Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) IMI 507026 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 109 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 109 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages.Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 16243 as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 16243 is not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.The latest issue of Breathe focuses on adherence to treatment read the introductory editorial by Chief Editor @ClaudiaCDobler https//bit.ly/3vVRjKU.This article provides a brief description of the Early Career Member session and guidance on how to get the most out of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress 2021, to help attendees plan their Congress in advance. https//bit.ly/3dBNrYC.Current guidance states that advanced therapies should only be used when adherence to maintenance therapy (inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-agonist) has been proven. This is based on the costs of advanced therapies, the fact that they were generally trialled as add-ons to maintenance therapy, and the assumed efficacy of maintenance therapy in the majority of adherent patients. In this pro/con debate, we argue that such a rigid view of access downplays the complex and multifactorial nature of poor adherence. Not only does the evidence indicate a role for psychosocial factors in both poor adherence and poor asthma outcomes, failure of maintenance therapy itself may be a driver of poor adherence behaviours. Some individuals at high risk of poor asthma outcomes will therefore also have poor adherence that is not rapidly amenable to intervention. Rather than punishing them for factors outside of their control, they should be allowed access to advanced therapies in order to reduce their adverse risk resulting from uncontrolled asthma.Oral corticosteroid side-effects in severe asthma affect a person's image and sense of self. Patients balance a web of risks and benefits around treatment adherence. https://www.selleckchem.com/ Biological therapies may offer targeted treatment with a lower side-effect burden. https//bit.ly/3cHmcuk.For a physician, the final step of a consultation consists of developing a treatment plan and prescription. For the patient, this is the start of a process. First, their role in the treatment plan must be clarified, then they may have to obtain an alternative prescription from their general practitioner. Next, they must have the prescription filled and dispensed from the pharmacy and, finally, they must take the treatment on time and for the required duration. For people with chronic conditions, this requires repeatedly returning to the pharmacy for the prescription to be renewed and dispensed. Given that many patients are on multiple treatment regimens and may have poor health literacy, this becomes a complex process and it is not surprising that this can, and frequently does, go wrong. Research shows that when a patient does not adhere to standard asthma or COPD treatment, they report poor control and overuse of rescue β-agonists, experience frequent exacerbations and are often prescribed add-on treatments or adherence to standard treatments for airways diseases.To describe how poor treatment adherence manifests as complications of the condition.To highlight that when a patient does not benefit as might be expected from a treatment, poor adherence should be considered and evaluated for, before more treatment is added. To highlight the clinical consequences of poor adherence to standard treatments for airways diseases.To describe how poor treatment adherence manifests as complications of the condition.To highlight that when a patient does not benefit as might be expected from a treatment, poor adherence should be considered and evaluated for, before more treatment is added.Non-adherence to medication is one of the most significant issues in all airways disease and can have a major impact on disease control as well as on unscheduled healthcare utilisation. It is vital that clinicians can accurately determine a patient's level of adherence in order to ensure they are gaining the maximal benefit from their therapy and also to avoid any potential for unnecessary increases in therapy. It is essential that measurements of adherence are interpreted alongside biomarkers of mechanistic pathways to identify if improvements in medication adherence can influence disease control. In this review, the most common methods of measuring adherence are discussed. These include patient self-report, prescription record checks, canister weighing, dose counting, monitoring drug levels and electronic monitoring. We describe the uses and benefits of each method as well as potential shortcomings. The practical use of adherence measures with measurable markers of disease control is also discussed. To understand the various methods available to measure adherence in airways disease.