Culture-specific programs for children and adults from minority groups who have asthma

BACKGROUND

People with asthma who come from minority groups often have poorer asthma outcomes, including more acute asthma-related doctor visits for flare-ups. Various programmes used to educate and empower people with asthma have previously been shown to improve certain asthma outcomes (e.g. adherence outcomes, asthma knowledge scores in children and parents, and cost-effectiveness). Models of care for chronic diseases in minority groups usually include a focus of the cultural context of the individual, and not just the symptoms of the disease. Therefore, questions about whether tailoring asthma education programmes that are culturally specific for people from minority groups are effective at improving asthma-related outcomes, that are feasible and cost-effective need to be answered.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether culture-specific asthma education programmes, in comparison to generic asthma education programmes or usual care, improve asthma-related outcomes in children and adults with asthma who belong to minority groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search fully incorporated into the review was performed in June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of culture-specific asthma education programmes with generic asthma education programmes, or usual care, in adults or children from minority groups with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected, extracted and assessed the data for inclusion. We contacted study authors for further information if required.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update, an additional three studies and 220 participants were added. A total of seven RCTs (two in adults, four in children, one in both children and adults) with 837 participants (aged from one to 63 years) with asthma from ethnic minority groups were eligible for inclusion in this review. The methodological quality of studies ranged from very low to low. For our primary outcome (asthma exacerbations during follow-up), the quality of evidence was low for all outcomes. In adults, use of a culture-specific programme, compared to generic programmes or usual care did not significantly reduce the number of participants from two studies with 294 participants for: exacerbations with one or more exacerbations during follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.26), hospitalisations over 12 months (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.22) and exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.73). However, use of a culture-specific programme, improved asthma quality of life scores in 280 adults from two studies (mean difference (MD) 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.36) (although the MD was less then the minimal important difference for the score). In children, use of a culture-specific programme was superior to generic programmes or usual care in reducing severe asthma exacerbations requiring hospitalisation in two studies with 305 children (rate ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.95), asthma control in one study with 62 children and QoL in three studies with 213 children, but not for the number of exacerbations during follow-up (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.66) or the number of exacerbations (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.62) among 100 children from two studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence showed that culture-specific education programmes for adults and children from minority groups are likely effective in improving asthma-related outcomes. This review was limited by few studies and evidence of very low to low quality. Not all asthma-related outcomes improved with culture-specific programs for both adults and children. Nevertheless, while modified culture-specific education programs are usually more time intensive, the findings of this review suggest using culture-specific asthma education programmes for children and adults from minority groups. However, more robust RCTs are needed to further strengthen the quality of evidence and determine the cost-effectiveness of culture-specific programs.

Antibiotics for persistent cough or wheeze following acute bronchiolitis in children

BACKGROUND

Bronchiolitis is a common acute respiratory condition with high prevalence worldwide. This clinically diagnosed syndrome is manifested by tachypnoea (rapid breathing), with crackles or wheeze in young children. In the acute phase of bronchiolitis (≤ 14 days), antibiotics are not routinely prescribed unless the illness is severe or a secondary bacterial infection is suspected. Although bronchiolitis is usually self-limiting, some young children continue to have protracted symptoms (e.g. cough and wheezing) beyond the acute phase and often re-present to secondary care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of antibiotics versus controls (placebo or no treatment) for reducing or treating persistent respiratory symptoms following acute bronchiolitis within six months of acute illness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), the World Health Organization (WHO) trial portal, the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov, up to 26 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotics versus controls (placebo or no treatment) given in the post-acute phase of bronchiolitis (> 14 days) for children younger than two years with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies against predefined criteria, and selected, extracted, and assessed data for inclusion. We contacted trial authors for further information.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review update, we added one study with 219 children. A total of two RCTs with 249 children (n = 240 completed) were eligible for inclusion in this review. Both studies contributed to our primary and secondary outcomes, but we assessed the quality of evidence for our three primary outcomes as low, owing to the small numbers of studies and participants; and high attrition in one of the studies. Data show no significant differences between treatment groups for our primary outcomes: proportion of children (n = 249) who had persistent symptoms at follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.28; fixed-effect model); and number of children (n = 240) rehospitalised with respiratory illness within six months (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.05 to 6.21; random-effects model). We were unable to analyse exacerbation rate because studies used different methods to report this information. Data showed no significant differences between treatment groups for our secondary outcome: proportion of children (n = 240) with wheeze at six months (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.95; random-effects model). One study reported bacterial resistance, but only at 48 hours (thus with limited applicability for this review). Another study reported adverse events from which all children recovered and remained in the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to inform whether antibiotics should be used to treat or prevent persistent respiratory symptoms in the post-acute bronchiolitis phase. Future RCTs are needed to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics for reducing persistent respiratory symptoms. This is particularly important in populations with high acute and post-acute bronchiolitis morbidity (e.g. indigenous populations in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA).

Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) self-management interventions should be structured but personalised and often multi-component, with goals of motivating, engaging and supporting the patients to positively adapt their behaviour(s) and develop skills to better manage disease. Exacerbation action plans are considered to be a key component of COPD self-management interventions. Studies assessing these interventions show contradictory results. In this Cochrane Review, we compared the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions that include action plans for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) with usual care.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of COPD-specific self-management interventions that include an action plan for exacerbations of COPD compared with usual care in terms of health-related quality of life, respiratory-related hospital admissions and other health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, trials registries, and the reference lists of included studies to May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating a self-management intervention for people with COPD published since 1995. To be eligible for inclusion, the self-management intervention included a written action plan for AECOPD and an iterative process between participant and healthcare provider(s) in which feedback was provided. We excluded disease management programmes classified as pulmonary rehabilitation or exercise classes offered in a hospital, at a rehabilitation centre, or in a community-based setting to avoid overlap with pulmonary rehabilitation as much as possible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by reaching consensus or by involving a third review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information and missing outcome data where possible. When appropriate, study results were pooled using a random-effects modelling meta-analysis. The primary outcomes of the review were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and number of respiratory-related hospital admissions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies that involved 3,854 participants with COPD. The studies compared the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions that included an action plan for AECOPD with usual care. The follow-up time ranged from two to 24 months and the content of the interventions was diverse.Over 12 months, there was a statistically significant beneficial effect of self-management interventions with action plans on HRQoL, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, where a lower score represents better HRQoL. We found a mean difference from usual care of -2.69 points (95% CI -4.49 to -0.90; 1,582 participants; 10 studies; high-quality evidence). Intervention participants were at a statistically significant lower risk for at least one respiratory-related hospital admission compared with participants who received usual care (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; 3,157 participants; 14 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one respiratory-related hospital admission over one year was 12 (95% CI 7 to 69) for participants with high baseline risk and 17 (95% CI 11 to 93) for participants with low baseline risk (based on the seven studies with the highest and lowest baseline risk respectively).There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of at least one all-cause hospital admission in the self-management intervention group compared to the usual care group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 2467 participants; 14 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, we observed no statistically significant difference in the number of all-cause hospitalisation days, emergency department visits, General Practitioner visits, and dyspnoea scores as measured by the (modified) Medical Research Council questionnaire for self-management intervention participants compared to usual care participants. There was no statistically significant effect observed from self-management on the number of COPD exacerbations and no difference in all-cause mortality observed (RD 0.0019, 95% CI -0.0225 to 0.0263; 3296 participants; 16 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Exploratory analysis showed a very small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate in the self-management intervention group compared to the usual care group (RD 0.028, 95% CI 0.0049 to 0.0511; 1219 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence).Subgroup analyses showed significant improvements in HRQoL in self-management interventions with a smoking cessation programme (MD -4.98, 95% CI -7.17 to -2.78) compared to studies without a smoking cessation programme (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.27, test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 6.89, df = 1, P = 0.009, I² = 85.5%). The number of behavioural change techniques clusters integrated in the self-management intervention, the duration of the intervention and adaptation of maintenance medication as part of the action plan did not affect HRQoL. Subgroup analyses did not detect any potential variables to explain differences in respiratory-related hospital admissions among studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Self-management interventions that include a COPD exacerbation action plan are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess all-cause mortality risk was observed, but exploratory analysis showed a small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate for self-management compared to usual care.For future studies, we would like to urge only using action plans together with self-management interventions that meet the requirements of the most recent COPD self-management intervention definition. To increase transparency, future study authors should provide more detailed information regarding interventions provided. This would help inform further subgroup analyses and increase the ability to provide stronger recommendations regarding effective self-management interventions that include action plans for AECOPD. For safety reasons, COPD self-management action plans should take into account comorbidities when used in the wider population of people with COPD who have comorbidities. Although we were unable to evaluate this strategy in this review, it can be expected to further increase the safety of self-management interventions. We also advise to involve Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for future COPD self-management studies.

Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) is commonly used to treat patients admitted to hospital with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of NIV applied in conjunction with usual care versus usual care involving no mechanical ventilation alone in adults with AHRF due to AECOPD. The aim of this review is to update the evidence base with the goals of supporting clinical practice and providing recommendations for future evaluation and research.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and PsycINFO, and through handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. This update to the original review incorporates the results of database searches up to January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials that compared usual care plus NIV (BiPAP) versus usual care alone in an acute hospital setting for patients with AECOPD due to AHRF were eligible for inclusion. AHRF was defined by a mean admission pH < 7.35 and mean partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) > 45 mmHg (6 kPa). Primary review outcomes were mortality during hospital admission and need for endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, treatment intolerance, complications, changes in symptoms, and changes in arterial blood gases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria to determine study eligibility, performed data extraction, and determined risk of bias in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. Review authors undertook meta-analysis for data that were both clinically and statistically homogenous, and analysed data as both one overall pooled sample and according to two predefined subgroups related to exacerbation severity (admission pH between 7.35 and 7.30 vs below 7.30) and NIV treatment setting (intensive care unit-based vs ward-based). We reported results for mortality, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital length of stay in a 'Summary of findings' table and rated their quality in accordance with GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review 17 randomised controlled trials involving 1264 participants. Available data indicate that mean age at recruitment was 66.8 years (range 57.7 to 70.5 years) and that most participants (65%) were male. Most studies (12/17) were at risk of performance bias, and for most (14/17), the risk of detection bias was uncertain. These risks may have affected subjective patient-reported outcome measures (e.g. dyspnoea) and secondary review outcomes, respectively.Use of NIV decreased the risk of mortality by 46% (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.76; N = 12 studies; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 9 to 23) and decreased the risk of needing endotracheal intubation by 65% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.46; N = 17 studies; NNTB 5, 95% CI 5 to 6). We graded both outcomes as 'moderate' quality owing to uncertainty regarding risk of bias for several studies. Inspection of the funnel plot related to need for endotracheal intubation raised the possibility of some publication bias pertaining to this outcome. NIV use was also associated with reduced length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -3.39 days, 95% CI -5.93 to -0.85; N = 10 studies), reduced incidence of complications (unrelated to NIV) (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; N = 2 studies), and improvement in pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.07; N = 8 studies) and in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) (MD 7.47 mmHg, 95% CI 0.78 to 14.16 mmHg; N = 8 studies) at one hour. A trend towards improvement in PaCO2 was observed, but this finding was not statistically significant (MD -4.62 mmHg, 95% CI -11.05 to 1.80 mmHg; N = 8 studies). Post hoc analysis revealed that this lack of benefit was due to the fact that data from two studies at high risk of bias showed baseline imbalance for this outcome (worse in the NIV group than in the usual care group). Sensitivity analysis revealed that exclusion of these two studies resulted in a statistically significant positive effect of NIV on PaCO2. Treatment intolerance was significantly greater in the NIV group than in the usual care group (risk difference (RD) 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17; N = 6 studies). Results of analysis showed a non-significant trend towards reduction in dyspnoea with NIV compared with usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; N = 4 studies). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant between-group differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data from good quality randomised controlled trials show that NIV is beneficial as a first-line intervention in conjunction with usual care for reducing the likelihood of mortality and endotracheal intubation in patients admitted with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The magnitude of benefit for these outcomes appears similar for patients with acidosis of a mild (pH 7.30 to 7.35) versus a more severe nature (pH < 7.30), and when NIV is applied within the intensive care unit (ICU) or ward setting.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Computer and mobile technology interventions for self-management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by airflow obstruction due to an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles or gases, for example, cigarette smoke. The pattern of care for people with moderate to very severe COPD often involves regular lengthy hospital admissions, which result in high healthcare costs and an undesirable effect on quality of life. Research over the past decade has focused on innovative methods for developing enabling and assistive technologies that facilitate patient self-management.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions delivered by computer and by mobile technology versus face-to-face or hard copy/digital documentary-delivered interventions, or both, in facilitating, supporting, and sustaining self-management among people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and we handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that measured effects of remote and Web 2.0-based interventions defined as technologies including personal computers (PCs) and applications (apps) for mobile technology, such as iPad, Android tablets, smart phones, and Skype, on behavioural change towards self-management of COPD. Comparator interventions included face-to-face and/or hard copy/digital documentary educational/self-management support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (CMcC and MMcC) independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text study reports for inclusion. Two review authors (CMcC and AMB) independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We expressed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for studies using different outcome measurement scales.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in our review three studies (Moy 2015; Tabak 2013; Voncken-Brewster 2015) with a total of 1580 randomised participants. From Voncken-Brewster 2015, we included the subgroup of individuals with a diagnosis of COPD (284 participants) and excluded those at risk of COPD who had not received a diagnosis (1023 participants). As a result, the total population available for analysis included 557 participants; 319 received smart technology to support self-management and 238 received face-to-face verbal/written or digital information and education about self-management. The average age of participants was 64 years. We included more men than women because the sample from one of the studies consisted of war veterans, most of whom were men. These studies measured five of our nine defined outcomes. None of these studies included outcomes such as self-efficacy, cost-effectiveness, functional capacity, lung function, or anxiety and depression.All three studies included our primary outcome - health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) or St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). One study reported our other primary outcomes - hospital admissions and acute exacerbations. Two studies included our secondary outcome of physical activity as measured by daily step counts. One study addressed smoking by providing a narrative analysis. Only one study reported adverse events and noted significant differences between groups, with 43 events noted in the intervention group and eight events in the control group (P = 0.001). For studies that measured outcomes at week four, month four, and month six, the effect of smart technology on self-management and subsequent HRQoL in terms of symptoms and health status was significantly better than when participants received face-to-face/digital and/or written support for self-management of COPD (SMD -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.03; P = 0.02). The single study that reported HRQoL at 12 months described no significant between-group differences (MD 1.1, 95% CI -2.2 to 4.5; P = 0.50). Also, hospitalisations (logistic regression odds ratio (OR) 1.6, 95% CI 0.8 to 3.2; P = 0.19) and exacerbations (logistic regression OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.8; P = 0.33) did not differ between groups in the single study that reported these outcomes at 12 months. The activity level of people with COPD at week four, month four, and month six was significantly higher when smart technology was used than when face-to-face/digital and/or written support was provided (MD 864.06 daily steps between groups, 95% CI 369.66 to 1358.46; P = 0.0006). The only study that measured activity levels at 12 months reported no significant differences between groups (mean -108, 95% CI -720 to 505; P = 0.73). Participant engagement in this study was not sustained between four and 12 months. The only study that included smoking cessation found no significant treatment effect (OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.43 to 2.66; P = 0.895). Meta-analyses showed no significant heterogeneity between studies (Chi² = 0.39, P = 0.82; I² = 0% and Chi² = 0.01, P = 0.91; I² = 0%, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although our review suggests that interventions aimed at facilitating, supporting, and sustaining self-managment in people with COPD and delivered via smart technology significantly improved HRQoL and levels of activity up to six months compared with interventions given through face-to-face/digital and/or written support, no firm conclusions can be drawn. This improvement may not be sustained over a long duration. The only included study that measured outcomes up to 12 months highlighted the need to ensure sustained engagement with the technology over time. Limited evidence suggests that using computer and mobile technology for self-management for people with COPD is not harmful and may be more beneficial for some people than for others, for example, those with an interest in using technology may derive greater benefit.The evidence, provided by three studies at high risk of bias, is of poor quality and is insufficient for advising healthcare professionals, service providers, and members of the public with COPD about the health benefits of using smart technology as an effective means of supporting, encouraging, and sustaining self-management. Further research that focuses on outcomes relevant to different stages of COPD is needed. Researchers should provide clear information on how self-management is assessed and should include longitudinal measures that allow comment on behavioural change.

Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma

BACKGROUND

Adolescents with asthma are at high risk of poor adherence with treatment. This may be compounded by activities that worsen asthma, in particular smoking. Additional support above and beyond routine care has the potential to encourage good self-management. We wanted to find out whether sessions led by their peers or by lay leaders help to reduce these risks and improve asthma outcomes among adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains reports of randomised trials obtained from multiple electronic and handsearched sources, and we searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 25 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies randomised adolescents with asthma to an intervention led by lay people or peers or to a control. We included parallel randomised controlled trials with individual or cluster designs. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the searches, extracted numerical data and study characteristics and assessed each included study for risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life and exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids. We graded the analyses and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we described skewed data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies including a total of 1146 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. As ever with systematic reviews of complex interventions, studies varied by design (cluster and individually randomised), duration (2.5 to 9 months), setting (school, day camp, primary care) and intervention content. Most risk of bias concerns were related to blinding and incomplete reporting, which limited the meta-analyses that could be performed. Studies generally controlled well for selection and attrition biases.All participants were between 11 and 17 years of age. Asthma diagnosis and severity varied, as did smoking prevalence. Three studies used the Triple A programme; one of these studies tested the addition of a smoke-free pledge; another delivered peer support group sessions and mp3 messaging to encourage adherence; and the third compared a peer-led asthma day camp with an equivalent camp led by healthcare practitioners.We had low confidence in all findings owing to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Results from an analysis of asthma-related quality of life based on the prespecified random-effects model were imprecise and showed no differences (MD 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.81); a sensitivity analysis based on a fixed-effect model and a responder analysis suggested small benefit may be derived for this outcome. Most other results were summarised narratively and did not show an important benefit of the intervention; studies provided no analysable data on asthma exacerbations or unscheduled visits (data were skewed), and one study measuring adherence reported a drop in both groups. Effects on asthma control favoured the intervention but findings were not statistically significant. Results from two studies with high levels of baseline smoking showed some promise for self-efficacy to stop smoking, but overall nicotine dependence and smoking-related knowledge were not significantly better in the intervention group. Investigators did not report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although weak evidence suggests that lay-led and peer support interventions could lead to a small improvement in asthma-related quality of life for adolescents, benefits for asthma control, exacerbations and medication adherence remain unproven. Current evidence is insufficient to reveal whether routine use of lay-led or peer support programmes is beneficial for adolescents receiving asthma care.Ongoing and future research may help to identify target populations for lay-led and peer support interventions, along with attributes that constitute a successful programme.

Interventions to improve adherence to inhaled steroids for asthma

BACKGROUND

Despite its proven efficacy in improving symptoms and reducing exacerbations, many patients with asthma are not fully adherent to their steroid inhaler. Suboptimal adherence leads to poorer clinical outcomes and increased health service utilisation, and has been identified as a contributing factor to a third of asthma deaths in the UK. Reasons for non-adherence vary, and a variety of interventions have been proposed to help people improve treatment adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to inhaled corticosteroids among people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 18 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel and cluster randomised controlled trials of any duration conducted in any setting. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. We included trials of adults and children with asthma and a current prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) (as monotherapy or in combination with a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA)). Eligible trials compared an intervention primarily aimed at improving adherence to ICS versus usual care or an alternative intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the searches, extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were adherence to ICS, exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids and asthma control. We graded results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all using a random-effects model. We described skewed data narratively. We made no a priori assumptions about how trials would be categorised but conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and children with asthma, 28 of which (n = 16,303) contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from two months to two years (median six months), and trials were conducted mainly in high-income countries. Most studies reported some measure of adherence to ICS and a variety of other outcomes such as quality of life and asthma control. Studies generally were at low or unclear risk of selection bias and at high risk of biases associated with blinding. We considered around half the studies to be at high risk for attrition bias and selective outcome reporting.We classified studies into four comparisons: adherence education versus control (20 studies); electronic trackers or reminders versus control (11 studies); simplified drug regimens versus usual drug regimens (four studies); and school-based directly observed therapy (three studies). Two studies are described separately.All pooled results for adherence education, electronic trackers or reminders and simplified regimens showed better adherence than controls. Analyses limited to studies using objective measures revealed that adherence education showed a benefit of 20 percentage points over control (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.52 to 32.74; five studies; low-quality evidence); electronic trackers or reminders led to better adherence of 19 percentage points (95% CI 14.47 to 25.26; six studies; moderate-quality evidence); and simplified regimens led to better adherence of 4 percentage points (95% CI 1.88 to 6.16; three studies; moderate-quality evidence). Our confidence in the evidence was reduced by risk of bias and inconsistency.Improvements in adherence were not consistently translated into observable benefit for clinical outcomes in our pooled analyses. None of the intervention types showed clear benefit for our primary clinical outcomes - exacerbations requiring an oral corticosteroid (OCS) (evidence of very low to low quality) and asthma control (evidence of low to moderate quality); nor for our secondary outcomes - unscheduled visits (evidence of very low to moderate quality) and quality of life (evidence of low to moderate quality). However, some individual studies reported observed benefits for OCS and use of healthcare services. Most school or work absence data were skewed and were difficult to interpret (evidence of low quality, when graded), and most studies did not specifically measure or report adverse events.Studies investigating the possible benefit of administering ICS at school did not measure adherence, exacerbations requiring OCS, asthma control or adverse events. One study showed fewer unscheduled visits, and another found no differences; data could not be combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pooled results suggest that a variety of interventions can improve adherence. The clinical relevance of this improvement, highlighted by uncertain and inconsistent impact on clinical outcomes such as quality of life and asthma control, is less clear. We have low to moderate confidence in these findings owing to concerns about risk of bias and inconsistency. Future studies would benefit from predefining an evidence-based 'cut-off' for acceptable adherence and using objective adherence measures and validated tools and questionnaires. When possible, covert monitoring and some form of blinding or active control may help disentangle effects of the intervention from effects of inclusion in an adherence trial.

Asthma education for school staff

BACKGROUND

Teachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect a child with asthma in their care, or may fail to take appropriate action in the event of a serious attack. Education about asthma could help to improve this knowledge and lead to better asthma outcomes for children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of asthma education programmes for school staff, and to identify content and attributes underpinning them.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention to educate school staff about asthma versus a control group. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors screened the searches, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were emergency department (ED) or hospital visits, mortality and asthma control; we graded the main results and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table. We planned a qualitative synthesis of intervention characteristics, but study authors were unable to provide the necessary information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we narratively described skewed data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five cluster-RCTs of 111 schools met the review eligibility criteria. Investigators measured outcomes in participating staff and often in children or parents, most often at between 1 and 12 months.All interventions were educational programmes but duration, content and delivery varied; some involved elements of training for pupils or primary care providers. We noted risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition biases, although to a differing extent across studies and outcomes.Quanitative and qualitative analyses were limited. Only one study reported visits to the ED or hospital and provided data that were too skewed for analysis. No studies reported any deaths or adverse events. Studies did not report asthma control consistently, but results showed no difference between groups on the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.31; 1005 participants; we downgraded the quality of evidence to low for risk of bias and indirectness). Data for symptom days, night-time awakenings, restricted activities of daily living and school absences were skewed or could not be analysed; some mean scores were better in the trained group, but most differences between groups were small and did not persist to 24 months.Schools that received asthma education were more adherent to asthma policies, and staff were better prepared; more schools that had received staff asthma training had written asthma policies compared with control schools, more intervention schools showed improvement in measures taken to prevent or manage exercise-induced asthma attacks and more staff at intervention schools reported that they felt able to administer salbutamol via a spacer. However, the quality of the evidence was low; results show imbalances at baseline, and confidence in the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Staff knowledge was higher in groups that had received asthma education, although results were inconsistent and difficult to interpret owing to differences between scales (low quality).Available information about the interventions was insufficient for review authors to conduct a meaningful qualitative synthesis of the content that led to a successful intervention, or of the resources required to replicate results accurately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Asthma education for school staff increases asthma knowledge and preparedness, but studies vary and all available evidence is of low quality. Studies have not yet captured whether this improvement in knowledge has led to appreciable benefits over the short term or the longer term for the safety and health of children with asthma in school. Randomised evidence does not contribute to our knowledge of content or attributes of interventions that lead to the best outcomes, or of resources required for successful implementation.Complete reporting of the content and resources of educational interventions is essential for assessment of their effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. This applies to both randomised and non-randomised studies, although the latter may be better placed to observe important clinical outcomes such as exacerbations and mortality in the longer term.

Personalised asthma action plans for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

A key aim of asthma care is to empower each person to take control of his or her own condition. A personalised asthma action plan (PAAP), also known as a written action plan, an individualised action plan, or a self-management action plan, contributes to this endeavour. A PAAP includes individualised self-management instructions devised collaboratively with the patient to help maintain asthma control and regain control in the event of an exacerbation. A PAAP includes baseline characteristics (such as lung function), maintenance medication and instructions on how to respond to increasing symptoms and when to seek medical help.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of PAAPs used alone or in combination with education, for patient-reported outcomes, resource use and safety among adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, clinical trial registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers' websites up to 14 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both blinded and unblinded, that evaluated written PAAPs in adults with asthma. Included studies compared PAAP alone versus no PAAP, and/or PAAP plus education versus education alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalisation, asthma symptom scores on a validated scale and adverse events (all causes). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measured on a validated scale, number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, respiratory function and days lost from work or study. We used a random-effects model for all analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 studies described in 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These 15 included studies randomised a total of 3062 participants (PAAP vs no PAAP: 2602 participants; PAAP plus education vs education alone: 460 participants). Ten studies (eight PAAP vs no PAAP; two PAAP plus education vs education alone) provided outcome data that contributed to quantitative analyses. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low.Fourteen studies lasted six months or longer, and the remaining study lasted for 14 weeks. When reported, mean age ranged from 22 to 49 years and asthma severity ranged from mild to severe/high risk. PAAP alone compared with no PAAPResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.24; 1385 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.25 to - 0.07; 141 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) or the number of serious adverse events, including death (OR 3.26, 95% CI 0.33 to 32.21; 125 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Data revealed a statistically significant improvement in quality of life scores for those receiving PAAP compared with no PAAP (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; 441 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence), but this was below the threshold for a minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results also showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs on the number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.48; 1136 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence) nor on respiratory function (change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1): MD -0.04 L, 95% CI -0.25L to 0.17 L; 392 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). In one study, PAAPs were associated with significantly fewer days lost from work or study (MD -6.20, 95% CI -7.32 to - 5.08; 74 participants; low-quality evidence). PAAP plus education compared with education aloneResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with adding a PAAP to education in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.32; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.34; 70 participants; one study; low-quality evidence), change in quality of life scores from baseline (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.39; 174 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) and number of participants requiring oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported serious adverse events, respiratory function or days lost from work or study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of available studies was limited by variable reporting of primary and secondary outcomes; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to the effectiveness of PAAPs in the management of adult asthma. We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials of additional benefit or harm associated with use of PAAP versus no PAAP, or PAAP plus education versus education alone, but we considered the quality of the evidence to be low or very low, meaning that we cannot be confident in the magnitude or direction of reported treatment effects. In the context of this caveat, we found no observable effect on the primary outcomes of hospital attendance with an asthma exacerbation, asthma symptom scores or adverse events. We recommend further research with a particular focus on key patient-relevant outcomes, including exacerbation frequency and quality of life, in a broad spectrum of adults, including those over 60 years of age.

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma management guidelines recommend low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. The addition of anti-leukotriene agents to ICS offers a therapeutic option in cases of suboptimal control with daily ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotriene agents added to ICS compared with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS (in both arms) for adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with persistent asthma. Also, to determine whether any characteristics of participants or treatments might affect the magnitude of response.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP from inception to August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older on a maintenance dose of ICS for whom investigators added anti-leukotrienes to the ICS and compared treatment with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (except when both groups tapered the dose of ICS, in which case the primary outcome was the % reduction in ICS dose from baseline with maintained asthma control). Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, lung function, asthma control, quality of life, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review 37 studies representing 6128 adult and adolescent participants (most with mild to moderate asthma). Investigators in these studies used three leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs): montelukast (n = 24), zafirlukast (n = 11) and pranlukast (n = 2); studies lasted from four weeks to five years. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus same dose of ICSOf 16 eligible studies, 10 studies, representing 2364 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Anti-leukotriene agents given as adjunct therapy to ICS reduced by half the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.86; 815 participants; four studies; moderate quality); this is equivalent to a number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over six to 16 weeks of 22 (95% CI 16 to 75). Only one trial including 368 participants reported mortality and serious adverse events, but events were too infrequent for researchers to draw a conclusion. Four trials reported all adverse events, and the pooled result suggested little difference between groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 1024 participants; three studies; moderate quality). Investigators noted between-group differences favouring the addition of anti-leukotrienes for morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), asthma symptoms and night-time awakenings, but not for reduction in β2-agonist use or evening PEFR. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus higher dose of ICSOf 15 eligible studies, eight studies, representing 2008 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1779 participants; four studies; moderate quality) nor in all adverse events between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 1899 participants; six studies; low quality). Three trials reported no deaths among 834 participants. Results showed no statistically significant differences in lung function tests including morning PEFR and FEV1 nor in asthma control measures including use of rescue β2-agonists or asthma symptom scores. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus tapering dose of ICSSeven studies, representing 1150 adults and adolescents, evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and tapering-dose of ICS compared with tapering-dose of ICS alone and contributed data. Investigators observed no statistically significant difference in % change from baseline ICS dose (mean difference (MD) -3.05, 95% CI -8.13 to 2.03; 930 participants; four studies; moderate quality), number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 542 participants; five studies; low quality) or all adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 1100 participants; six studies; moderate quality). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently among those taking anti-leukotrienes plus tapering ICS than in those taking tapering doses of ICS alone (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.92; 621 participants; two studies; moderate quality), but deaths were too infrequent for researchers to draw any conclusions about mortality. Data showed no improvement in lung function nor in asthma control measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, with suboptimal asthma control with daily use of ICS, the addition of anti-leukotrienes is beneficial for reducing moderate and severe asthma exacerbations and for improving lung function and asthma control compared with the same dose of ICS. We cannot be certain that the addition of anti-leukotrienes is superior, inferior or equivalent to a higher dose of ICS. Scarce available evidence does not support anti-leukotrienes as an ICS sparing agent, and use of LTRAs was not associated with increased risk of withdrawals or adverse effects, with the exception of an increase in serious adverse events when the ICS dose was tapered. Information was insufficient for assessment of mortality.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Three classes of inhaler medications are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). When two classes of medications are required, LAMA plus LABA (LAMA+LABA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA+ICS) are often selected because these combinations can be administered via a single medication device. The previous Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidance recommended LABA+ICS as the first-line treatment for managing stable COPD in high-risk people of categories C and D. However, the updated GOLD 2017 guidance recommends LAMA+LABA over LABA+ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS for treatment of people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (2 February 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (4 June 2016), and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (4 June 2016), followed by a handsearch (5 June 2016). Two review authors screened and scrutinised the selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual randomised controlled trials, parallel-group trials, and cross-over trials comparing LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS for stable COPD. The minimum accepted trial duration was one month and trials should have been conducted in an outpatient setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR), and continuous data as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager 5. Exacerbations were measured by counting the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies comprising 9839 participants in our quantitative analysis. Most studies included people with moderate to severe COPD, without recent exacerbations. One pharmaceutical sponsored trial that included only people with recent exacerbations was the largest study and accounted for 37% of participants. All but one study were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, thus we rated them as having a high risk of 'other bias'. The unsponsored study was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and possible selective reporting.Five studies recruited GOLD Category B participants, one study recruited Category D participants, two studies recruited Category A/B participants, and three studies recruited participants regardless of category. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 52 weeks.Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled primary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: exacerbations, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.96, P = 0.01, I2 = 17%, low quality evidence); serious adverse events (SAE), OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.05, P = 0.18, I2 = 0, moderate quality evidence); St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score change from the baseline, MD -1.22 (95% CI -2.52 to 0.07, P = 0.06, I2 = 71%, low quality evidence); and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) change from the baseline, MD 0.08 L (95% CI 0.06 to 0.09, P < 0.0001, I2 = 50%, moderate quality evidence). Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled secondary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: pneumonia, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79, P = 0.0006, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); all-cause death, OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.67, P = 0.88, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); and SGRQ total score change from the baseline of 4 points or greater (the minimal clinically important difference for the SGRQ is 4 points), OR 1.25 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.44, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of COPD, LAMA+LABA has fewer exacerbations, a larger improvement of FEV1, a lower risk of pneumonia, and more frequent improvement in quality of life as measured by an increase over 4 units or more of the SGRQ. These data were supported by low or moderate quality evidence generated from mainly participants with moderate to severe COPD in heterogeneous trials with an observation period of less than one year. Our findings support the recently updated GOLD guidance.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Pneumococcal vaccines for preventing pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of pneumococcal disease, especially pneumonia, as well as acute exacerbations with associated morbidity and healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of injectable pneumococcal vaccination for preventing pneumonia in persons with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways COPD Trials Register and the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, using prespecified terms. Searches are current to November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing injectable pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) or pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV) versus a control or alternative vaccine type in people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by vaccine type.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we added five studies (606 participants), meaning that the review now includes a total of 12 RCTs involving 2171 participants with COPD. Average age of participants was 66 years, male participants accounted for 67% and mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) was 1.2 L (five studies), 54% predicted (four studies). We assessed risks of selection, attrition and reporting bias as low, and risks of performance and detection bias as moderate.Compared with control, the vaccine group had a lower likelihood of developing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.89; six studies, n = 1372; GRADE: moderate), but findings did not differ specifically for pneumococcal pneumonia (Peto OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.31; three studies, n = 1158; GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) (preventing one episode of CAP) was 21 (95% CI 15 to 74). Mortality from cardiorespiratory causes did not differ between vaccine and control groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.66; three studies, n = 888; GRADE: moderate), nor did all-cause mortality differ (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.40; five studies, n = 1053; GRADE: moderate). The likelihood of hospital admission for any cause, or for cardiorespiratory causes, did not differ between vaccine and control groups. Vaccination significantly reduced the likelihood of a COPD exacerbation (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; four studies, n = 446; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to prevent a patient from experiencing an acute exacerbation was 8 (95% CI 5 to 58). Only one study (n = 181) compared the efficacy of different vaccine types - 23-valent PPV versus 7-valent PCV - and reported no differences for CAP, all-cause mortality, hospital admission or likelihood of a COPD exacerbation, but investigators described a greater likelihood of some mild adverse effects of vaccination with PPV-23.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Injectable polyvalent pneumococcal vaccination provides significant protection against community-acquired pneumonia, although no evidence indicates that vaccination reduced the risk of confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia, which was a relatively rare event. Vaccination reduced the likelihood of a COPD exacerbation, and moderate-quality evidence suggests the benefits of pneumococcal vaccination in people with COPD. Evidence was insufficient for comparison of different pneumococcal vaccine types.

Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Individuals with pulmonary hypertension (PH) have reduced exercise capacity and quality of life. Despite initial concerns that exercise training may worsen symptoms in this group, several studies have reported improvements in functional capacity and well-being following exercise-based rehabilitation in PH.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of exercise-based rehabilitation for people with PH. Primary outcomes were exercise capacity, adverse events during the intervention period and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary haemodynamics, functional class, clinical worsening during follow-up, mortality and changes in B-type natriuretic peptide.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register of Trials up to August 2016, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. In addition we searched CENTRAL and the PEDro database up to August 2016 and handsearched relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for PH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios and their 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and were able to extract data from five studies. The majority of participants were Group I pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH). Study duration ranged from three to 15 weeks. Exercise programmes included both inpatient- and outpatient-based rehabilitation that incorporated both upper and lower limb exercise. The mean six-minute walk distance following exercise training was 60.12 metres higher than control (30.17 to 90.07 metres, n = 165, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence; minimal important difference was 30 metres), the mean peak oxygen uptake was 2.4 ml/kg/minute higher (1.4 to 3.4 ml/kg/min, n = 145, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence) and the mean peak power in the intervention groups was 16.4 W higher (10.9 to 22.0 higher, n = 145, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). The mean change in HRQoL for the SF-36 physical component score was 4.63 points higher (0.80 to 8.47 points, n = 33, 2 RCTs, low-quality evidence) and for the SF-36 mental component score was 4.17 points higher (0.01 to 8.34 points; n = 33; 2 RCTs, low-quality evidence). One study reported a single adverse event, where a participant stopped exercise training due to lightheadedness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with PH, exercise-based rehabilitation results in clinically relevant improvements in exercise capacity. Exercise training was not associated with any serious adverse events. Whilst most studies reported improvements in HRQoL, these may not be clinically important. Overall, we assessed the quality of the evidence to be low. The small number of studies and lack of information on participant selection makes it difficult to generalise these results across the spectrum of people with PH.

Combined inhaled beta-agonist and anticholinergic agents for emergency management in adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled short-acting anticholinergics (SAAC) and short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA) are effective therapies for adult patients with acute asthma who present to the emergency department (ED). It is unclear, however, whether the combination of SAAC and SABA treatment is more effective in reducing hospitalisations compared to treatment with SABA alone.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an up-to-date systematic search and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC + SABA agents) vs. SABA alone to reduce hospitalisations in adult patients presenting to the ED with an exacerbation of asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and evidence-based medicine (EBM) databases using controlled vocabulary, natural language terms, and a variety of specific and general terms for inhaled SAAC and SABA drugs. The search spanned from 1946 to July 2015. The Cochrane Airways Group provided search results from the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials which was most recently conducted in July 2016. An extensive search of the grey literature was completed to identify any other potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies were randomised or controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC and SABA) to SABA treatment alone to prevent hospitalisations in adults with acute asthma in the emergency department. Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion using pre-determined criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model and reporting heterogeneity (I²). For continuous outcomes, we reported individual trial results using mean differences (MD) and pooled results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies that involved a total of 2724 enrolled participants. Most studies were rated at unclear or high risk of bias.Overall, participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were less likely to be hospitalised (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87; participants = 2120; studies = 16; I² = 12%; moderate quality of evidence). An estimated 65 fewer patients per 1000 would require hospitalisation after receiving combination therapy (95% 30 to 95), compared to 231 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. Although combination inhaled therapy was more effective than SABA treatment alone in reducing hospitalisation in participants with severe asthma exacerbations, this was not found for participants with mild or moderate exacerbations (test for difference between subgroups P = 0.02).Participants receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (MD 0.25 L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; participants = 687; studies = 6; I² = 70%; low quality of evidence), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD 36.58 L/min, 95% CI 23.07 to 50.09; participants = 1056; studies = 12; I² = 25%; very low quality of evidence), increased percent change in PEF from baseline (MD 24.88, 95% CI 14.83 to 34.93; participants = 551; studies = 7; I² = 23%; moderate quality of evidence), and were less likely to return to the ED for additional care (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 1180; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) than participants receiving SABA alone.Participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were more likely to experience adverse events than those treated with SABA agents alone (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.20; participants = 1392; studies = 11; I² = 14%; moderate quality of evidence). Among patients receiving combination therapy, 103 per 1000 were likely to report adverse events (95% 31 to 195 more) compared to 131 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, combination inhaled therapy with SAAC and SABA reduced hospitalisation and improved pulmonary function in adults presenting to the ED with acute asthma. In particular, combination inhaled therapy was more effective in preventing hospitalisation in adults with severe asthma exacerbations who are at increased risk of hospitalisation, compared to those with mild-moderate exacerbations, who were at a lower risk to be hospitalised. A single dose of combination therapy and multiple doses both showed reductions in the risk of hospitalisation among adults with acute asthma. However, adults receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience adverse events, such as tremor, agitation, and palpitations, compared to patients receiving SABA alone.

Action plans with brief patient education for exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major driver of decline in health status and impose high costs on healthcare systems. Action plans offer a form of self-management that can be delivered in the outpatient setting to help individuals recognise and initiate early treatment for exacerbations, thereby reducing their impact.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of an action plan for COPD exacerbations provided with a single short patient education component and without a comprehensive self-management programme versus usual care. Primary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, mortality and medication use. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, psychological morbidity, lung function and cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers. Searches are current to November 2015. We handsearched bibliographic lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing use of an action plan versus usual care for patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD. We permitted inclusion of a single short education component that would allow individualisation of action plans according to management needs and symptoms of people with COPD, as well as ongoing support directed at use of the action plan.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies via phone call follow-up directed at facilitating use of the action plan.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes two additional studies (and 976 additional participants), for a total of seven parallel-group RCTs and 1550 participants, 66% of whom were male. Participants' mean age was 68 years and was similar among studies. Airflow obstruction was moderately severe in three studies and severe in four studies; mean post bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 54% predicted, and 27% of participants were current smokers. Four studies prepared individualised action plans, one study an oral plan and two studies standard written action plans. All studies provided short educational input on COPD, and two studies supplied ongoing support for action plan use. Follow-up was 12 months in four studies and six months in three studies.When compared with usual care, an action plan with phone call follow-up significantly reduced the combined rate of hospitalisations and emergency department (ED) visits for COPD over 12 months in one study with 743 participants (rate ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.79; high-quality evidence), but the rate of hospitalisations alone in this study failed to achieve statistical significance (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). Over 12 months, action plans significantly decreased the likelihood of hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19 (11 to 201)) and the likelihood of an ED visit (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB over 12 months 12 (9 to 26)) compared with usual care.Results showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality during 12 months (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.31; n = 1134; four RCTs; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence interval). Over 12 months, use of oral corticosteroids was increased with action plans compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 0.74 courses, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; n = 200; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and the cumulative prednisolone dose was significantly higher (MD 779.0 mg, 95% CI 533.2 to 10248; n = 743; one RCT; high-quality evidence). Use of antibiotics was greater in the intervention group than in the usual care group (subgrouped by phone call follow-up) over 12 months (MD 2.3 courses, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.7; n = 943; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).Subgroup analysis by ongoing support for action plan use was limited; review authors noted no subgroup differences in the likelihood of hospital admission or ED visits or all-cause mortality over 12 months. Antibiotic use over 12 months showed a significant difference between subgroups in studies without and with ongoing support.Overall quality of life score on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a small improvement with action plans compared with usual care over 12 months (MD -2.8, 95% CI -0.8 to -4.8; n = 1009; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed no benefit for psychological morbidity as measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of COPD exacerbation action plans with a single short educational component along with ongoing support directed at use of the action plan, but without a comprehensive self-management programme, reduces in-hospital healthcare utilisation and increases treatment of COPD exacerbations with corticosteroids and antibiotics. Use of COPD action plans in this context is unlikely to increase or decrease mortality. Whether additional benefit is derived from periodic ongoing support directed at use of an action plan cannot be determined from the results of this review.

Patient- and parent-initiated oral steroids for asthma exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways affecting an estimated 334 million people worldwide. During severe exacerbations, patients may need to attend a medical centre or hospital emergency department for treatment with systemic corticosteroids, which can be administered intravenously or orally. Some people with asthma are prescribed oral corticosteroids (OCS) for self-administration (i.e. patient-initiated) or to administer to their child with asthma (i.e. parent-initiated), in the event of an exacerbation. This approach to treatment is becoming increasingly common.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of patient- or parent-initiated oral steroids for adults and children with asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR from its inception to 18 May 2016 and trial registries from their inception to 24 August 2016; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data; we excluded cross-over trials.We looked for studies where adults (aged 18 years or older) or children of school age (aged 5 years or older) with asthma were randomised to receive: (a) any patient-/parent-initiated OCS or (b) placebo, normal care, alternative active treatment, or an identical personalised asthma action plan without the patient- or parent-initiated OCS component.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to identify any studies that met the prespecified inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were hospital admissions for asthma, asthma symptoms at follow-up and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Despite comprehensive searches of electronic databases and clinical trial registries, we did not identify any studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Five potentially relevant studies were excluded for two reasons: the intervention did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review (three studies) and studies had a cross-over design (two studies). Two of the excluded studies asked the relevant clinical question. However, these studies were excluded due to their cross-over design, as per the protocol. We contacted the authors of the cross-over trials who were unable to provide data for the first treatment period (i.e. prior to cross-over).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from randomised trials (non-cross-over design) to inform the use of patient- or parent-initiated oral corticosteroids in people with asthma.

Pulmonary rehabilitation following exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Guidelines have provided positive recommendations for pulmonary rehabilitation after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but recent studies indicate that postexacerbation rehabilitation may not always be effective in patients with unstable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of pulmonary rehabilitation after COPD exacerbations on hospital admissions (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes (mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and the Cochrane Airways Review Group Register of Trials. Searches were current as of 20 October 2015, and handsearches were run up to 5 April 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pulmonary rehabilitation of any duration after exacerbation of COPD versus conventional care. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes had to include at least physical exercise (endurance or strength exercise, or both). We did not apply a criterion for the minimum number of exercise sessions a rehabilitation programme had to offer to be included in the review. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We expected substantial heterogeneity across trials in terms of how extensive rehabilitation programmes were (i.e. in terms of number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision of exercise training; and patient education), duration of follow-up (< 3 months vs ≥ 3 months) and risk of bias (generation of random sequence, concealment of random allocation and blinding); therefore, we performed subgroup analyses that were defined before we carried them out. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane in preparing this update, and we used GRADE for assessing the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we added 11 studies and included a total of 20 studies (1477 participants). Rehabilitation programmes showed great diversity in terms of exercise training (number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision), patient education (from none to extensive self-management programmes) and how they were organised (within one setting, e.g. pulmonary rehabilitation, to across several settings, e.g. hospital, outpatient centre and home). In eight studies, participants completed extensive pulmonary rehabilitation, and in 12 studies, participants completed pulmonary rehabilitation ranging from not extensive to moderately extensive.Eight studies involving 810 participants contributed data on hospital readmissions. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that pulmonary rehabilitation reduced hospital readmissions (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.91), but results were heterogenous (I² = 77%). Extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and risk of bias may offer an explanation for the heterogeneity, but subgroup analyses were not statistically significant (P values for subgroup effects were between 0.07 and 0.11). Six studies including 670 participants contributed data on mortality. The quality of evidence was low, and the meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant effect of rehabilitation on mortality (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.67). Again, results were heterogenous (I² = 59%). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences in subgroup effects between trials with more and less extensive rehabilitation programmes and between trials at low and high risk for bias, indicating possible explanations for the heterogeneity. Hospital readmissions and mortality studies newly included in this update showed, on average, significantly smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies.High-quality evidence suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation after an exacerbation improves health-related quality of life. The eight studies that used St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) reported a statistically significant effect on SGRQ total score, which was above the minimal important difference (MID) of four points (mean difference (MD) -7.80, 95% CI -12.12 to -3.47; I² = 64%). Investigators also noted statistically significant and important effects (greater than MID) for the impact and activities domains of the SGRQ. Effects were not statistically significant for the SGRQ symptoms domain. Again, all of these analyses showed heterogeneity, but most studies showed positive effects of pulmonary rehabilitation, some studies showed large effects and others smaller but statistically significant effects. Trials at high risk of bias because of lack of concealment of random allocation showed statistically significantly larger effects on the SGRQ than trials at low risk of bias. High-quality evidence shows that six-minute walk distance (6MWD) improved, on average, by 62 meters (95% CI 38 to 86; I² = 87%). Heterogeneity was driven particularly by differences between studies showing very large effects and studies showing smaller but statistically significant effects. For both health-related quality of life and exercise capacity, studies newly included in this update showed, on average, smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies, but the overall results of this review have not changed to an important extent compared with results reported in the earlier version of this review.Five studies involving 278 participants explicitly recorded adverse events, four studies reported no adverse events during rehabilitation programmes and one study reported one serious event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, evidence of high quality shows moderate to large effects of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with COPD after an exacerbation. Some recent studies showed no benefit of rehabilitation on hospital readmissions and mortality and introduced heterogeneity as compared with the last update of this review. Such heterogeneity of effects on hospital readmissions and mortality may be explained to some extent by the extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and by the methodological quality of the included studies. Future researchers must investigate how the extent of rehabilitation programmes in terms of exercise sessions, self-management education and other components affects the outcomes, and how the organisation of such programmes within specific healthcare systems determines their effects after COPD exacerbations on hospital readmissions and mortality.

Oxygen for breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who do not qualify for home oxygen therapy

BACKGROUND

Breathlessness is a cardinal symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is given to improve survival time in people with COPD and severe chronic hypoxaemia at rest. The efficacy of oxygen therapy for breathlessness and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people with COPD and mild or no hypoxaemia who do not meet the criteria for LTOT has not been established.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of oxygen versus air in mildly hypoxaemic or non-hypoxaemic patients with COPD in terms of (1) breathlessness; (2) HRQOL; (3) patient preference whether to continue therapy; and (4) oxygen-related adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, to 12 July 2016, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We handsearched the reference lists of included articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of the effects of non-invasive oxygen versus air on breathlessness, HRQOL or patient preference to continue therapy among people with COPD and mild or no hypoxaemia (partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) > 7.3 kPa) who were not already receiving LTOT. Two review authors independently assessed articles for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected and analysed data. We assessed risk of bias by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias tool'. We pooled effects recorded on different scales as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Lower SMDs indicated decreased breathlessness and reduced HRQOL. We performed subanalyses and sensitivity analyses and assessed the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Compared with the previous review, which was published in 2011, we included 14 additional studies (493 participants), excluded one study and included data for meta-analysis of HRQOL. In total, we included in this review 44 studies including 1195 participants, and we included 33 of these (901 participants)in the meta-analysis.We found that breathlessness during exercise or daily activities was reduced by oxygen compared with air (32 studies; 865 participants; SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.21; I² = 37%; low-quality evidence). This translates to a decrease in breathlessness of about 0.7 points on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. In contrast, we found no effect of short-burst oxygen given before exercise (four studies; 90 participants; SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.28; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Oxygen reduced breathlessness measured during exercise tests (25 studies; 442 participants; SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.22; I² = 29%; moderate-quality evidence), whereas evidence of an effect on breathlessness measured in daily life was limited (two studies; 274 participants; SMD -0.13, 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.11; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).Oxygen did not clearly affect HRQOL (five studies; 267 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.26; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Patient preference and adverse events could not be analysed owing to insufficient data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are moderately confident that oxygen can relieve breathlessness when given during exercise to mildly hypoxaemic and non-hypoxaemic people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who would not otherwise qualify for home oxygen therapy. Most evidence pertains to acute effects during exercise tests, and no evidence indicates that oxygen decreases breathlessness in the daily life setting. Findings show that oxygen does not affect health-related quality of life.

Upper limb exercise training for COPD

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience difficulty with performing upper limb exercise due to dyspnoea and arm fatigue. Consequently, upper limb exercise training is typically incorporated in pulmonary rehabilitation programmes to improve upper limb exercise capacity; however, the effects of this training on dyspnoea and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of upper limb training (endurance or resistance training, or both) on symptoms of dyspnoea and HRQoL in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal from inception to 28 September 2016 as well as checking all reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which upper limb exercise training of at least four weeks' duration was performed. Three comparisons were structured as: a) upper limb training only versus no training or sham intervention; b) combined upper limb training and lower limb training versus lower limb training alone; and c) upper limb training versus another type of upper limb training.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to provide missing data. We determined the treatment effect from each study as the post-treatment scores. We were able to analyse data for all three planned comparisons. For the upper limb training only versus no training or sham intervention structure, the upper limb training was further classified as 'endurance training' or 'resistance training' to determine the impact of training modality.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies on 425 participants were included in the review, one of which was in abstract form only. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis across one or more of the three comparisons. The sample size of the included studies was small (12 to 43 participants) and overall study quality was moderate to low given the imprecision and risk of bias issues (i.e. missing information on sequence generation and allocation concealment as well as no blinding of outcome assessment and incomplete data).When upper limb training was compared to either no training or sham training, there was a small significant improvement in symptoms of dyspnoea with a mean difference (MD) of 0.37 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.72 points; data from four studies on 129 people). However, there was no significant improvement in dyspnoea when the studies of endurance training only (MD 0.41 points, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.95 points; data from two studies on 55 people) or resistance training only (MD 0.34 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.80 points; data from two studies on 74 people) were analysed. When upper limb training combined with lower limb training was compared to lower limb training alone, no significant difference in dyspnoea was shown (MD 0.36 points, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.76 points; data from three studies on 86 people). There were no studies which examined the effects on dyspnoea of upper limb training compared to another upper limb training intervention.There was no significant improvement in HRQoL when upper limb training was compared to either no training or sham training with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.05 (95% CI -0.31 to 0.40; four studies on 126 people) or when upper limb training combined with lower limb training was compared to lower limb training alone (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.43; three studies on 95 people). Only one study, in which endurance upper limb training was compared to resistance upper limb training, reported on HRQoL and showed no between-group differences (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire MD 2.0 points, 95% CI -9 to 12; one study on 20 people).Positive findings were shown for the effects of upper limb training on the secondary outcome of unsupported endurance upper limb exercise capacity. When upper limb training was compared to either no training or sham training, there was a large significant improvement in unsupported endurance upper limb capacity (SMD 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.13; six studies on 142 people) which remained significant when the studies in this analysis of endurance training only were examined (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66; four studies on 85 people) but not when the studies of resistance training only were examined (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.76; three studies on 57 people, P = 0.08 for test of subgroup differences). When upper limb training combined with lower limb training was compared to lower limb training alone, there was also a large significant improvement in unsupported endurance upper limb capacity (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.68; three studies on 87 people). A single study compared endurance upper limb training to resistance upper limb training with a significant improvement in the number of lifts performed in one minute favouring endurance upper limb training (MD 6.0 lifts, 95% CI 0.29 to 11.71 lifts; one study on 17 people).Available data were insufficient to examine the impact of disease severity on any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review indicates that some form of upper limb exercise training when compared to no upper limb training or a sham intervention improves dyspnoea but not HRQoL in people with COPD. The limited number of studies comparing different upper limb training interventions precludes conclusions being made about the optimal upper limb training programme for people with COPD, although endurance upper limb training using unsupported upper limb exercises does have a large effect on unsupported endurance upper limb capacity. Future RCTs require larger participant numbers to compare the differences between endurance upper limb training, resistance upper limb training, and combining endurance and resistance upper limb training on patient-relevant outcomes such as dyspnoea, HRQoL and arm activity levels.

Exhaled nitric oxide levels to guide treatment for children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines aim to guide health practitioners to optimise treatment for patients to minimise symptoms, improve or maintain good lung function, and prevent acute exacerbations. The principle of asthma guidelines is based on a step-up or step-down regimen of asthma medications to maximise health using minimum doses. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a marker of eosinophilic inflammation and tailoring asthma medications in accordance to airway eosinophilic levels may improve asthma outcomes such as indices of control or reduce exacerbations, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), in comparison to not using FeNO, that is, management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines (or both), for asthma-related outcomes in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and reference lists of articles. The last searches were in June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustment of asthma medications based on FeNO levels compared to those not using FeNO, that is, management based on clinical symptoms or asthma guidelines (or both) involving children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reviewed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. Two review authors independently selected relevant studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information with responses provided from three.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included nine studies; these studies differed in a variety of ways including definition of asthma exacerbations, FeNO cut-off levels used (12 parts per billion (ppb) to 30 ppb), the way in which FeNO was used to adjust therapy and duration of study (6 to 12 months). Of 1426 children randomised, 1329 completed the studies. The inclusion criteria for the participants in each study varied but all had a diagnosis of asthma. There was a significant difference in the number of children having one or more asthma exacerbations over the study period, they were significantly lower in the FeNO group in comparison to the control group (odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.75; 1279 participants; 8 studies). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over 52 weeks was 9 (95% CI 6 to 15). There was no difference between the groups when comparing exacerbation rates (mean difference (MD) -0.37, 95% CI -0.8 to 0.06; 736 participants; 4 studies; I² = 67%). The number of children in the FeNO group requiring oral corticosteroid courses was lower in comparison to the children in the control group (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.83; 1169 participants; 7 studies; I² = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.36; 1110 participants; 6 studies; I² = 0%). There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), FeNO levels, symptom scores or inhaled corticosteroid doses at final visit). The included studies recorded no adverse events.Three studies had inadequate blinding and were thus considered to have a high risk of bias. However, when these studies were removed in subgroup analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcome (exacerbations) remained statistically significant. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcome 'Number of participants who had one or more exacerbations over the study period') to very low (for the outcome 'Exacerbation rates'), based on lack of blinding, statistical heterogeneity and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this updated review with five new included studies, tailoring asthma medications based on FeNO levels (in comparison with primarily guideline management) significantly decreased the number of children who had one or more exacerbations over the study period but did not impact on the day-to-day clinical symptoms or inhaled corticosteroid doses. Therefore, the use of FeNO to guide asthma therapy in children may be beneficial in a subset of children, it cannot be universally recommended for all children with asthma.Further RCTs need to be conducted and these should encompass different asthma severities, different settings including primary care and less affluent settings, and consider different FeNO cut-offs.

Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) performed to treat patients with severe diffuse emphysema was reintroduced in the nineties. Lung volume reduction surgery aims to resect damaged emphysematous lung tissue, thereby increasing elastic properties of the lung. This treatment is hypothesised to improve long-term daily functioning and quality of life, although it may be costly and may be associated with risks of morbidity and mortality. Ten years have passed since the last version of this review was prepared, prompting us to perform an update.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to gather all available evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) versus non-surgical standard therapy in improving health outcomes for patients with severe diffuse emphysema. Secondary objectives included determining which subgroup of patients benefit from LVRS and for which patients LVRS is contraindicated, to establish the postoperative complications of LVRS and its morbidity and mortality, to determine which surgical approaches for LVRS are most effective and to calculate the cost-effectiveness of LVRS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified RCTs by using the Cochrane Airways Group Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) register, in addition to the online clinical trials registers. Searches are current to April 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that studied the safety and efficacy of LVRS in participants with diffuse emphysema. We excluded studies that investigated giant or bullous emphysema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. When possible, we combined data from more than one study in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two new studies (89 participants) in this updated review. A total of 11 studies (1760 participants) met the entry criteria of the review, one of which accounted for 68% of recruited participants. The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate owing to an unclear risk of bias across many studies, lack of blinding and low participant numbers for some outcomes. Eight of the studies compared LVRS versus standard medical care, one compared two closure techniques (stapling vs laser ablation), one looked at the effect of buttressing the staple line on the effectiveness of LVRS and one compared traditional 'resectional' LVRS with a non-resectional surgical approach. Participants completed a mandatory course of pulmonary rehabilitation/physical training before the procedure commenced. Short-term mortality was higher for LVRS (odds ratio (OR) 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.22 to 11.79; 1489 participants; five studies; moderate-quality evidence) than for control, but long-term mortality favoured LVRS (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; 1280 participants; two studies; moderate-quality evidence). Participants identified post hoc as being at high risk of death from surgery were those with particularly impaired lung function, poor diffusing capacity and/or homogenous emphysema. Participants with upper lobe-predominant emphysema and low baseline exercise capacity showed the most favourable outcomes related to mortality, as investigators reported no significant differences in early mortality between participants treated with LVRS and those in the control group (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.29; 290 participants; one study), as well as significantly lower mortality at the end of follow-up for LVRS compared with control (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 290 participants; one study). Trials in this review furthermore provided evidence of low to moderate quality showing that improvements in lung function parameters other than forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life and exercise capacity were more likely with LVRS than with usual follow-up. Adverse events were more common with LVRS than with control, specifically the occurrence of (persistent) air leaks, pulmonary morbidity (e.g. pneumonia) and cardiovascular morbidity. Although LVRS leads to an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the procedure is relatively costly overall.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lung volume reduction surgery, an effective treatment for selected patients with severe emphysema, may lead to better health status and lung function outcomes, specifically for patients who have upper lobe-predominant emphysema with low exercise capacity, but the procedure is associated with risks of early mortality and adverse events.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Asthma is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission among children and constitutes a significant economic burden. Use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the care of children with acute asthma has increased even though evidence supporting the intervention has been considered weak and clinical guidelines do not recommend the intervention. NPPV might be an effective intervention for acute asthma, but no systematic review has been conducted to assess the effects of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care in children with acute asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care (e.g. bronchodilators and corticosteroids) in children with acute asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR). The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception to February 2016, with no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing NPPV as add-on therapy to usual care versus usual care for children (age < 18 years) hospitalised for an acute asthma attack.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts. We retrieved all relevant full-text study reports, independently screened the full text, identified trials for inclusion and identified and recorded reasons for exclusion of ineligible trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author. We recorded the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) flow diagram and 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table. We identified the risk of bias of included studies to reduce the risk of systematic error. We contacted relevant study authors when data were missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs that randomised 20 participants to NPPV and 20 participants to control. We assessed both studies as having high risk of bias; both trials assessed effects of bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Neither trial used continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Controls received standard care. Investigators reported no deaths and no serious adverse events (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision of results). Both trials showed a statistically significant reduction in symptom score. One trial did not report a standard deviation (SD), but by using an estimated SD, we found a statistically significantly reduced asthma symptom score (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.70 to -0.30, P = 0.03, 19 participants, GRADE: very low quality of evidence). In the other trial, NPPV was associated with a lower total symptom score (5.6 vs 1.9, 16 participants, very low quality of evidence) before cross-over, but investigators did not report an SD, nor could it be estimated from the first phase of the trial, before the cross-over. These gains could be clinically relevant, as a reduction of three or more points in symptom score is considered a clinically meaningful change. Researchers documented five dropouts (12.5%), four of which were due to intolerance to NPPV, and one to respiratory failure requiring intubation. Owing to insufficient reporting in the latter trial and use of different scoring systems, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis nor a Trial Sequential Analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence does not permit confirmation or rejection of the effects of NPPV for acute asthma in children. Large RCTs with low risk of bias are warranted.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for adults and adolescents with asthma

BACKGROUND

People with asthma have a higher prevalence of anxiety and depression than the general population. This is associated with poorer asthma control, medication adherence, and health outcomes. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) may be a way to improve the quality of life of people with asthma by addressing associated psychological issues, which may lead to a lower risk of exacerbations and better asthma control.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of CBT for asthma compared with usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also searched reference lists of all primary studies and review articles and contacted authors for unpublished data. The most recent searches were conducted in August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any cognitive behavioural intervention to usual care or no intervention. We included studies of adults or adolescents with asthma, with or without comorbid anxiety or depression. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMD) where scales varied across studies, all using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life and exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids. We rated all outcomes using GRADE and presented our confidence in the results in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs involving 407 adults with asthma in this review; no studies included adolescents under 18. Study size ranged from 10 to 94 (median 40), and mean age ranged from 39 to 53. Study populations generally had persistent asthma, but severity and diagnostic measures varied. Three studies recruited participants with psychological symptomatology, although with different criteria. Interventions ranged from 4 to 15 sessions, and primary measurements were taken at a mean of 3 months (range 1.2 to 12 months).Participants given CBT had improved scores on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) (MD 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.93; participants = 214; studies = 6; I2 = 53%) and on measures of asthma control (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.20; participants = 95; studies = 3; I2 = 68%) compared to people getting usual care. The AQLQ effect appeared to be sustained up to a year after treatment, but due to its low quality this evidence must be interpreted with caution. As asthma exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids were not consistently reported, we could not perform a meta-analysis.Anxiety scores were difficult to pool but showed a benefit of CBT compared with usual care (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.03), although this depended on the analysis used. The confidence intervals for the effect on depression scales included no difference between CBT and usual care when measured as change from baseline (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.05) or endpoint scores (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.05); the same was true for medication adherence (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.14; participants = 23; studies = 1; I2 = 0%).Subgroup analyses conducted on the AQLQ outcome did not suggest a clear difference between individual and group CBT, baseline psychological status, or CBT model. The small number of studies and the variation between their designs, populations, and other intervention characteristics limited the conclusions that could be drawn about these possibly moderating factors.The inability to blind participants and investigators to group allocation introduced significant potential bias, and overall we had low confidence in the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults with persistent asthma, CBT may improve quality of life, asthma control, and anxiety levels compared with usual care. Risks of bias, imprecision of effects, and inconsistency between results reduced our confidence in the results to low, and evidence was lacking regarding the effect of CBT on asthma exacerbations, unscheduled contacts, depression, and medication adherence. There was much variation between studies in how CBT was delivered and what constituted usual care, meaning the most optimal method of CBT delivery, format, and target population requires further investigation. There is currently no evidence for the use of CBT in adolescents with asthma.