Written emotional disclosure for asthma

Asthma and COVID-19: review of evidence on risks and management considerations

BACKGROUND

Respiratory illnesses typically present increased risks to people with asthma (PWA). However, data on the risks of COVID-19 to PWA have presented contradictory findings, with implications for asthma management.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risks and management considerations of COVID-19 in people with asthma (PWA).

METHOD

We conducted a rapid literature review. We searched PubMed, medRxiv, LitCovid, TRIP, Google and Google Scholar for terms relating to asthma and COVID-19, and for systematic reviews related to specific management questions within our review, in April 2020. References were screened and data were extracted by one reviewer.

RESULTS

We extracted data from 139 references. The evidence available is limited, with some sources suggesting an under-representation of PWA in hospitalised cases and others showing an increased risk of worse outcomes in PWA, which may be associated with disease severity. Consensus broadly holds that asthma medications should be continued as usual. Almost all aspects of asthma care will be disrupted during the pandemic due not only to limits in face-to-face care but also to the fact that many of the diagnostic tools used in asthma are considered aerosol-generating procedures. Self-management and remote interventions may be of benefit for asthma care during this time but have not been tested in this context.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on COVID-19 and asthma is limited and continuing to emerge. More research is needed on the possible associations between asthma and COVID-19 infection and severity, as well as on interventions to support asthma care in light of constraints and disruptions to healthcare systems. We found no evidence regarding health inequalities, and this urgently needs to be addressed in the literature as the burdens of asthma and of COVID-19 are not equally distributed across the population.

Impact of non-drug therapies on asthma control: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Despite growing access to effective therapies, asthma control still needs improvement. Many non-drug factors, such as allergens, air pollutants and stress also affect asthma control and patient quality of life, but an overview of the effectiveness of non-drug interventions on asthma control was lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To identify non-drug interventions likely to improve asthma control.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature in Medline and the Cochrane Library was conducted in March 2017, without any time limit. Initial searching identified 884 potentially relevant clinical trial reports, literature reviews and meta-analyses, which were screened for inclusion using criteria of quality, relevance, and reporting outcomes based on asthma control.

RESULTS

Eighty-two publications met the inclusion criteria. In general, the quality of the studies was low. Patient education programmes (22 studies) significantly improved asthma control. Multifaceted interventions (10 studies), which combined patient education programmes with decreasing exposure to indoor allergens and pollutants, significantly improved asthma control based on clinically relevant outcomes. Renovating homes to reduce exposure to allergens and indoor pollutants improved control (two studies). Air filtration systems (five studies) were effective, especially in children exposed to second-hand smoke. Most measures attempting to reduce exposure to dust mites were ineffective (five studies). Dietary interventions (eight studies) were ineffective. Promoting physical activity (five studies) tended to yield positive results, but the results did not attain significance.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-six interventions were effective in asthma control. Simultaneously combining several action plans, each focusing on different aspects of asthma management, seems most likely to be effective.

Protocol for an HTA report: Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic modelling

INTRODUCTION

Long-term medical conditions (LTCs) cause reduced health-related quality of life and considerable health service expenditure. Writing therapy has potential to improve physical and mental health in people with LTCs, but its effectiveness is not established. This project aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic writing in LTCs by systematic review and economic evaluation, and to evaluate context and mechanisms by which it might work, through realist synthesis.

METHODS

Included are any comparative study of therapeutic writing compared with no writing, waiting list, attention control or placebo writing in patients with any diagnosed LTCs that report at least one of the following: relevant clinical outcomes; quality of life; health service use; psychological, behavioural or social functioning; adherence or adverse events. Searches will be conducted in the main medical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index. For the realist review, further purposive and iterative searches through snowballing techniques will be undertaken. Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment will be in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. Quality assessment will include using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data synthesis will be narrative and tabular with meta-analysis where appropriate. De novo economic modelling will be attempted in one clinical area if sufficient evidence is available and performed according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case.