, R. J.; Colli, A.; Avezum, Á.; Nakamya, J.; Balasubramanian, K.; Vincent, J.; Voisine, P.; Lamy, A.; Yusuf, S.; and Connolly, S. J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n New England Journal of Medicine,NEJMoa2101897. May 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"LeftPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{whitlock_left_2021,\n\ttitle = {Left {Atrial} {Appendage} {Occlusion} during {Cardiac} {Surgery} to {Prevent} {Stroke}},\n\tissn = {0028-4793, 1533-4406},\n\turl = {http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2101897},\n\tdoi = {10.1056/NEJMoa2101897},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-05-16},\n\tjournal = {New England Journal of Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Whitlock, Richard P. and Belley-Cote, Emilie P. and Paparella, Domenico and Healey, Jeff S. and Brady, Katheryn and Sharma, Mukul and Reents, Wilko and Budera, Petr and Baddour, Andony J. and Fila, Petr and Devereaux, P.J. and Bogachev-Prokophiev, Alexander and Boening, Andreas and Teoh, Kevin H.T. and Tagarakis, Georgios I. and Slaughter, Mark S. and Royse, Alistair G. and McGuinness, Shay and Alings, Marco and Punjabi, Prakash P. and Mazer, C. David and Folkeringa, Richard J. and Colli, Andrea and Avezum, Álvaro and Nakamya, Juliet and Balasubramanian, Kumar and Vincent, Jessica and Voisine, Pierre and Lamy, Andre and Yusuf, Salim and Connolly, Stuart J.},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {NEJMoa2101897},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n New Zealand COPD Guidelines: Quick Reference Guide.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hancox, R. J.; Jones, S.; Baggott, C.; Chen, D.; Corna, N.; Davies, C.; Fingleton, J.; Hardy, J.; Hussain, S.; Poot, B.; Reid, J.; Travers, J.; Turner, J.; and Young, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 134(1530): 76–110. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{hancox_new_2021,\n\ttitle = {New {Zealand} {COPD} {Guidelines}: {Quick} {Reference} {Guide}},\n\tvolume = {134},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tshorttitle = {New {Zealand} {COPD} {Guidelines}},\n\tabstract = {The purpose of the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand's COPD Guidelines: Quick Reference Guide is to provide simple, practical, evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in clinical practice. The intended users are health professionals responsible for delivering acute and chronic COPD care in community and hospital settings, and those responsible for the training of such health professionals.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1530},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Hancox, Robert J. and Jones, Stuart and Baggott, Christina and Chen, David and Corna, Nicola and Davies, Cheryl and Fingleton, James and Hardy, Jo and Hussain, Syed and Poot, Betty and Reid, Jim and Travers, Justin and Turner, Joanna and Young, Robert},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {33651780},\n\tkeywords = {Delivery of Health Care, Foundations, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Health Personnel, Humans, New Zealand, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive},\n\tpages = {76--110},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The purpose of the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand's COPD Guidelines: Quick Reference Guide is to provide simple, practical, evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in clinical practice. The intended users are health professionals responsible for delivering acute and chronic COPD care in community and hospital settings, and those responsible for the training of such health professionals.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Has the time come to end use of the blue inhaler?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bush, A.; Dalziel, S. R; Byrnes, C. A; Hatter, L.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Respiratory Medicine,S2213260021001855. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"HasPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{bush_has_2021,\n\ttitle = {Has the time come to end use of the blue inhaler?},\n\tissn = {22132600},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213260021001855},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00185-5},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-05-02},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Bush, Andrew and Dalziel, Stuart R and Byrnes, Catherine A and Hatter, Lee and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S2213260021001855},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Budesonide–formoterol reliever therapy in intermittent versus mild persistent asthma.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Papi, A.; Braithwaite, I.; Ebmeier, S.; Hancox, R. J.; Harrison, T.; Holliday, M.; Houghton, C.; Morandi, L.; Oldfield, K.; Pavord, I. D.; Reddel, H. K.; Williams, M.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Respiratory Journal, 57(2): 2003064. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Budesonide–formoterolPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{papi_budesonideformoterol_2021,\n\ttitle = {Budesonide–formoterol reliever therapy in intermittent versus mild persistent asthma},\n\tvolume = {57},\n\tissn = {0903-1936, 1399-3003},\n\turl = {http://erj.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/13993003.03064-2020},\n\tdoi = {10.1183/13993003.03064-2020},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {European Respiratory Journal},\n\tauthor = {Papi, Alberto and Braithwaite, Irene and Ebmeier, Stefan and Hancox, Robert J. and Harrison, Tim and Holliday, Mark and Houghton, Claire and Morandi, Luca and Oldfield, Karen and Pavord, Ian D. and Reddel, Helen K. and Williams, Mathew and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {2003064},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A survey of self-reported use of cricoid pressure amongst Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists: Attitudes and practice.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Mistry, R.; Frei, D. R; Badenhorst, C.; and Broadbent, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 49(1): 62–69. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"APaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mistry_survey_2021,\n\ttitle = {A survey of self-reported use of cricoid pressure amongst {Australian} and {New} {Zealand} anaesthetists: {Attitudes} and practice},\n\tvolume = {49},\n\tissn = {0310-057X, 1448-0271},\n\tshorttitle = {A survey of self-reported use of cricoid pressure amongst {Australian} and {New} {Zealand} anaesthetists},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0310057X20968841},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0310057X20968841},\n\tabstract = {We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists designed to quantify self-reported use of cricoid pressure (CP) in patients presumed to be at risk of gastric regurgitation, and to ascertain the underlying justifications used to support individual practice. We aimed to identify the perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of CP and to explore the potential impact of medicolegal concerns on clinical decision-making. We also sought to ascertain the views of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists on whether recommendations relating to CP should be included in airway management guidelines. We designed an electronic survey comprised of 15 questions that was emailed to 981 randomly selected Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) by the ANZCA Clinical Trials Network on behalf of the investigators. We received responses from 348 invitees (response rate 35.5\\%). Of the 348 respondents, 267 (76.9\\%) indicated that they would routinely use CP for patients determined to be at increased risk of gastric regurgitation. When asked whether participants believed the use of CP reduces the risk of gastric regurgitation, 39.8\\% indicated yes, 23.8\\% believed no and 36.3\\% were unsure. Of the respondents who indicated that they routinely performed CP, 159/267 (60\\%) indicated that concerns over the potential medicolegal consequences of omitting CP in a patient who subsequently aspirates was one of the main reasons for using CP. The majority (224/337; 66\\%) of respondents believed that recommendations about the use of CP in airway management guidelines should include individual practitioner judgement, while only 55/337 (16\\%) respondents believed that routine CP should be advocated in contemporary emergency airway management guidelines.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia and Intensive Care},\n\tauthor = {Mistry, Ravi and Frei, Daniel R and Badenhorst, Chris and Broadbent, James},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {62--69},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists designed to quantify self-reported use of cricoid pressure (CP) in patients presumed to be at risk of gastric regurgitation, and to ascertain the underlying justifications used to support individual practice. We aimed to identify the perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of CP and to explore the potential impact of medicolegal concerns on clinical decision-making. We also sought to ascertain the views of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists on whether recommendations relating to CP should be included in airway management guidelines. We designed an electronic survey comprised of 15 questions that was emailed to 981 randomly selected Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) by the ANZCA Clinical Trials Network on behalf of the investigators. We received responses from 348 invitees (response rate 35.5%). Of the 348 respondents, 267 (76.9%) indicated that they would routinely use CP for patients determined to be at increased risk of gastric regurgitation. When asked whether participants believed the use of CP reduces the risk of gastric regurgitation, 39.8% indicated yes, 23.8% believed no and 36.3% were unsure. Of the respondents who indicated that they routinely performed CP, 159/267 (60%) indicated that concerns over the potential medicolegal consequences of omitting CP in a patient who subsequently aspirates was one of the main reasons for using CP. The majority (224/337; 66%) of respondents believed that recommendations about the use of CP in airway management guidelines should include individual practitioner judgement, while only 55/337 (16%) respondents believed that routine CP should be advocated in contemporary emergency airway management guidelines.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial of a Conservative Fluid Management Strategy Compared With Usual Care in Participants After Cardiac Surgery: The Fluids After Bypass Study*.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Parke, R. L.; Gilder, E.; Gillham, M. J.; Walker, L. J. C.; Bailey, M. J.; and McGuinness, S. P.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Critical Care Medicine, 49(3): 449–461. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"APaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{parke_multicenter_2021,\n\ttitle = {A {Multicenter}, {Open}-{Label}, {Randomized} {Controlled} {Trial} of a {Conservative} {Fluid} {Management} {Strategy} {Compared} {With} {Usual} {Care} in {Participants} {After} {Cardiac} {Surgery}: {The} {Fluids} {After} {Bypass} {Study}*},\n\tvolume = {49},\n\tissn = {0090-3493},\n\tshorttitle = {A {Multicenter}, {Open}-{Label}, {Randomized} {Controlled} {Trial} of a {Conservative} {Fluid} {Management} {Strategy} {Compared} {With} {Usual} {Care} in {Participants} {After} {Cardiac} {Surgery}},\n\turl = {https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004883},\n\tdoi = {10.1097/CCM.0000000000004883},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Parke, Rachael L. and Gilder, Eileen and Gillham, Michael J. and Walker, Laurence J. C. and Bailey, Michael J. and McGuinness, Shay P.},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {449--461},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care): Protocol for a Nationwide Observational Study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ranta, A.; Thompson, S.; Harwood, M. L. N.; Cadilhac, D. A.; Barber, P. A.; Davis, A. J.; Gommans, J. H.; Fink, J. N.; McNaughton, H. K.; Denison, H.; Corbin, M.; Feigin, V.; Abernethy, V.; Levack, W.; Douwes, J.; Girvan, J.; and Wilson, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n JMIR Research Protocols, 10(1): e25374. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ReducingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{ranta_reducing_2021,\n\ttitle = {Reducing {Ethnic} and {Geographic} {Inequities} to {Optimise} {New} {Zealand} {Stroke} {Care} ({REGIONS} {Care}): {Protocol} for a {Nationwide} {Observational} {Study}},\n\tvolume = {10},\n\tissn = {1929-0748},\n\tshorttitle = {Reducing {Ethnic} and {Geographic} {Inequities} to {Optimise} {New} {Zealand} {Stroke} {Care} ({REGIONS} {Care})},\n\turl = {https://www.researchprotocols.org/2021/1/e25374},\n\tdoi = {10.2196/25374},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              Stroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes.  Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings.  Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations.\n            \n            \n              Objective\n              Our goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              This large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10\\% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90\\% power with an α value of .05 and 10\\% to 20\\% loss to follow-up.  In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90\\% and over 80\\% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50\\% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months.  Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              The study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2.  Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway.\n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              The methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations.\n            \n            \n              International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)\n              DERR1-10.2196/25374},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {JMIR Research Protocols},\n\tauthor = {Ranta, Annemarei and Thompson, Stephanie and Harwood, Matire Louise Ngarongoa and Cadilhac, Dominique Ann-Michele and Barber, Peter Alan and Davis, Alan John and Gommans, John Henry and Fink, John Newton and McNaughton, Harry Karel and Denison, Hayley and Corbin, Marine and Feigin, Valery and Abernethy, Virginia and Levack, William and Douwes, Jeroen and Girvan, Jacqueline and Wilson, Andrew},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e25374},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Stroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes. Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings. Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations. Objective Our goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study. Methods This large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90% power with an α value of .05 and 10% to 20% loss to follow-up. In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90% and over 80% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers. Results The study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2. Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway. Conclusions The methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/25374\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets: is what’s on the label what’s in the product?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Oldfield, K.; Ryan, J.; Doppen, M.; Kung, S.; Braithwaite, I.; and Newton-Howes, G.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Australasian Psychiatry, 29(1): 88–96. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"APaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{oldfield_systematic_2021,\n\ttitle = {A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets: is what’s on the label what’s in the product?},\n\tvolume = {29},\n\tissn = {1039-8562, 1440-1665},\n\tshorttitle = {A systematic review of the label accuracy of cannabinoid-based products in regulated markets},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1039856220965334},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/1039856220965334},\n\tabstract = {Objectives:\n              To review the literature regarding label accuracy and contamination of medical cannabinoid-based products.\n            \n            \n              Methods:\n              A systematic review with meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131565).\n            \n            \n              Results:\n              Five studies reported label accuracy data ranging between 17\\% and 86\\%. Four studies reported contaminants, including pesticides, solvents and AB-FUBINACA. Meta-analysis was limited to the proportion of pesticide-contaminated samples found in two studies (0.25 (95\\% CI [0.10, 0.40])) and displayed significant heterogeneity.\n            \n            \n              Conclusions:\n              Label inaccuracies and contaminants are found across a spectrum of cannabinoid-based products. The review highlights the paucity and heterogeneity of research relating to cannabinoid-based products in light of changing global legislation. Further robust research is required to support ongoing pharmacovigilance and patient safety.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Australasian Psychiatry},\n\tauthor = {Oldfield, Karen and Ryan, John and Doppen, Marjan and Kung, Stacey and Braithwaite, Irene and Newton-Howes, Giles},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {88--96},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objectives: To review the literature regarding label accuracy and contamination of medical cannabinoid-based products. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131565). Results: Five studies reported label accuracy data ranging between 17% and 86%. Four studies reported contaminants, including pesticides, solvents and AB-FUBINACA. Meta-analysis was limited to the proportion of pesticide-contaminated samples found in two studies (0.25 (95% CI [0.10, 0.40])) and displayed significant heterogeneity. Conclusions: Label inaccuracies and contaminants are found across a spectrum of cannabinoid-based products. The review highlights the paucity and heterogeneity of research relating to cannabinoid-based products in light of changing global legislation. Further robust research is required to support ongoing pharmacovigilance and patient safety.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Reduced mortality in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kung, S.; Doppen, M.; Black, M.; Hills, T.; and Kearns, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet, 397(10268): 25. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ReducedPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{kung_reduced_2021,\n\ttitle = {Reduced mortality in {New} {Zealand} during the {COVID}-19 pandemic},\n\tvolume = {397},\n\tissn = {01406736},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673620326477},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32647-7},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {10268},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet},\n\tauthor = {Kung, Stacey and Doppen, Marjan and Black, Melissa and Hills, Tom and Kearns, Nethmi},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {25},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The effect of the Take Charge intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management: Analysis of secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McNaughton, H.; Weatherall, M.; McPherson, K.; Fu, V.; Taylor, W. J; McRae, A.; Thomson, T.; Gommans, J.; Green, G.; Harwood, M.; Ranta, A.; Hanger, C.; and Riley, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation,026921552199364. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mcnaughton_effect_2021,\n\ttitle = {The effect of the {Take} {Charge} intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management: {Analysis} of secondary data from the {Taking} {Charge} after {Stroke} ({TaCAS}) trial},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {The effect of the {Take} {Charge} intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215521993648},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0269215521993648},\n\tabstract = {Objective:\n              To use secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke study to explore mechanisms for the positive effect of the Take Charge intervention on physical health, advanced activities of daily living and independence for people after acute stroke.\n            \n            \n              Design:\n              An open, parallel-group, randomised trial with two active and one control intervention and blinded outcome assessment.\n            \n            \n              Setting:\n              Community.\n            \n            \n              Participants:\n              Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.\n            \n            \n              Interventions:\n              One, two, or zero sessions of the Take Charge intervention, a self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery.\n            \n            \n              Measures:\n              Twelve months after stroke: Mood (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Mental Component Summary of the Short Form 36); ‘ability to Take Charge’ using a novel measure, the Autonomy-Mastery-Purpose-Connectedness (AMP-C) score; activation (Patient Activation Measure); body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and medication adherence (Medication Adherence Questionnaire).\n            \n            \n              Results:\n              Follow-up was near-complete (388/390 (99.5\\%)) of survivors at 12 months. Mean age (SD) was 72.0 (12.5) years. There were no significant differences in mood, activation, ‘ability to Take Charge’, medication adherence, BMI or BP by randomised group at 12 months. There was a significant positive association between baseline AMP-C scores and 12-month outcome for control participants (1.73 (95\\%CI 0.90 to 2.56)) but not for the Take Charge groups combined (0.34 (95\\%CI −0.17 to 0.85)).\n            \n            \n              Conclusion:\n              The mechanism by which Take Charge is effective remains uncertain. However, our findings support a hypothesis that baseline variability in motivation, mastery and connectedness may be modified by the Take Charge intervention.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {McNaughton, Harry and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Fu, Vivian and Taylor, William J and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Harwood, Matire and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {026921552199364},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objective: To use secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke study to explore mechanisms for the positive effect of the Take Charge intervention on physical health, advanced activities of daily living and independence for people after acute stroke. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial with two active and one control intervention and blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Community. Participants: Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: One, two, or zero sessions of the Take Charge intervention, a self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. Measures: Twelve months after stroke: Mood (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Mental Component Summary of the Short Form 36); ‘ability to Take Charge’ using a novel measure, the Autonomy-Mastery-Purpose-Connectedness (AMP-C) score; activation (Patient Activation Measure); body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and medication adherence (Medication Adherence Questionnaire). Results: Follow-up was near-complete (388/390 (99.5%)) of survivors at 12 months. Mean age (SD) was 72.0 (12.5) years. There were no significant differences in mood, activation, ‘ability to Take Charge’, medication adherence, BMI or BP by randomised group at 12 months. There was a significant positive association between baseline AMP-C scores and 12-month outcome for control participants (1.73 (95%CI 0.90 to 2.56)) but not for the Take Charge groups combined (0.34 (95%CI −0.17 to 0.85)). Conclusion: The mechanism by which Take Charge is effective remains uncertain. However, our findings support a hypothesis that baseline variability in motivation, mastery and connectedness may be modified by the Take Charge intervention.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Contemporary evidence of art's relevance to the modern plastic surgeon.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kearns, C.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 74(4): 890–930. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ContemporaryPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{kearns_contemporary_2021,\n\ttitle = {Contemporary evidence of art's relevance to the modern plastic surgeon},\n\tvolume = {74},\n\tissn = {17486815},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S174868152030440X},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.bjps.2020.08.130},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive \\& Aesthetic Surgery},\n\tauthor = {Kearns, Ciléin},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {890--930},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Validation of a diagnosis-agnostic symptom questionnaire for asthma and/or COPD.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Karlsson, N.; Atkinson, M. J.; Müllerová, H.; Alacqua, M.; Keen, C.; Hughes, R.; Janson, C.; Make, B.; Price, D.; and Reddel, H. K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ERJ Open Research, 7(1): 00828–2020. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ValidationPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{karlsson_validation_2021,\n\ttitle = {Validation of a diagnosis-agnostic symptom questionnaire for asthma and/or {COPD}},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tissn = {2312-0541},\n\turl = {http://openres.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/23120541.00828-2020},\n\tdoi = {10.1183/23120541.00828-2020},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              The Respiratory Symptoms Questionnaire (RSQ) is a novel, four-item patient-reported diagnosis-agnostic tool designed to assess the frequency of respiratory symptoms and their impact on activity, without specifying a particular diagnosis. Our objective was to examine its validity in patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              \n                Baseline data were randomly sampled from patients who completed the RSQ in the NOVELTY study (\n                ClinicalTrials.gov\n                :\n                NCT02760329\n                ). The total sample (n=1530) comprised three randomly selected samples (n=510 each) from each physician-assigned diagnostic group (asthma, asthma+COPD and COPD). The internal consistency and structural validity of the RSQ were evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses; psychometric performance was observed using Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory analyses.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                For the total sample, the mean±\n                sd\n                RSQ score was 5.6±4.3 (range 0–16). Irrespective of diagnosis, the internal consistency of items was uniformly adequate (Cronbach's α=0.76–0.80). All items had high factor loadings and structural characteristics of the measure were invariant across groups. Using the total sample, RSQ items informatively covered the θ score range of –2.0 to 2.8, with discrimination coefficients for individual items being high to very high (1.7–2.6). Strong convergent correlations were observed between the RSQ and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (0.77, p{\\textless}0.001).\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              The RSQ is a valid, brief, patient-reported tool for assessing respiratory symptoms in patients across the whole spectrum of asthma and/or COPD, rather than using different questionnaires for each diagnosis. It can be used for monitoring respiratory symptoms in clinical practice, clinical trials and real-world studies.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {ERJ Open Research},\n\tauthor = {Karlsson, Niklas and Atkinson, Mark J. and Müllerová, Hana and Alacqua, Marianna and Keen, Christina and Hughes, Rod and Janson, Christer and Make, Barry and Price, David and Reddel, Helen K.},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {00828--2020},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background The Respiratory Symptoms Questionnaire (RSQ) is a novel, four-item patient-reported diagnosis-agnostic tool designed to assess the frequency of respiratory symptoms and their impact on activity, without specifying a particular diagnosis. Our objective was to examine its validity in patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods Baseline data were randomly sampled from patients who completed the RSQ in the NOVELTY study ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02760329 ). The total sample (n=1530) comprised three randomly selected samples (n=510 each) from each physician-assigned diagnostic group (asthma, asthma+COPD and COPD). The internal consistency and structural validity of the RSQ were evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses; psychometric performance was observed using Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory analyses. Results For the total sample, the mean± sd RSQ score was 5.6±4.3 (range 0–16). Irrespective of diagnosis, the internal consistency of items was uniformly adequate (Cronbach's α=0.76–0.80). All items had high factor loadings and structural characteristics of the measure were invariant across groups. Using the total sample, RSQ items informatively covered the θ score range of –2.0 to 2.8, with discrimination coefficients for individual items being high to very high (1.7–2.6). Strong convergent correlations were observed between the RSQ and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (0.77, p\\textless0.001). Conclusions The RSQ is a valid, brief, patient-reported tool for assessing respiratory symptoms in patients across the whole spectrum of asthma and/or COPD, rather than using different questionnaires for each diagnosis. It can be used for monitoring respiratory symptoms in clinical practice, clinical trials and real-world studies.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Balancing the needs of the many and the few: where next for adult asthma guidelines?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Shaw, D. E; Heaney, L. G; Thomas, M.; Beasley, R.; Gibson, P. G; and Pavord, I. D\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Respiratory Medicine,S2213260021000217. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"BalancingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{shaw_balancing_2021,\n\ttitle = {Balancing the needs of the many and the few: where next for adult asthma guidelines?},\n\tissn = {22132600},\n\tshorttitle = {Balancing the needs of the many and the few},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213260021000217},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00021-7},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Shaw, Dominick E and Heaney, Liam G and Thomas, Mike and Beasley, Richard and Gibson, Peter G and Pavord, Ian D},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S2213260021000217},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Heterogeneity within and between physician-diagnosed asthma and/or COPD: NOVELTY cohort.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Reddel, H. K; Vestbo, J.; Agustí, A.; Anderson, G. P; Bansal, A. T; Beasley, R.; Bel, E. H; Janson, C.; Make, B.; Pavord, I. D; Price, D.; Rapsomaniki, E.; Karlsson, N.; Finch, D. K; Nuevo, J.; de Giorgio-Miller, A.; Alacqua, M.; Hughes, R.; Müllerová, H.; and Gerhardsson de Verdier, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Respiratory Journal,2003927. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"HeterogeneityPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{reddel_heterogeneity_2021,\n\ttitle = {Heterogeneity within and between physician-diagnosed asthma and/or {COPD}: {NOVELTY} cohort},\n\tissn = {0903-1936, 1399-3003},\n\tshorttitle = {Heterogeneity within and between physician-diagnosed asthma and/or {COPD}},\n\turl = {http://erj.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/13993003.03927-2020},\n\tdoi = {10.1183/13993003.03927-2020},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              Studies of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) typically focus on these diagnoses separately, limiting understanding of disease mechanisms and treatment options. NOVELTY is a global, 3-year, prospective observational study of patients with asthma and/or COPD from real-world clinical practice. We investigated heterogeneity and overlap by diagnosis and severity in this cohort.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              Patients with physician-assigned asthma, COPD or both (asthma+COPD) were enrolled, stratified by diagnosis and severity. Baseline characteristics were reported descriptively by physician-assigned diagnosis and/or severity. Factors associated with physician-assessed severity were evaluated using ordinal logistic regression analysis.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                Of 11 243 patients, 5940 (52.8\\%) had physician-assigned asthma, 1396 (12.4\\%) had asthma+COPD and 3907 (34.8\\%) had COPD; almost half were from primary care. Symptoms, health-related quality of life and spirometry showed substantial heterogeneity and overlap between asthma, asthma+COPD and COPD, with 23\\%, 62\\% and 64\\% of patients, respectively, having post-bronchodilator FEV\n                1\n                /FVC {\\textless}lower limit of normal.\n              \n              Symptoms and exacerbations increased with greater physician-assessed severity, and were higher in asthma+COPD, but 24.3\\% with mild asthma and 20.4\\% with mild COPD had experienced ≥1 exacerbation in the past 12 months. Medication records suggested both under-treatment and over-treatment relative to severity. Blood eosinophil counts varied little across diagnosis/severity groups, but blood neutrophil counts increased with severity across all diagnoses.\n            \n            \n              Conclusion\n              This analysis demonstrates marked heterogeneity within, and overlap between, physician-assigned diagnosis and severity groups in patients with asthma and/or COPD. Current diagnostic and severity classifications in clinical practice poorly differentiate between clinical phenotypes that may have specific risks and treatment implications.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {European Respiratory Journal},\n\tauthor = {Reddel, Helen K and Vestbo, Jørgen and Agustí, Alvar and Anderson, Gary P and Bansal, Aruna T and Beasley, Richard and Bel, Elisabeth H and Janson, Christer and Make, Barry and Pavord, Ian D and Price, David and Rapsomaniki, Eleni and Karlsson, Niklas and Finch, Donna K and Nuevo, Javier and de Giorgio-Miller, Alex and Alacqua, Marianna and Hughes, Rod and Müllerová, Hana and Gerhardsson de Verdier, Maria},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {2003927},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Studies of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) typically focus on these diagnoses separately, limiting understanding of disease mechanisms and treatment options. NOVELTY is a global, 3-year, prospective observational study of patients with asthma and/or COPD from real-world clinical practice. We investigated heterogeneity and overlap by diagnosis and severity in this cohort. Methods Patients with physician-assigned asthma, COPD or both (asthma+COPD) were enrolled, stratified by diagnosis and severity. Baseline characteristics were reported descriptively by physician-assigned diagnosis and/or severity. Factors associated with physician-assessed severity were evaluated using ordinal logistic regression analysis. Results Of 11 243 patients, 5940 (52.8%) had physician-assigned asthma, 1396 (12.4%) had asthma+COPD and 3907 (34.8%) had COPD; almost half were from primary care. Symptoms, health-related quality of life and spirometry showed substantial heterogeneity and overlap between asthma, asthma+COPD and COPD, with 23%, 62% and 64% of patients, respectively, having post-bronchodilator FEV 1 /FVC \\textlesslower limit of normal. Symptoms and exacerbations increased with greater physician-assessed severity, and were higher in asthma+COPD, but 24.3% with mild asthma and 20.4% with mild COPD had experienced ≥1 exacerbation in the past 12 months. Medication records suggested both under-treatment and over-treatment relative to severity. Blood eosinophil counts varied little across diagnosis/severity groups, but blood neutrophil counts increased with severity across all diagnoses. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates marked heterogeneity within, and overlap between, physician-assigned diagnosis and severity groups in patients with asthma and/or COPD. Current diagnostic and severity classifications in clinical practice poorly differentiate between clinical phenotypes that may have specific risks and treatment implications.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Closed-Loop Oxygen Control Using a Novel Nasal High-Flow Device: A Randomized Crossover Trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J. C.; Kearns, N. A; Maijers, I.; Bird, G. E; Braithwaite, I.; Shortt, N. P; Eathorne, A.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Respiratory Care, 66(3): 416–424. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Closed-LoopPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harper_closed-loop_2021,\n\ttitle = {Closed-{Loop} {Oxygen} {Control} {Using} a {Novel} {Nasal} {High}-{Flow} {Device}: {A} {Randomized} {Crossover} {Trial}},\n\tvolume = {66},\n\tissn = {0020-1324, 1943-3654},\n\tshorttitle = {Closed-{Loop} {Oxygen} {Control} {Using} a {Novel} {Nasal} {High}-{Flow} {Device}},\n\turl = {http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/doi/10.4187/respcare.08087},\n\tdoi = {10.4187/respcare.08087},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Respiratory Care},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James CP and Kearns, Nethmi A and Maijers, Ingrid and Bird, Grace E and Braithwaite, Irene and Shortt, Nicholas P and Eathorne, Allie and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {416--424},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audit of oxygen administration to achieve a target oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell medical patients.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harper, J.; Kearns, N.; Bird, G.; McLachlan, R.; Eathorne, A.; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Postgraduate Medical Journal,postgradmedj–2020–139511. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AuditPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harper_audit_2021-1,\n\ttitle = {Audit of oxygen administration to achieve a target oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell medical patients},\n\tissn = {0032-5473, 1469-0756},\n\turl = {https://pmj.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139511},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139511},\n\tabstract = {Purpose of the study\n              \n                To evaluate documentation of a target oxygen saturation (SpO\n                2\n                ) range and ability to achieve this range in acutely unwell inpatients.\n              \n            \n            \n              Study design\n              \n                In this single-centre audit, patients with discharge diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure and exacerbation of asthma or COPD admitted to Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand between 1 June 2019 and 31 August 2019 who received oxygen were identified. In those with a documented target SpO\n                2\n                range, the proportion of SpO\n                2\n                measurements in the observation chart which were within, above and below range were determined as well as the maximum and minimum SpO\n                2\n                . Regression analysis was performed to determine whether these outcomes were influenced by the prescribed range, high-dependency care or the number of adjustments to oxygen administration.\n              \n            \n            \n              Results\n              \n                268 admissions were screened. Of the 100 eligible admissions who received oxygen, a target SpO\n                2\n                range was documented in 62. The mean (SD) proportion of SpO\n                2\n                measurements within range was 56.2 (30.6)\\%. A hypercapnic target SpO\n                2\n                range was associated with a higher probability of an SpO\n                2\n                above range; multivariate OR 5.34 (95\\% CI 1.65 to 17.3, p=0.006) and a lower probability of an SpO\n                2\n                below range; multivariate OR 0.25 (95\\% CI 0.08 to 0.80) p=0.02. The mean (SD) maximum SpO\n                2\n                was similar in those with a target range of 92\\%–96\\% versus a hypercapnic range; 96.2 (3.0)\\% and 95.2 (3.4)\\%, respectively.\n              \n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              \n                Oxygen prescription and delivery in this clinical setting was suboptimal. SpO\n                2\n                values above the designated range are common, particularly in patients with a hypercapnic target range.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Postgraduate Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Harper, James and Kearns, Nethmi and Bird, Grace and McLachlan, Robert and Eathorne, Allie and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {postgradmedj--2020--139511},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Purpose of the study To evaluate documentation of a target oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) range and ability to achieve this range in acutely unwell inpatients. Study design In this single-centre audit, patients with discharge diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure and exacerbation of asthma or COPD admitted to Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand between 1 June 2019 and 31 August 2019 who received oxygen were identified. In those with a documented target SpO 2 range, the proportion of SpO 2 measurements in the observation chart which were within, above and below range were determined as well as the maximum and minimum SpO 2 . Regression analysis was performed to determine whether these outcomes were influenced by the prescribed range, high-dependency care or the number of adjustments to oxygen administration. Results 268 admissions were screened. Of the 100 eligible admissions who received oxygen, a target SpO 2 range was documented in 62. The mean (SD) proportion of SpO 2 measurements within range was 56.2 (30.6)%. A hypercapnic target SpO 2 range was associated with a higher probability of an SpO 2 above range; multivariate OR 5.34 (95% CI 1.65 to 17.3, p=0.006) and a lower probability of an SpO 2 below range; multivariate OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.80) p=0.02. The mean (SD) maximum SpO 2 was similar in those with a target range of 92%–96% versus a hypercapnic range; 96.2 (3.0)% and 95.2 (3.4)%, respectively. Conclusions Oxygen prescription and delivery in this clinical setting was suboptimal. SpO 2 values above the designated range are common, particularly in patients with a hypercapnic target range.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Regulatory action to protect access to hydroxychloroquine for approved rheumatic indications during COVID‐19 in New Zealand.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Duffy, E.; Arroll, N.; Beasley, R.; and Hills, T.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Arthritis & Rheumatology,art.41643. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"RegulatoryPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{duffy_regulatory_2021,\n\ttitle = {Regulatory action to protect access to hydroxychloroquine for approved rheumatic indications during {COVID}‐19 in {New} {Zealand}},\n\tissn = {2326-5191, 2326-5205},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.41643},\n\tdoi = {10.1002/art.41643},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Arthritis \\& Rheumatology},\n\tauthor = {Duffy, Eamon and Arroll, Nicola and Beasley, Richard and Hills, Thomas},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {art.41643},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n More options for managing severe asthma in adults.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Chang, A. B; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 9(1): 3–5. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"MorePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{chang_more_2021,\n\ttitle = {More options for managing severe asthma in adults},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {22132600},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213260020303982},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30398-2},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {The Lancet Respiratory Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Chang, Anne B and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {3--5},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Inhaled JAK inhibitor GDC-0214 reduces exhaled nitric oxide in patients with mild asthma: A randomized, controlled, proof-of-activity trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Braithwaite, I. E.; Cai, F.; Tom, J. A.; Galanter, J. M.; Owen, R. P.; Zhu, R.; Williams, M.; McGregor, A. G.; Eliahu, A.; Durk, M. R.; Dengler, H. S.; Zak, M.; Kenny, J. R.; Wilson, M. E.; Beasley, R.; and Chen, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,S009167492100422X. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"InhaledPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{braithwaite_inhaled_2021,\n\ttitle = {Inhaled {JAK} inhibitor {GDC}-0214 reduces exhaled nitric oxide in patients with mild asthma: {A} randomized, controlled, proof-of-activity trial},\n\tissn = {00916749},\n\tshorttitle = {Inhaled {JAK} inhibitor {GDC}-0214 reduces exhaled nitric oxide in patients with mild asthma},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009167492100422X},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jaci.2021.02.042},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology},\n\tauthor = {Braithwaite, Irene E. and Cai, Fang and Tom, Jennifer A. and Galanter, Joshua M. and Owen, Ryan P. and Zhu, Rui and Williams, Mathew and McGregor, Anna G. and Eliahu, Avi and Durk, Matthew R. and Dengler, Hart S. and Zak, Mark and Kenny, Jane R. and Wilson, Maria E. and Beasley, Richard and Chen, Hubert},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {S009167492100422X},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Vexed Problem of Corticosteroid Toxicity in Asthma: Time for Standardized Assessment.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Beasley, R.; and Weatherall, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 9(1): 373–374. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{beasley_vexed_2021,\n\ttitle = {The {Vexed} {Problem} of {Corticosteroid} {Toxicity} in {Asthma}: {Time} for {Standardized} {Assessment}},\n\tvolume = {9},\n\tissn = {22132198},\n\tshorttitle = {The {Vexed} {Problem} of {Corticosteroid} {Toxicity} in {Asthma}},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2213219820309193},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.jaip.2020.09.001},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice},\n\tauthor = {Beasley, Richard and Weatherall, Mark},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {373--374},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Asthma and COVID-19: Preconceptions about Predisposition.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Beasley, R.; Hills, T.; and Kearns, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 203(7): 799–801. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AsthmaPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{beasley_asthma_2021-1,\n\ttitle = {Asthma and {COVID}-19: {Preconceptions} about {Predisposition}},\n\tvolume = {203},\n\tissn = {1073-449X, 1535-4970},\n\tshorttitle = {Asthma and {COVID}-19},\n\turl = {https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/rccm.202102-0266ED},\n\tdoi = {10.1164/rccm.202102-0266ED},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {7},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Beasley, Richard and Hills, Thomas and Kearns, Nethmi},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {799--801},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Operationalisation of the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for COVID-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Aryal, D.; Beane, A.; Dondorp, A. M.; Green, C.; Haniffa, R.; Hashmi, M.; Jayakumar, D.; Marshall, J. C.; McArthur, C. J.; Murthy, S.; Webb, S. A.; Acharya, S. P.; Ishani, P. G. P.; Jawad, I.; Khanal, S.; Koirala, K.; Luitel, S.; Pabasara, U.; Paneru, H. R.; Kumar, A.; Patel, S. S.; Ramakrishnan, N.; Salahuddin, N.; Shaikh, M.; Tolppa, T.; Udayanga, I.; and Umrani, Z.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Wellcome Open Research, 6: 14. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"OperationalisationPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{aryal_operationalisation_2021,\n\ttitle = {Operationalisation of the {Randomized} {Embedded} {Multifactorial} {Adaptive} {Platform} for {COVID}-19 trials in a low and lower-middle income critical care learning health system.},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tissn = {2398-502X},\n\turl = {https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/6-14/v1},\n\tdoi = {10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16486.1},\n\tabstract = {The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Wellcome Open Research},\n\tauthor = {Aryal, Diptesh and Beane, Abi and Dondorp, Arjen M. and Green, Cameron and Haniffa, Rashan and Hashmi, Madiha and Jayakumar, Devachandran and Marshall, John C. and McArthur, Colin J. and Murthy, Srinivas and Webb, Steven A. and Acharya, Subhash P. and Ishani, Pramodya G. P. and Jawad, Issrah and Khanal, Sushil and Koirala, Kanchan and Luitel, Subekshya and Pabasara, Upulee and Paneru, Hem Raj and Kumar, Ashok and Patel, Shoaib Siddiq and Ramakrishnan, Nagarajan and Salahuddin, Nawal and Shaikh, Mohiuddin and Tolppa, Timo and Udayanga, Ishara and Umrani, Zulfiqar},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {14},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform (REMAP-CAP) adapted for COVID-19) trial is a global adaptive platform trial of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. We describe implementation in three countries under the umbrella of the Wellcome supported Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) critical  care network: Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Asia (CCA). The collaboration sought to overcome known barriers to multi centre-clinical trials in resource-limited settings. Methods described focused on six aspects of implementation: i, Strengthening an existing community of practice; ii, Remote study site recruitment, training and support; iii, Harmonising the REMAP CAP- COVID trial with existing care processes; iv, Embedding REMAP CAP- COVID case report form into the existing CCA registry platform, v, Context specific adaptation and data management; vi, Alignment with existing pandemic and critical care research in the CCA. Methods described here may enable other LMIC sites to participate as equal partners in international critical care trials of urgent public health importance, both during this pandemic and beyond.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Effect of Early Sedation With Dexmedetomidine on Body Temperature in Critically Ill Patients.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Grayson, K. E.; Bailey, M.; Balachandran, M.; Banneheke, P. P.; Belletti, A.; Bellomo, R.; Naorungroj, T.; Serpa-Neto, A.; Wright, J. D.; Yanase, F.; Young, P. J.; and Shehabi, Y.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Critical Care Medicine, Publish Ahead of Print. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{grayson_effect_2021,\n\ttitle = {The {Effect} of {Early} {Sedation} {With} {Dexmedetomidine} on {Body} {Temperature} in {Critically} {Ill} {Patients}},\n\tvolume = {Publish Ahead of Print},\n\tissn = {0090-3493},\n\turl = {https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004935},\n\tdoi = {10.1097/CCM.0000000000004935},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Grayson, Kim E. and Bailey, Michael and Balachandran, Mayurathan and Banneheke, Piyusha P. and Belletti, Alessandro and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Naorungroj, Thummaporn and Serpa-Neto, Ary and Wright, Jason D. and Yanase, Fumitaka and Young, Paul J. and Shehabi, Yahya},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Is less really more for oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Young, P. J.; Gladwin, B.; and Capdevila, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine, 40(2): 100858. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"IsPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{young_is_2021,\n\ttitle = {Is less really more for oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure?},\n\tvolume = {40},\n\tissn = {23525568},\n\turl = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352556821000618},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100858},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Anaesthesia Critical Care \\& Pain Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Young, Paul J. and Gladwin, Benjamin and Capdevila, Mathieu},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {100858},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n New‐onset atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit: Protocol for an international inception cohort study (AFIB‐ICU).\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Wetterslev, M.; Møller, M. H.; Granholm, A.; Haase, N.; Hassager, C.; Lange, T.; Hästbacka, J.; Wilkman, E.; Myatra, S. N.; Shen, J.; An, Y.; Siegemund, M.; Young, P. J; Aslam, T. N.; Szczeklik, W.; Aneman, A.; Arabi, Y. M.; Cronhjort, M.; Keus, F.; and Perner, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica,aas.13827. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"New‐onsetPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{wetterslev_newonset_2021,\n\ttitle = {New‐onset atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit: {Protocol} for an international inception cohort study ({AFIB}‐{ICU})},\n\tissn = {0001-5172, 1399-6576},\n\tshorttitle = {New‐onset atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit},\n\turl = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aas.13827},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/aas.13827},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica},\n\tauthor = {Wetterslev, Mik and Møller, Morten Hylander and Granholm, Anders and Haase, Nicolai and Hassager, Christian and Lange, Theis and Hästbacka, Johanna and Wilkman, Erika and Myatra, Sheila Nainan and Shen, Jiawei and An, Youzhong and Siegemund, Martin and Young, Paul J and Aslam, Tayyba N. and Szczeklik, Wojciech and Aneman, Anders and Arabi, Yaseen M. and Cronhjort, Maria and Keus, Frederik and Perner, Anders},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {aas.13827},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Effect of Oxygen Therapy on Mortality in the ICU.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Young, P. J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New England Journal of Medicine, 384(14): 1361–1363. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{young_effect_2021,\n\ttitle = {Effect of {Oxygen} {Therapy} on {Mortality} in the {ICU}},\n\tvolume = {384},\n\tissn = {1533-4406},\n\tdoi = {10.1056/NEJMe2101538},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {14},\n\tjournal = {The New England Journal of Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Young, Paul J.},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpmid = {33826824},\n\tkeywords = {Humans, Intensive Care Units, Oxygen, Oxygen Inhalation Therapy, Respiratory Insufficiency},\n\tpages = {1361--1363},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n ICS-formoterol reliever versus ICS and short-acting β2 -agonist reliever in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hatter, L.; Bruce, P.; Braithwaite, I.; Holliday, M.; James Fingleton; Weatherall, M.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ERJ Open Research, 7(1): 00701–2020. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ICS-formoterolPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{hatter_ics-formoterol_2021,\n\ttitle = {{ICS}-formoterol reliever versus {ICS} and short-acting β2 -agonist reliever in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tissn = {2312-0541},\n\tshorttitle = {{ICS}-formoterol reliever \\textit{versus} {ICS} and short-acting β $_{\\textrm{2}}$ -agonist reliever in asthma},\n\turl = {http://openres.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/23120541.00701-2020},\n\tdoi = {10.1183/23120541.00701-2020},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              \n                The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS plus short-acting β\n                2\n                -agonist (SABA) reliever at step 2 of its stepwise treatment algorithm. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of these two treatment regimens, with a focus on prevention of severe exacerbation.\n              \n            \n            \n              Methods\n              We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing as-needed ICS-formoterol with maintenance ICS plus SABA. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from database inception to 12 December 2019. The primary outcome was time to first severe exacerbation. RCTs were excluded if they used as-needed budesonide-formoterol as part of a maintenance and reliever regimen, or did not report on severe exacerbations. The review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier number CRD42020154680).\n            \n            \n              Results\n              Four RCTs (n=8065 participants) were included in the analysis. As-needed ICS-formoterol was associated with a prolonged time to first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.85, 95\\% CI 0.73–1.00; p=0.048) and reduced daily ICS dose (mean difference −177.3 μg, 95\\% CI −182.2–−172.4 μg). Asthma symptom control was worse in the as-needed group (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 mean difference 0.12, 95\\% CI 0.09–0.14), although this did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 0.50 units. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events (OR 1.07, 95\\% CI 0.84–1.36).\n            \n            \n              Conclusion\n              As-needed ICS-formoterol offers a therapeutic alternative to maintenance low-dose ICS plus SABA in asthma and may be the preferred option when prevention of severe exacerbation is the primary aim of treatment.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-28},\n\tjournal = {ERJ Open Research},\n\tauthor = {Hatter, Lee and Bruce, Pepa and Braithwaite, Irene and Holliday, Mark and {James Fingleton} and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {00701--2020},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS plus short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) reliever at step 2 of its stepwise treatment algorithm. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of these two treatment regimens, with a focus on prevention of severe exacerbation. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing as-needed ICS-formoterol with maintenance ICS plus SABA. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from database inception to 12 December 2019. The primary outcome was time to first severe exacerbation. RCTs were excluded if they used as-needed budesonide-formoterol as part of a maintenance and reliever regimen, or did not report on severe exacerbations. The review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier number CRD42020154680). Results Four RCTs (n=8065 participants) were included in the analysis. As-needed ICS-formoterol was associated with a prolonged time to first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.73–1.00; p=0.048) and reduced daily ICS dose (mean difference −177.3 μg, 95% CI −182.2–−172.4 μg). Asthma symptom control was worse in the as-needed group (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 mean difference 0.12, 95% CI 0.09–0.14), although this did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 0.50 units. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84–1.36). Conclusion As-needed ICS-formoterol offers a therapeutic alternative to maintenance low-dose ICS plus SABA in asthma and may be the preferred option when prevention of severe exacerbation is the primary aim of treatment.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The management of mild asthma.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n O'Byrne, P. M.; Reddel, H. K.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n European Respiratory Journal, 57(4): 2003051. April 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{obyrne_management_2021,\n\ttitle = {The management of mild asthma},\n\tvolume = {57},\n\tissn = {0903-1936, 1399-3003},\n\turl = {http://erj.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/13993003.03051-2020},\n\tdoi = {10.1183/13993003.03051-2020},\n\tabstract = {Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been recommended as a maintenance treatment, either alone or together with long-acting inhaled β\n              2\n              -agonists, for all asthma patients. Short-acting β\n              2\n              -agonists (SABAs) are rapid-onset bronchodilators, which provide symptom relief, but have no anti-inflammatory properties, yet are the most widely used as-needed reliever treatment for asthma and often the only treatment prescribed. Asthma patients can find adhering to daily preventative medication with ICS difficult and will often revert to using as-needed SABA as their only treatment, increasing their risk of exacerbations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of reliever medications that contain ICS compared with SABA as reliever, or with maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, in mild asthma patients.\n            \n            Nine studies were identified that have evaluated the use of ICS as a component of an as-needed reliever in patients with mild asthma. Four of the most recent studies compared the combination of ICS/formoterol to SABA as reliever.\n            ICS-containing reliever medication was superior to SABA as reliever alone, and was equivalent to maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, particularly in reducing risks of severe asthma exacerbations, in studies which compared these reliever options.\n            SABAs should not be used as a reliever without ICS. The concern about patients with mild asthma not being adherent to maintenance ICS supports a recommendation that ICS/formoterol should be considered as a treatment option instead of maintenance ICS, to avoid the risk of patients reverting to SABA alone.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\turldate = {2021-04-11},\n\tjournal = {European Respiratory Journal},\n\tauthor = {O'Byrne, Paul M. and Reddel, Helen K. and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {2003051},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been recommended as a maintenance treatment, either alone or together with long-acting inhaled β 2 -agonists, for all asthma patients. Short-acting β 2 -agonists (SABAs) are rapid-onset bronchodilators, which provide symptom relief, but have no anti-inflammatory properties, yet are the most widely used as-needed reliever treatment for asthma and often the only treatment prescribed. Asthma patients can find adhering to daily preventative medication with ICS difficult and will often revert to using as-needed SABA as their only treatment, increasing their risk of exacerbations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of reliever medications that contain ICS compared with SABA as reliever, or with maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, in mild asthma patients. Nine studies were identified that have evaluated the use of ICS as a component of an as-needed reliever in patients with mild asthma. Four of the most recent studies compared the combination of ICS/formoterol to SABA as reliever. ICS-containing reliever medication was superior to SABA as reliever alone, and was equivalent to maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, particularly in reducing risks of severe asthma exacerbations, in studies which compared these reliever options. SABAs should not be used as a reliever without ICS. The concern about patients with mild asthma not being adherent to maintenance ICS supports a recommendation that ICS/formoterol should be considered as a treatment option instead of maintenance ICS, to avoid the risk of patients reverting to SABA alone.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n The REMAP-CAP Investigators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n New England Journal of Medicine,NEJMoa2100433. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"Interleukin-6Paper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{the_remap-cap_investigators_interleukin-6_2021,\n\ttitle = {Interleukin-6 {Receptor} {Antagonists} in {Critically} {Ill} {Patients} with {Covid}-19},\n\tissn = {0028-4793, 1533-4406},\n\turl = {http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2100433},\n\tdoi = {10.1056/NEJMoa2100433},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-02-28},\n\tjournal = {New England Journal of Medicine},\n\tauthor = {{The REMAP-CAP Investigators}},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {NEJMoa2100433},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Searching for the optimal oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell patients.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pilcher, J. M.; Kearns, C.; and Beasley, R.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Emergency Medicine Journal, 38(3): 168–169. March 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"SearchingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 5 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{pilcher_searching_2021,\n\ttitle = {Searching for the optimal oxygen saturation range in acutely unwell patients},\n\tvolume = {38},\n\tissn = {1472-0205, 1472-0213},\n\turl = {https://emj.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/emermed-2020-210749},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/emermed-2020-210749},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\turldate = {2021-02-24},\n\tjournal = {Emergency Medicine Journal},\n\tauthor = {Pilcher, Janine Marie and Kearns, Ciléin and Beasley, Richard},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {168--169},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Underestimation of COVID-19 mortality during the pandemic.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Kung, S.; Doppen, M.; Black, M.; Braithwaite, I.; Kearns, C.; Weatherall, M.; Beasley, R.; and Kearns, N.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ERJ Open Research, 7(1): 00766–2020. January 2021.\n Number: 1\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"UnderestimationPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{kung_underestimation_2021,\n\ttitle = {Underestimation of {COVID}-19 mortality during the pandemic},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tissn = {2312-0541},\n\turl = {http://openres.ersjournals.com/lookup/doi/10.1183/23120541.00766-2020},\n\tdoi = {10.1183/23120541.00766-2020},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              There has been considerable international variation in mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between mortality registered as due to COVID-19 and the excess all-cause mortality reported in countries worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              Ecological analysis of 22 countries compared 5-year historical all-cause mortality, reported all-cause mortality and expected all-cause mortality (calculated as historical mortality plus the reported deaths attributed to COVID-19). Data available from the first week of January 2020 to that most recently available were analysed.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              Compared to the preceding 5 years, there was an excess of 716 616 deaths, of which 64.3\\% were attributed to COVID-19. The proportion of deaths registered as COVID-19-related/excess deaths varied markedly between countries, ranging between 30\\% and 197\\% in those countries that had an excess of deaths during the period of observation. In most countries where a definite peak in COVID-19-related deaths occurred, the increase in reported all-cause mortality preceded the increase in COVID-19 reported mortality. During the latter period of observation, a few countries reported fewer all-cause deaths than the historical figures.\n            \n            \n              Conclusion\n              The increases in all-cause mortality preceded the increase in COVID-19 mortality in most countries that had definite spikes in COVID-19 mortality. The number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 was underestimated by at least 35\\%. Together these findings suggest that calculation of excess all-cause mortality is a better predictor of COVID-19 mortality than the reported rates, in those countries experiencing definite increases in mortality.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-02-18},\n\tjournal = {ERJ Open Research},\n\tauthor = {Kung, Stacey and Doppen, Marjan and Black, Melissa and Braithwaite, Irene and Kearns, Ciléin and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard and Kearns, Nethmi},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tnote = {Number: 1},\n\tpages = {00766--2020},\n}\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background There has been considerable international variation in mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between mortality registered as due to COVID-19 and the excess all-cause mortality reported in countries worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Ecological analysis of 22 countries compared 5-year historical all-cause mortality, reported all-cause mortality and expected all-cause mortality (calculated as historical mortality plus the reported deaths attributed to COVID-19). Data available from the first week of January 2020 to that most recently available were analysed. Results Compared to the preceding 5 years, there was an excess of 716 616 deaths, of which 64.3% were attributed to COVID-19. The proportion of deaths registered as COVID-19-related/excess deaths varied markedly between countries, ranging between 30% and 197% in those countries that had an excess of deaths during the period of observation. In most countries where a definite peak in COVID-19-related deaths occurred, the increase in reported all-cause mortality preceded the increase in COVID-19 reported mortality. During the latter period of observation, a few countries reported fewer all-cause deaths than the historical figures. Conclusion The increases in all-cause mortality preceded the increase in COVID-19 mortality in most countries that had definite spikes in COVID-19 mortality. The number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 was underestimated by at least 35%. Together these findings suggest that calculation of excess all-cause mortality is a better predictor of COVID-19 mortality than the reported rates, in those countries experiencing definite increases in mortality.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n
\n"}; document.write(bibbase_data.data);