Evaluating the Individualized Treatment of Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Pilot Study of N-of-1 Trials

Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies

BACKGROUND

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

METHODS

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of a well-known PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

RESULTS

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the three-round Delphi survey (round 1, N = 46; round 2, N = 24; round 3, N = 22). A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (intervention design, study design, conduct of trial, implementation of intervention, statistical analysis, and reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

CONCLUSION

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions

Background

In the behavioral sciences, conducting pilot and/or feasibility studies (PFS) is a key step that provides essential information used to inform the design, conduct, and implementation of a larger-scale trial. There are more than 160 published guidelines, reporting checklists, frameworks, and recommendations related to PFS. All of these publications offer some form of guidance on PFS, but many focus on one or a few topics. This makes it difficult for researchers wanting to gain a broader understanding of all the relevant and important aspects of PFS and requires them to seek out multiple sources of information, which increases the risk of missing key considerations to incorporate into their PFS. The purpose of this study was to develop a consolidated set of considerations for the design, conduct, implementation, and reporting of PFS for interventions conducted in the behavioral sciences.

Methods

To develop this consolidation, we undertook a review of the published guidance on PFS in combination with expert consensus (via a Delphi study) from the authors who wrote such guidance to inform the identified considerations. A total of 161 PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations were identified via a review of recently published behavioral intervention PFS and backward/forward citation tracking of well-know PFS literature (e.g., CONSORT Ext. for PFS). Authors of all 161 PFS publications were invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey, which was used to guide the creation of a consolidated list of considerations to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of PFS conducted by researchers in the behavioral sciences.

Results

A total of 496 authors were invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 50 (10.1%) of which completed all three rounds, representing 60 (37.3%) of the 161 identified PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations. A set of twenty considerations, broadly categorized into six themes (Intervention Design, Study Design, Conduct of Trial, Implementation of Intervention, Statistical Analysis and Reporting) were generated from a review of the 161 PFS-related publications as well as a synthesis of feedback from the three-round Delphi process. These 20 considerations are presented alongside a supporting narrative for each consideration as well as a crosswalk of all 161 publications aligned with each consideration for further reading.

Conclusion

We leveraged expert opinion from researchers who have published PFS-related guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations on a wide range of topics and distilled this knowledge into a valuable and universal resource for researchers conducting PFS. Researchers may use these considerations alongside the previously published literature to guide decisions about all aspects of PFS, with the hope of creating and disseminating interventions with broad public health impact.

Evaluating the Effects of Heat-Clearing Traditional Chinese Medicine in Stable Bronchiectasis by a Series of N-of-1 Trials

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to study the effects of heat-clearing Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the stable stage of bronchiectasis via N-of-1 trials.

METHODS

The N-of-1 trials in this study were randomized and double-blinded with crossover comparisons consisting of three pairs. Each pair was of two 4-week periods. Each patient took the individualized decoction in the experimental period and the individualized decoction was removed of heat-clearing drugs, mainly including heat-clearing and detoxifying drugs, in the control period for three weeks. After three weeks, the patients stopped taking the decoction for one week. The primary outcome was from patients' self-reporting symptoms scores on a 1-7-point Likert scale. Mixed-effects models were used to conduct statistical analysis on these N-of-1 trials.

RESULTS

Of the 21 patients enrolled, 15 completed three pairs of N-of-1 trials (71.43%). (1) Seen from the individual level, no statistical difference between the experimental decoction and the control (P > 0.05) was observed. However, 5 patients found better decoctions according to the clinical criteria. (2) As revealed by the group data of all the N-of-1 trials, the control was better than the individualized decoction in terms of symptom scores on the Likert scale (1.94 ± 0.69 versus 2.08 ± 0.68, P = 0.04, mean difference, and 95% CI: 0.19 (0.01, 0.37)) and on CAT scores (13.66 ± 6.57 versus 13.95 ± 6.97, P = 0.04, mean difference, and 95% CI: 0.86 (0.042, 1.67)), but such differences were not clinically significant. The other outcomes, such as Likert scale score of respiratory symptoms and 24-hour sputum volume, showed no statistical difference.

CONCLUSION

The experimental design of this study can make the TCM individualized treatment fully play its role and can detect the individualized tendencies according to the severity of phlegm and heat in some subjects. With the intermittent use or reduced use of heat-clearing drugs, most of the subjects, at the group level, enrolled in the series of N-of-1 trials may improve the symptoms and quality of life while saving the cost of TCM and reducing the potential side effects of heat-clearing TCM. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.goc (NCT03147443).

Methodological Considerations in N-of-1 Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine

More and more scholars choose N-of-1 trials for TCM clinical research. However, the quality of the experimental designs was uneven. Accumulating more than eight years of experience in exploring the N-of-1 trials of TCM, the authors and their team searched the related literature in main Chinese and English databases, referenced to relevant Chinese and international guidelines. The design, implementation, and data analysis of N-of-1 trials of TCM are still in in-depth exploration and practice. “Carryover effect” may affect the design and quality of the trials. Individualized treatment should be guided by the classic theories of TCM. It is expected to formulate reasonable observation periods and pairs and closely integrate individual and group statistical analysis.

A Series of N-of-1 Trials for Traditional Chinese Medicine Using a Bayesian Method: Study Rationale and Protocol

Background. Our previous studies showed that N-of-1 trials could reflect the individualized characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome differentiation with good feasibility, but the sensitivity was low. Therefore, this study will use hierarchical Bayesian statistical method to improve the sensitivity and applicability of N-of-1 trials of TCM. Methods/Design. This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-pair crossover trial for a single subject, including 4-8 weeks of run-in period and 24 weeks of formal trial. In this study, we will recruit a total of 30 participants who are in the stable stage of bronchiectasis. The trial will be divided into three pairs (cycles), and one cycle contains two observation periods. The medications will be taken for three weeks and stopped for one week in the last week of each observation period. The order of syndrome differentiation decoction and placebo will be randomly determined. Patient self-reported symptom score (on a 7-point Likert scale) is the primary outcome. Discussion. Some confounding variables (such as TCM syndrome type and potential carryover effect of TCM) will be introduced into hierarchical Bayesian statistical method to improve the sensitivity and applicability of N-of-1 trials of TCM, and the use of prior available information (e.g., "borrowing from strength" of previous trial results) within the analysis may improve the sensitivity of the results of a series of N-of-1 trials, from both the individual and population level to study the efficacy of TCM syndrome differentiation. It is the exploration of improving the objective evaluation method of the clinical efficacy of TCM and may provide reference value for clinical trials of TCM in other chronic diseases. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04601792).

Is the N-of-1 method applicable in bodywork research? Lessons learned using a trial as a methodological pilot

N-of-1 trial designs have rarely been used in bodywork research. Using a recent trial as a methodological pilot, critical issues related to the applicability of N-of-1 trials to bodywork are discussed. These include the issues of carry-over effects, bias-controlling approaches and statistical analysis. The discussion highlights the importance of mixed methods and draws some suggestions for a future research program. N-of-1 trials could be used to provide insights about some essential elements of bodywork modalities and their effectiveness.

Practice-Based Research in Complementary Medicine: Could N-of-1 Trials Become the New Gold Standard?

Complementary medicines and therapies are popular forms of healthcare with a long history of traditional use. Yet, despite increasing consumer demand, there is an ongoing exclusion of complementary medicines from mainstream healthcare systems. A lack of evidence is often cited as justification. Until recently, high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy was defined as findings from well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. In a recent and welcome move by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, however, the N-of-1 trial design has also been elevated to the highest level of evidence for treatment efficacy of an individual, placing this research design on par with the meta-analysis. N-of-1 trial designs are experimental research methods that can be implemented in clinical practice. They incorporate much of the rigor of group clinical trials, but are designed for individual patients. Individualizing treatment interventions and outcomes in research designs is consistent with the movement towards patient-centered care and aligns well with the principles of holism as practiced by naturopaths and many other complementary medicine practitioners. This paper explores whether rigorously designed and conducted N-of-1 trials could become a new 'gold standard' for demonstrating treatment efficacy for complementary medicine interventions in individual patients in clinical practice.

CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials for traditional Chinese medicine (CENT for TCM) : Recommendations, explanation and elaboration

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trial is a desired and appropriate approach to assessing the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions. There have been an increasing number of N-of-1 trials for TCM published. However, a lack of preferred reporting guidance led in the general poor reporting quality of these trials. Due to the unique characteristics of TCM, the working group developed this CONSORT Extension for reporting N-of-1 Trials for Traditional Chinese Medicine (CENT for TCM) to assist TCM researchers in reporting N-of-1 trials for TCM.

METHODS

We registered CENT for TCM at the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network (available at equator-network.org). The development was a comprehensive process through collection of the initial reporting items, two-round scientific Delphi consensus survey with 17 panelists, revision and formation of the final reporting checklist.

RESULTS

The checklist includes 25 items within six domains, eight items in which were extended and elaborated on the items of the CENT 2015 checklist. Explanation of the items were listed adequately considering the nature of TCM, introducing the concept of TCM syndrome differentiation and TCM interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

CENT for TCM can be used to assess the completeness of the reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM. The working group expect that CENT for TCM could be a practical tool to enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of the design, implementation and reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM.

Whole Systems Research Methods in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Objectives: This scoping review evaluates two decades of methodological advances made by “whole systems research” (WSR) pioneers in the fields of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM). Rooted in critiques of the classical randomized controlled trial (RCT)'s suitability for evaluating holistic, complex TCIM interventions, WSR centralizes the principle of “model validity,” representing a “fit” between research design and therapeutic paradigm.

Design: In consultation with field experts, 41 clinical research exemplars were selected for review from across 13 TCIM disciplines, with the aim of mapping the range and methodological characteristics of WSR studies. Using an analytic charting approach, these studies' primary and secondary features are characterized with reference to three focal areas: research method, intervention design, and outcome assessment.

Results: The reviewed WSR exemplars investigate a wide range of multimodal and multicomponent TCIM interventions, typified by wellness-geared, multitarget, and multimorbid therapeutic aims. Most studies include a behavioral focus, at times in multidisciplinary or team-based contexts. Treatments are variously individualized, often with reference to “dual” (biomedical and paradigm-specific) diagnoses. Prospective and retrospective study designs substantially reflect established biomedical research methods. Pragmatic, randomized, open label comparative effectiveness designs with “usual care” comparators are most widely used, at times with factorial treatment arms. Only two studies adopt a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT format. Some cohort-based controlled trials engage nonrandomized allocation strategies (e.g., matched controls, preference-based assignment, and minimization); other key designs include single-cohort pre–post studies, modified n-of-1 series, case series, case report, and ethnography. Mixed methods designs (i.e., qualitative research and economic evaluations) are evident in about one-third of exemplars. Primary and secondary outcomes are predominantly assessed, at multiple intervals, through patient-reported measures for symptom severity, quality of life/wellness, and/or treatment satisfaction; some studies concurrently evaluate objective outcomes.

Conclusions: Aligned with trends emphasizing “fit-for-purpose” research designs to study the “real-world” effectiveness of complex, personalized clinical interventions, WSR has emerged as a maturing scholarly discipline. The field is distinguished by its patient-centered salutogenic focus and engagement with nonbiomedical diagnostic and treatment frameworks. The rigorous pursuit of model validity may be further advanced by emphasizing complex analytic models, paradigm-specific outcome assessment, inter-rater reliability, and ethnographically informed designs. Policy makers and funders seeking to support best practices in TCIM research may refer to this review as a key resource.

The Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed Combination of Chinese Herbal Medicine in Chronic Urticaria: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

Background: Chronic urticaria is a bothersome skin disease, and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is commonly used as adjuvant therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the mixture of two CHM formula, Xiao-Feng-San (XFS) and Qing-Shang-Fang-Feng-Tang (QSFFT), in treating urticaria through a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Methods: 78 participants entered the screening phase between November 2012 and August 2015. Participants were randomly and equally allocated in either CHM group (2 gm XFS and 2 gm QSFFT four times a day and 5 mg levocetirizine once daily for 28 days followed by 5 mg levocetirizine once daily alone for 28 days) or control group (placebo and 5 mg levocetirizine daily followed by 5 mg levocetirizine once daily for 28 days alone). Symptom improvement was set as the primary outcome, and the influence on sleep quality and changes in serum markers were used as secondary outcomes. Per protocol design was applied to the final analysis.

Results: A total of 56 participants entered the final analysis stage. Participants in the CHM group had more prominent symptom relief on day 56 (the weekly urticaria activity score, UAS7, as 9.9 ± 9.2 vs. 15.6 ± 10.8, p = 0.038). In the CHM group, participants' symptom severity reduced progressively (trend analysis, p < 0.001) while the decreasing trend was less favored in the control group (trend analysis, p = 0.056). The life quality improved gradually in both groups, while the differences between CHM and control groups were statistically insignificant. For urticaria-related cytokines, interferon-γ seemed to decrease positively in the CHM group (about 30.8% reduction from baseline, trend analysis p = 0.013). For safety issue, the CHM prescription was well-tolerated with no noticeable long-term side effects when compared to the control group. At 6-month follow-up of symptom changes after the end of the trial, the CHM group participants reported positive results in no recurrence or ≥50% improvement (36.3% in CHM group vs. 20% in Control group, p = 0.103).

Conclusions: The combination of XFS and QSFFT tended to be feasible and tolerable adjuvant therapy for urticaria in addition to standard therapy. However, larger study population with longer follow-up duration may be still needed.

Trial registration: NCT01715740 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

N-of-1 trials in the clinical care of patients in developing countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trials have a potential role in promoting patient-centered medicine in developing countries. However, there is limited academic literature regarding the use of N-of-1 trials in the clinical care of patients in resource-poor settings.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent of use, purpose and treatment outcome of N-of-1 trials in developing countries.

METHOD

A systematic review of clinical N-of-1 trials was conducted between 1985 and September 2015 using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature databases and clinical trial registers were also searched. This review included randomized, multi-cycle, crossover within individual patient trials involving drug intervention. Quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULT

Out of 131 N-of-1 trials identified, only 6 (4.5%) were conducted in developing countries. The major reason that N-of-1 trials were used was to provide evidence on feasibility, effectiveness and safety of therapies. A total of 72 participants were involved in these trials. Five of the studies were conducted in China and all evaluated Chinese traditional medicine. The remaining study was conducted in Brazil. The completion rate was 93%. More than half, 46 (69%) of subjects made medication changes consistent with trial results after trial completion. A number of threats to the validity of the included evidence limited the validity of the evidence. In particular, the estimated overall effect in four of the included studies could have been affected by the "carry over" of the previous treatment effect as no adequate pharmacokinetic evidence regarding traditional medicines was presented.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence and scope of N-of-1 trials in developing countries is low. A coordinated effort among government, clinicians, researchers and sponsor organizations is needed to increase their uptake and quality in developing countries.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015026841 .

Investigation into the Individualized Treatment of Traditional Chinese Medicine through a Series of N-of-1 Trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of individualized herbal decoction with standard decoction for patients with stable bronchiectasis through N-of-1 trials.

METHODS

We conducted a single center N-of-1 trials in 17 patients with stable bronchiectasis. Each N-of-1 trial contains three cycles. Each cycle is divided into two 4-week intervention including individualized decoction and fixed decoction (control). The primary outcome was patient self-reported symptoms scores on a 1-7 point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes were 24-hour sputum volume and CAT scores.

RESULTS

Among 14 completed trials, five showed that the individualized decoction was statistically better than the control decoction on symptom scores (P < 0.05) but was not clinically significant. The group data of all the trials showed that individualized decoction was superior to control decoction on symptom scores (2.13 ± 0.58 versus 2.30 ± 0.65, P = 0.002, mean difference and 95% CI: 0.18 (0.10, 0.25)), 24 h sputum volume (P = 0.009), and CAT scores (9.69 ± 4.89 versus 11.64 ± 5.59, P = 0.013, mean difference and 95% CI: 1.95 (1.04, 2.86)) but not clinically significant.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing the combined analysis of individual and group data and the improvement of statistical models may make contribution in establishing a method of evaluating clinical efficacy in line with the characteristics of traditional Chinese medicine individual diagnosis and treatment.

Could Chinese herbs accelerate the resolution of reversible bronchiectasis in adults?: A case report

RATIONALE

The classic definition of bronchiectasis is of permanent bronchial dilatation. Therefore, bronchiectasis is generally considered irreversible in the adult population.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 27-year-old woman presented to an affiliated hospital with a 1-year history of productive cough.

DIAGNOSIS

Bronchiectasis.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient was treated with cephalosporin and a mucus clearance regimen for 6 days and then with Chinese herbs for 3 months.

OUTCOMES

Reversible bronchial dilatation was evidenced by sequential chest high-resolution computed tomography 6 months later.

CONCLUSION

The current report demonstrated that, although rare in adult, bronchial dilatation might resolve completely in such a short period if receiving adequate regimens, for example, Chinese herbs.

Recent highlights of Chinese medicine for advanced lung cancer

Owing to its unique superiority in improving quality of life and prolonging survival time among advanced lung cancer patients, Chinese medicine (CM) has, in recent years, received increased attentions worldwide. We utilized a bibliometric statistical method based on MEDLINE/GoPubMed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current application status of CM in lung cancer, by including annual and accumulated publications, origin distribution of countries and journals, and keywords with a higher frequency score. Then the relevant clinical trials and mechanistic studies were systematically summarized within the field according to research types. We have raised potential problems and provided potentially useful reference information that could guide similar studies in the future. The basic experimental results are highly consistent with clinical trials, leading us to conclude that CM can offer better overall therapeutic benefits when used in combination with routine Western medicine for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Airway clearance techniques for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

People with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis commonly experience chronic cough and sputum production, features that may be associated with progressive decline in clinical and functional status. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are often prescribed to facilitate expectoration of sputum from the lungs, but the efficacy of these techniques in a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to determine effects of ACTs on rates of acute exacerbation, incidence of hospitalisation and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with acute and stable bronchiectasis. Secondary: to determine whether:• ACTs are safe for individuals with acute and stable bronchiectasis; and• ACTs have beneficial effects on physiology and symptoms in individuals with acute and stable bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials from inception to November 2015 and PEDro in March 2015, and we handsearched relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled parallel and cross-over trials that compared an ACT versus no treatment, sham ACT or directed coughing in participants with bronchiectasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies involving 105 participants met the inclusion criteria of this review, six of which were cross-over in design. Six studies included adults with stable bronchiectasis; the other study examined clinically stable children with bronchiectasis. Three studies provided single treatment sessions, two lasted 15 to 21 days and two were longer-term studies. Interventions varied; some control groups received a sham intervention and others were inactive. The methodological quality of these studies was variable, with most studies failing to use concealed allocation for group assignment and with absence of blinding of participants and personnel for outcome measure assessment. Heterogeneity between studies precluded inclusion of these data in the meta-analysis; the review is therefore narrative.One study including 20 adults that compared an airway oscillatory device versus no treatment found no significant difference in the number of exacerbations at 12 weeks (low-quality evidence). Data were not available for assessment of the impact of ACTs on time to exacerbation, duration or incidence of hospitalisation or total number of hospitalised days. The same study reported clinically significant improvements in HRQoL on both disease-specific and cough-related measures. The median difference in the change in total St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score over three months in this study was 7.5 units (P value = 0.005 (Wilcoxon)). Treatment consisting of high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) or a mix of ACTs prescribed for 15 days significantly improved HRQoL when compared with no treatment (low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mean increases in sputum expectoration with airway oscillatory devices in the short term of 8.4 mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 13.4 mL) and in the long term of 3 mL (P value = 0.02). HFCWO improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) by 156 mL and forced vital capacity (FVC) by 229.1 mL when applied for 15 days, but other types of ACTs showed no effect on dynamic lung volumes. Two studies reported a reduction in pulmonary hyperinflation among adults with non-positive expiratory pressure (PEP) ACTs (difference in functional residual capacity (FRC) of 19%, P value < 0.05; difference in total lung capacity (TLC) of 703 mL, P value = 0.02) and with airway oscillatory devices (difference in FRC of 30%, P value < 0.05) compared with no ACTs. Low-quality evidence suggests that ACTs (HFCWO, airway oscillatory devices or a mix of ACTs) reduce symptoms of breathlessness and cough and improve ease of sputum expectoration compared with no treatment (P value < 0.05). ACTs had no effect on gas exchange, and no studies reported effects of antibiotic usage. Among studies exploring airway oscillating devices, investigators reported no adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACTs appear to be safe for individuals (adults and children) with stable bronchiectasis and may account for improvements in sputum expectoration, selected measures of lung function, symptoms and HRQoL. The role of these techniques in acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis is unknown. In view of the chronic nature of bronchiectasis, additional data are needed to establish the short-term and long-term clinical value of ACTs for patient-important outcomes and for long-term clinical parameters that impact disease progression in individuals with stable bronchiectasis, allowing further guidance on prescription of specific ACTs for people with bronchiectasis.