Biologics for chronic severe asthma: a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To evaluate the benefits and harms of biological agents targeting type‐2 inflammation (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab, tezepelumab) in people with severe asthma, with a network meta‐analysis and to rank agents by effectiveness.

Interventions for promoting physical activity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Escalating awareness of the magnitude of the challenge posed by low levels of physical activity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) highlights the need for interventions to increase physical activity participation. The widely-accepted benefits of physical activity, coupled with the increasing availability of wearable monitoring devices to objectively measure participation, has led to a dramatic rise in the number and variety of studies that aimed to improve the physical activity of people with COPD. However, little was known about the relative efficacy of interventions tested so far.

OBJECTIVES

In people with COPD, which interventions are effective at improving objectively-assessed physical activity?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register Register, which contains records identified from bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO. We also searched PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (from inception to June 2019). We checked reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references, as well as respiratory journals and respiratory meeting abstracts, to identify relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of interventions that used objective measures for the assessment of physical activity in people with COPD. Trials compared an intervention with no intervention or a sham/placebo intervention, an intervention in addition to another standard intervention common to both groups, or two different interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. Subgroup analyses were possible for supervised compared to unsupervised pulmonary rehabilitation programmes in clinically-stable COPD for a range of physical activity outcomes. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, adverse events and adherence. Insufficient data were available to perform prespecified subgroup analyses by duration of intervention or disease severity. We undertook sensitivity analyses by removing studies that were at high or unclear risk of bias for the domains of blinding and incomplete outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 76 studies with 8018 participants. Most studies were funded by government bodies, although some were sponsored by equipment or drug manufacturers. Only 38 studies had physical activity as a primary outcome. A diverse range of interventions have been assessed, primarily in single studies, but improvements have not been systematically demonstrated following any particular interventions. Where improvements were demonstrated, results were confined to single studies, or data for maintained improvement were not provided. Step count was the most frequently reported outcome, but it was commonly assessed using devices with documented inaccuracy for this variable. Compared to no intervention, the mean difference (MD) in time in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) following pulmonary rehabilitation was four minutes per day (95% confidence interval (CI) -2 to 9; 3 studies, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). An improvement was demonstrated following high-intensity interval exercise training (6 minutes per day, 95% CI 4 to 8; 2 studies, 275 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One study demonstrated an improvement following six months of physical activity counselling (MD 11 minutes per day, 95% CI 7 to 15; 1 study, 280 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but we found mixed results for the addition of physical activity counselling to pulmonary rehabilitation. There was an improvement following three to four weeks of pharmacological treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting beta2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) compared to placebo (MD 10 minutes per day, 95% CI 4 to 15; 2 studies, 423 participants; high-certainty evidence). These interventions also demonstrated improvements in other measures of physical activity. Other interventions included self-management strategies, nutritional supplementation, supplemental oxygen, endobronchial valve surgery, non-invasive ventilation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation and inspiratory muscle training.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A diverse range of interventions have been assessed, primarily in single studies. Improvements in physical activity have not been systematically demonstrated following any particular intervention. There was limited evidence for improvement in physical activity with strategies including exercise training, physical activity counselling and pharmacological management. The optimal timing, components, duration and models for interventions are still unclear. Assessment of quality was limited by a lack of methodological detail. There was scant evidence for a continued effect over time following completion of interventions, a likely requirement for meaningful health benefits for people with COPD.

Educational, supportive and behavioural interventions to improve usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea

BACKGROUND

Although highly effective in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is not universally accepted by users. Educational, supportive and behavioural interventions may help people with OSA initiate and maintain regular and continued use of CPAP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of educational, supportive, behavioural, or mixed (combination of two or more intervention types) strategies that aim to encourage adults who have been prescribed CPAP to use their devices.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Searches are current to 29 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed intervention(s) designed to inform participants about CPAP/OSA, to support them in using CPAP, or to modify their behaviour to increase use of CPAP devices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies to determine their suitability for inclusion in the review. Data were extracted independently and were entered into RevMan for analysis. 'Risk of bias' assessments were performed, using the updated 'Risk of bias 2' tool, for the primary outcome, CPAP usage. Study-level 'Risk of bias' assessments were performed using the original 'Risk of bias' tool. GRADE assessment was performed using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one studies (9005 participants) are included in this review; 16 of these studies are newly identified with updated searches. Baseline Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores indicate that most participants suffered from excessive daytime sleepiness. The majority of recruited participants had not used CPAP previously. When examining risk of bias for the primary outcome of hourly machine usage/night, 58.3% studies have high overall risk (24/41 studies), 39.0% have some concerns (16/41 studies), and 2.4% have low overall risk (1/41 studies). We are uncertain whether educational interventions improve device usage, as the certainty of evidence was assessed as very low. We were unable to perform meta-analyses for number of withdrawals and symptom scores due to high study heterogeneity. Supportive interventions probably increase device usage by 0.70 hours/night (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.05, N = 1426, 13 studies, moderate-certainty evidence), and low-certainty evidence indicates that the number of participants who used their devices ≥ 4 hours/night may increase from 601 to 717 per 1000 (odds ratio (OR), 1.68, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60, N = 376, 2 studies). However, the number of withdrawals may also increase from 136 to 167 per 1000 (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.66, N = 1702, 11 studies, low-certainty evidence). Participants may experience small improvements in symptoms (ESS score -0.32 points, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.56, N = 470, 5 studies, low-certainty evidence), and we are uncertain whether quality of life improves with supportive interventions, as the certainty of evidence was assessed as very low. When compared with usual care, behavioural interventions produce a clinically-meaningful increase in device usage by 1.31 hours/night (95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, N = 578, 8 studies, high-certainty evidence), probably increase the number of participants who used their machines ≥ 4 hours/night from 371 to 501 per 1000 (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.41, N = 549, 6 studies, high-certainty evidence), and reduce the number of study withdrawals from 146 to 101 per 1000 (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98, N = 939, 10 studies, high-certainty evidence). Behavioural interventions may reduce symptoms (ESS score -2.42 points, 95% CI -4.27 to -0.57, N = 272, 5 studies, low-certainty evidence), but probably have no effect on quality of life (Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 0.95% CI -0.26 to 0.26, N = 228, 3 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether behavioural interventions improve apnoea hypopnoea index (AHI), as the certainty of evidence was assessed as very low. We are uncertain if mixed interventions improve device usage, increase the number of participants using their machines ≥ 4 hours/night, reduce study withdrawals, improve quality of life, or reduce anxiety symptoms, as the certainty of evidence for these outcomes was assessed to be very low. Symptom scores via the ESS could not be measured due to considerable heterogeneity between studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In CPAP-naïve people with OSA, high-certainty evidence indicates that behavioural interventions yield a clinically-significant increase in hourly device usage when compared with usual care. Moderate certainty evidence shows that supportive interventions increase usage modestly. Very low-certainty evidence shows that educational and mixed interventions may modestly increase CPAP usage. The impact of improved CPAP usage on daytime sleepiness, quality of life, and mood and anxiety scores remains unclear since these outcomes were not assessed in the majority of included studies. Studies addressing the choice of interventions that best match individual patient needs and therefore result in the most successful and cost-effective therapy are needed.

Breathing exercises for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Breathing exercises have been widely used worldwide as a non-pharmacological therapy to treat people with asthma. Breathing exercises aim to control the symptoms of asthma and can be performed as the Papworth Method, the Buteyko breathing technique, yogic breathing, deep diaphragmatic breathing or any other similar intervention that manipulates the breathing pattern. The training of breathing usually focuses on tidal and minute volume and encourages relaxation, exercise at home, the modification of breathing pattern, nasal breathing, holding of breath, lower rib cage and abdominal breathing.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of breathing exercises in the management of people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify relevant studies we searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED and performed handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also consulted trials registers and reference lists of included articles. The most recent literature search was on 4 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of breathing exercises in adults with asthma compared with a control group receiving asthma education or, alternatively, with no active control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis based on the random-effects model. We expressed continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%. We assessed heterogeneity by inspecting the forest plots. We applied the Chi2 test, with a P value of 0.10 indicating statistical significance, and the I2 statistic, with a value greater than 50% representing a substantial level of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine new studies (1910 participants) in this update, resulting in a total of 22 studies involving 2880 participants in the review. Fourteen studies used Yoga as the intervention, four studies involved breathing retraining, one the Buteyko method, one the Buteyko method and pranayama, one the Papworth method and one deep diaphragmatic breathing. The studies were different from one another in terms of type of breathing exercise performed, number of participants enrolled, number of sessions completed, period of follow-up, outcomes reported and statistical presentation of data. Asthma severity in participants from the included studies ranged from mild to moderate, and the samples consisted solely of outpatients. Twenty studies compared breathing exercise with inactive control, and two with asthma education control groups. Meta-analysis was possible for the primary outcome quality of life and the secondary outcomes asthma symptoms, hyperventilation symptoms, and some lung function variables. Assessment of risk of bias was impaired by incomplete reporting of methodological aspects of most of the included studies. We did not include adverse effects as an outcome in the review. Breathing exercises versus inactive control For quality of life, measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), meta-analysis showed improvement favouring the breathing exercises group at three months (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 4 studies, 974 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and at six months the OR was 1.34 for the proportion of people with at least 0.5 unit improvement in AQLQ, (95% CI 0.97 to 1.86; 1 study, 655 participants). For asthma symptoms, measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), meta-analysis at up to three months was inconclusive, MD of -0.15 units (95% CI -2.32 to 2.02; 1 study, 115 participants; low-certainty evidence), and was similar over six months (MD -0.08 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.07; 1 study, 449 participants). For hyperventilation symptoms, measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire (from four to six months), meta-analysis showed less symptoms with breathing exercises (MD -3.22, 95% CI -6.31 to -0.13; 2 studies, 118 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but this was not shown at six months (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.90 to 2.17; 2 studies, 521 participants). Meta-analyses for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) measured at up to three months was inconclusive, MD -0.10 L, (95% CI -0.32 to 0.12; 4 studies, 252 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, for FEV1 % of predicted, an improvement was observed in favour of the breathing exercise group (MD 6.88%, 95% CI 5.03 to 8.73; five studies, 618 participants). Breathing exercises versus asthma education For quality of life, one study measuring AQLQ was inconclusive up to three months (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.34; 1 study, 183 participants). When assessed from four to six months, the results favoured breathing exercises (MD 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.68; 1 study, 183 participants). Hyperventilation symptoms measured by the Nijmegen Questionnaire were inconclusive up to three months (MD -1.24, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.75; 1 study, 183 participants), but favoured breathing exercises from four to six months (MD -3.16, 95% CI -5.35 to -0.97; 1 study, 183 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Breathing exercises may have some positive effects on quality of life, hyperventilation symptoms, and lung function. Due to some methodological differences among included studies and studies with poor methodology, the quality of evidence for the measured outcomes ranged from moderate to very low certainty according to GRADE criteria. In addition, further studies including full descriptions of treatment methods and outcome measurements are required.

Anti-inflammatory medications for obstructive sleep apnoea in children

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterised by partial or complete upper airway obstruction during sleep. Approximately 1% to 4% of children are affected by OSA, with adenotonsillar hypertrophy being the most common underlying risk factor. Surgical removal of enlarged adenoids or tonsils is the currently recommended first-line treatment for OSA due to adenotonsillar hypertrophy. Given the perioperative risk and an estimated recurrence rate of up to 20% following surgery, there has recently been an increased interest in less invasive alternatives to adenotonsillectomy. As the enlarged adenoids and tonsils consist of hypertrophied lymphoid tissue, anti-inflammatory drugs have been proposed as a potential non-surgical treatment option in children with OSA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of OSA in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL and MEDLINE (1950 to 2019). For identification of ongoing clinical trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-inflammatory drugs against placebo in children between one and 16 years with objectively diagnosed OSA (apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) ≥ 1 per hour).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. We separately pooled results for the comparisons 'intranasal steroids' and 'montelukast' against placebo using random-effects models. The primary outcomes for this review were AHI and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included the respiratory disturbance index, desaturation index, respiratory arousal index, nadir arterial oxygen saturation, mean arterial oxygen saturation, avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA, clinical symptom score, tonsillar size, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with a total of 240 children aged one to 18 years with mild to moderate OSA (AHI 1 to 30 per hour). All trials were performed in specialised sleep medicine clinics at tertiary care centres. Follow-up time ranged from six weeks to four months. Three RCTs (n = 137) compared intranasal steroids against placebo; two RCTs compared oral montelukast against placebo (n = 103). We excluded one trial from the meta-analysis since the patients were not analysed as randomised. We also had concerns about selective reporting in another trial. We are uncertain about the difference in AHI (MD -3.18, 95% CI -8.70 to 2.35) between children receiving intranasal corticosteroids compared to placebo (2 studies, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence). In contrast, children receiving oral montelukast had a lower AHI (MD -3.41, 95% CI -5.36 to -1.45) compared to those in the placebo group (2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the secondary outcomes are different between children receiving intranasal corticosteroids compared to placebo: desaturation index (MD -2.12, 95% CI -4.27 to 0.04; 2 studies, 75 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), respiratory arousal index (MD -0.71, 95% CI -6.25 to 4.83; 2 studies, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence), and nadir oxygen saturation (MD 0.59%, 95% CI -1.09 to 2.27; 2 studies, 75 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Children receiving oral montelukast had a lower respiratory arousal index (MD -2.89, 95% CI -4.68 to -1.10; 2 studies, 103 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nadir of oxygen saturation (MD 4.07, 95% CI 2.27 to 5.88; 2 studies, 103 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those in the placebo group. We are uncertain, however, about the difference in desaturation index (MD -2.50, 95% CI -5.53 to 0.54; 2 studies, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence) between the montelukast and placebo group. Adverse events were assessed and reported in all trials and were rare, of minor nature (e.g. nasal bleeding), and evenly distributed between study groups. No study examined the avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of OSA in children; they may have short-term beneficial effects on the desaturation index and oxygen saturation in children with mild to moderate OSA but the certainty of the benefit on the primary outcome AHI, as well as the respiratory arousal index, was low due to imprecision of the estimates and heterogeneity between studies. Montelukast has short-term beneficial treatment effects for OSA in otherwise healthy, non-obese, surgically untreated children (moderate certainty for primary outcome and moderate and high certainty, respectively, for two secondary outcomes) by significantly reducing the number of apnoeas, hypopnoeas, and respiratory arousals during sleep. In addition, montelukast was well tolerated in the children studied. The clinical relevance of the observed treatment effects remains unclear, however, because minimal clinically important differences are not yet established for polysomnography-based outcomes in children. Long-term efficacy and safety data on the use of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in childhood are still not available. In addition, patient-centred outcomes like concentration ability, vigilance, or school performance have not been investigated yet. There are currently no RCTs on the use of other kinds of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in children. Future RCTs should investigate sustainability of treatment effects, avoidance of surgical treatment for OSA, and long-term safety of anti-inflammatory medications for the treatment of OSA in children and include patient-centred outcomes.

Oxygen therapy in the pre-hospital setting for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global leading cause of morbidity and mortality, characterised by acute deterioration in symptoms. During these exacerbations, people are prone to developing alveolar hypoventilation, which may be partly caused by the administration of high inspired oxygen concentrations.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of different inspired oxygen concentrations ("high flow" compared to "controlled") in the pre-hospital setting (prior to casualty/emergency department) on outcomes for people with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, reference lists of articles and online clinical trial databases were searched. Authors of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were also contacted for details of other relevant published and unpublished studies. The most recent search was conducted on 16 September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing oxygen therapy at different concentrations or oxygen therapy versus placebo in the pre-hospital setting for treatment of AECOPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was all-cause and respiratory-related mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified a total of 824 citations; one study was identified for inclusion and two studies are awaiting classification. The 214 participants involved in the included study were adults with AECOPD, receiving treatment by paramedics en route to hospital. The mean age of participants was 68 years. A reduction in pre/in-hospital mortality was observed in favour of the titrated oxygen group (two deaths in the titrated oxygen group compared to 11 deaths in the high-flow control arm; risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.97; 214 participants). This translates to an absolute effect of 94 per 1000 (high-flow oxygen) compared to 21 per 1000 (titrated oxygen), and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 14 (95% CI 12 to 355) with titrated oxygen therapy. Other than mortality, no other adverse events were reported in the included study. Wide confidence intervals were observed between groups for arterial blood gas (though this may be confounded by protocol infidelity in the included study for this outcome measure), treatment failure requiring invasive or non-invasive ventilation or hospital utilisation. No data were reported for quality of life, lung function or dyspnoea. Risk of bias within the included study was largely unclear, though there was high risk of bias in domains relating to performance and attrition bias. We judged the evidence to be of low certainty, according to GRADE criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The one included study found a reduction in pre/in-hospital mortality for the titrated oxygen arm compared to the high-flow control arm. However, the paucity of evidence somewhat limits the reliability of these findings and generalisability to other settings. There is a need for robust, well-designed RCTs to further investigate the effect of oxygen therapies in the pre-hospital setting for people with AECOPD.

Magnesium sulfate for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of magnesium sulfate for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults.

Pressure modification or humidification for improving usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is the repetitive closure of the upper airway during sleep. This results in disturbed sleep and excessive daytime sleepiness. It is a risk factor for long-term cardiovascular morbidity. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines can be applied during sleep. They deliver air pressure by a nasal or oronasal mask to prevent the airway from closing, reducing sleep disturbance and improving sleep quality. Some people find them difficult to tolerate because of high pressure levels and other symptoms such as a dry mouth. Switching to machines that vary the level of air pressure required to reduce sleep disturbance could increase comfort and promote more regular use. Humidification devices humidify the air that is delivered to the upper airway through the CPAP circuit. Humidification may reduce dryness of the throat and mouth and thus improve CPAP tolerability. This updated Cochrane Review looks at modifying the delivery of positive pressure and humidification on machine usage and other clinical outcomes in OSA.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of positive pressure modification or humidification on increasing CPAP machine usage in adults with OSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Airways Specialised Register and clinical trials registries on 15 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised parallel group or cross-over trials in adults with OSA. We included studies that compared automatically adjusting CPAP (auto-CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (bi-PAP), CPAP with expiratory pressure relief (CPAPexp), heated humidification plus fixed CPAP, automatically adjusting CPAP with expiratory pressure relief, Bi-PAP with expiratory pressure relief, auto bi-PAP and CPAPexp with wakefulness detection with fixed pressure setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE for the outcomes of machine usage, symptoms (measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)), Apnoea Hypopnoea Index (AHI), quality of life measured by Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), blood pressure, withdrawals and adverse events (e.g. nasal blockage or mask intolerance). The main comparison of interest in the review is auto-CPAP versus fixed CPAP.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 studies (3922 participants, 75% male). The main comparison of auto-CPAP with fixed CPAP is based on 36 studies with 2135 participants from Europe, USA, Hong Kong and Australia. The majority of studies recruited participants who were recently diagnosed with OSA and had not used CPAP previously. They had excessive sleepiness (ESS: 13), severe sleep disturbance (AHI ranged from 22 to 59), and average body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2. Interventions were delivered at home and the duration of most studies was 12 weeks or less. We judged that studies at high or unclear risk of bias likely influenced the effect of auto-CPAP on machine usage, symptoms, quality of life and tolerability, but not for other outcomes. Primary outcome Compared with average usage of about five hours per night with fixed CPAP, people probably use auto-CPAP for 13 minutes longer per night at about six weeks (mean difference (MD) 0.21 hours/night, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.31; 31 studies, 1452 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not have enough data to determine whether auto-CPAP increases the number of people who use machines for more than four hours per night compared with fixed CPAP (odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.81; 2 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Auto-CPAP probably reduces daytime sleepiness compared with fixed CPAP at about six weeks by a small amount (MD -0.44 ESS units, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16; 25 studies, 1285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AHI is slightly higher with auto-CPAP than with fixed CPAP (MD 0.48 events per hour, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.80; 26 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence), although it fell with both machine types from baseline values in the studies. Ten per cent of people in auto-CPAP and 11% in the fixed CPAP arms withdrew from the studies (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence). Auto-CPAP and fixed CPAP may have similar effects on quality of life, as measured by the FOSQ but more evidence is needed to be confident in this result (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.46; 3 studies, 352 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies (353 participants) provided data on clinic-measured blood pressure. Auto-CPAP may be slightly less effective at reducing diastolic blood pressure compared to fixed CPAP (MD 2.92 mmHg, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.77 mmHg; low-certainty evidence). The two modalities of CPAP probably do not differ in their effects on systolic blood pressure (MD 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI -1.08 to 4.82; moderate-certainty evidence). Nine studies (574 participants) provided information on adverse events such as nasal blockage, dry mouth, tolerance of treatment pressure and mask leak. They used different scales to capture these outcomes and due to variation in the direction and size of effect between the studies, the comparative effects on tolerability outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).  The evidence base for other interventions is smaller, and does not provide sufficient information to determine whether there are important differences between pressure modification strategies and fixed CPAP on machine usage outcomes, symptoms and quality of life. As with the evidence for the auto-CPAP, adverse events are measured disparately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with moderate to severe sleep apnoea starting positive airway pressure therapy, auto-CPAP probably increases machine usage by about 13 minutes per night. The effects on daytime sleepiness scores with auto-CPAP are not clinically meaningful. AHI values are slightly lower with fixed CPAP. Use of validated quality of life instruments in the studies to date has been limited, although where they have been used the effect sizes have not exceeded proposed clinically important differences. The adoption of a standardised approach to measuring tolerability would help decision-makers to balance benefits with harms from the different treatment options available. The evidence available for other pressure modification strategies does not provide a reliable basis on which to draw firm conclusions. Future studies should look at the effects of pressure modification devices and humidification in people who have already used CPAP but are unable to persist with treatment.

Intra-pleural fibrinolytic therapy versus placebo, or a different fibrinolytic agent, in the treatment of adult parapneumonic effusions and empyema

BACKGROUND

Pleural infection, including parapneumonic effusions and thoracic empyema, may complicate lower respiratory tract infections. Standard treatment of these collections in adults involves antibiotic therapy, effective drainage of infected fluid and surgical intervention if conservative management fails. Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents such as streptokinase and alteplase have been hypothesised to improve fluid drainage in complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema and therefore improve treatment outcomes and prevent the need for thoracic surgical intervention. Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents have been used in combination with DNase, but this is beyond the scope of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of adding intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy to standard conservative therapy (intercostal catheter drainage and antibiotic therapy) in the treatment of complicated parapneumonic effusions and empyema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 28 August 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with post-pneumonic empyema or complicated parapneumonic effusions (excluding tuberculous effusions) who had not had prior surgical intervention or trauma comparing an intrapleural fibrinolytic agent (streptokinase, alteplase or urokinase) versus placebo or a comparison of two fibrinolytic agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 12 RCTs. Ten studies assessed fibrinolytic agents versus placebo (993 participants); one study compared streptokinase with urokinase (50 participants); and one compared alteplase versus urokinase (99 participants). The primary outcomes were death, requirement for surgical intervention, overall treatment failure and serious adverse effects. All studies were in the inpatient setting. Outcomes were measured at varying time points from hospital discharge to three months. Seven trials were at low or unclear risk of bias and two at high risk of bias due to inadequate randomisation and inappropriate study design respectively. We found no evidence of difference in overall mortality with fibrinolytic versus placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 8 studies, 867 participants; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). We found evidence of a reduction in surgical intervention with fibrinolysis in the same studies (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; 8 studies, 897 participants; I² = 51%; low certainty of evidence); and overall treatment failure (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.58; 7 studies, 769 participants; I² = 88%; very low certainty of evidence, with evidence of significant heterogeneity). We found no clear evidence of an increase in adverse effects with intrapleural fibrinolysis, although this cannot be excluded (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.57; low certainty of evidence). In a sensitivity analysis, the reduction in referrals for surgery and overall treatment failure with fibrinolysis disappeared when the analysis was confined to studies at low or unclear risk of bias. In a moderate-risk population (baseline 14% risk of death, 20% risk of surgery, 27% risk of treatment failure), intra-pleural fibrinolysis leads to 19 more deaths (36 fewer to 59 more), 115 fewer surgical interventions (150 fewer to 55 fewer) and 214 fewer overall treatment failures (252 fewer to 93 fewer) per 1000 people. A single study of streptokinase versus urokinase found no clear difference between the treatments for requirement for surgery (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.72; 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). A single study of alteplase versus urokinase showed no clear difference in requirement for surgery (OR alteplase versus urokinase 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.24) but an increased rate of adverse effects, primarily bleeding, with alteplase (OR 5.61, 95% CI 1.16 to 27.11; 99 participants; low-certainty evidence). This translated into 154 (6 to 499 more) serious adverse events with alteplase compared with urokinase per 1000 people treated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with complicated infective pleural effusion or empyema, intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy was associated with a reduction in the requirement for surgical intervention and overall treatment failure but with no evidence of change in mortality. Discordance between the negative largest trial of this therapy and other studies is of concern, however, as is an absence of significant effect when analysing low risk of bias trials only. The reasons for this difference are uncertain but may include publication bias. Intrapleural fibrinolytics may increase the rate of serious adverse events, but the evidence is insufficient to confirm or exclude this possibility.

Inhaled steroids with and without regular formoterol for asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta₂-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are safe when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This updated Cochrane Review includes results from two large trials that recruited 23,422 adolescents and adults mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomly assign participants with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroid alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data as well as FDA submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with a parallel design involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who received regular formoterol and ICS (separate or combined) treatment versus the same dose of ICS for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors of the studies. We assessed our confidence in the evidence using GRADE recommendations. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 42 studies eligible for inclusion and included 39 studies in the analyses: 29 studies included 35,751 adults, and 10 studies included 4035 children and adolescents. Inhaled corticosteroids included beclomethasone (daily metered dosage 200 to 800 µg), budesonide (200 to 1600 µg), fluticasone (200 to 250 µg), and mometasone (200 to 800 µg). Formoterol metered dosage ranged from 12 to 48 µg daily. Fixed combination ICS was used in most of the studies. We judged the risk of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low, however most studies did not report independent assessment of causation of SAEs.DeathsSeventeen of 18,645 adults taking formoterol and ICS and 13 of 17,106 adults taking regular ICS died of any cause. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 1.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.56, moderate-certainty evidence), which equated to one death occurring for every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks; the corresponding risk amongst adults taking formoterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths). No deaths were reported in the trials on children and adolescents (4035 participants) (low-certainty evidence).In terms of asthma-related deaths, no children and adolescents died from asthma, but three of 12,777 adults in the formoterol and ICS treatment group died of asthma (both low-certainty evidence).Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 401 adults experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause on formoterol with ICS, compared to 369 adults who received regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16, high-certainty evidence, 29 studies, 35,751 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 22 adults had an SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was also 22 adults (95% CI 19 to 25).Thirty of 2491 children and adolescents experienced an SAE of any cause when receiving formoterol with ICS, compared to 13 of 1544 children and adolescents receiving ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.49, moderate-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 8 had an non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk amongst those on formoterol and ICS was 11 children and adolescents (95% CI 6 to 21).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsNinety adults experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 102 with ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.14, moderate-certainty evidence, 28 studies, 35,158 adults). For every 1000 adults treated with ICS alone for 26 weeks, 6 adults had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk for those on formoterol and ICS was 5 adults (95% CI 4 to 7).Amongst children and adolescents, 9 experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE with formoterol and ICS, compared to 5 on ICS alone. The pooled Peto OR was 1.18 (95% CI 0.40 to 3.51, very low-certainty evidence, 10 studies, 4035 children and adolescents). For every 1000 children and adolescents treated with ICS alone for 12.5 weeks, 3 had an asthma-related non-fatal SAE; the corresponding risk on formoterol and ICS was 4 (95% CI 1 to 11).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death (all-cause or asthma-related) in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS versus ICS alone (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). No deaths were reported in children and adolescents. The risk of dying when taking either treatment was very low, but we cannot be certain if there is a difference in mortality when taking additional formoterol to ICS (low-certainty evidence).We did not find a difference in the risk of non-fatal SAEs of any cause in adults (high-certainty evidence). A previous version of the review had shown a lower risk of asthma-related SAEs in adults taking combined formoterol and ICS; however, inclusion of new studies no longer shows a difference between treatments (moderate-certainty evidence).The reported number of children and adolescents with SAEs was small, so uncertainty remains in this age group.We included results from large studies mandated by the FDA. Clinical decisions and information provided to patients regarding regular use of formoterol and ICS need to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and ICS versus the remaining degree of uncertainty associated with its potential harmful effects.

Statins versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable, and treatable respiratory disease. COPD exacerbations are associated with worse quality of life, increased hospitalisations, and increased mortality. Currently available pharmacological interventions have variable impact on exacerbation frequency. The anti-inflammatory effects of statins may lead to decreased pulmonary and systemic inflammation, resulting in fewer exacerbations of COPD. Several observational studies have shown potential benefits of statins for patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to evaluate available evidence on benefits and harms associated with statin therapy compared with placebo as adjunct therapy for patients with COPD. Primary objectives include the following.• To determine whether statins reduce mortality rates in COPD.• To determine whether statins reduce exacerbation frequency, improve quality of life, or improve lung function in COPD.• To determine whether statins are associated with adverse effects.

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 search on 20 May 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods as expected by Cochrane. Prespecified primary outcomes were number of exacerbations, all-cause mortality, and COPD-specific mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies including 1323 participants with COPD were included in the review. Participants had a mean age of 61.4 to 72 years, and most were male (median 73.4%). Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranged from 41% to 90% predicted. All studies compared moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy versus placebo. The duration of treatment ranged from 12 weeks to 36 months.We found no statistically significant difference between statins and placebo in our primary outcome of number of exacerbations per person-year (mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.25 to 0.19, 1 trial, 877 participants), including number of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation per person-year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10, 1 trial, 877 exacerbations). This evidence was of moderate quality after downgrading for unclear risk of bias. Our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.74, 2 trials, 952 participants) and COPD-specific mortality (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.13, 1 trial, 877 participants) showed no significant difference between statins and placebo, with wide confidence intervals suggesting uncertainty about the precision of the results. This evidence was of low quality after downgrading for unclear risk of bias and imprecision.Results of the secondary outcomes analysis showed no clear differences between statins and placebo for FEV₁ (% predicted) (MD 1.18, 95% CI -2.6 to 4.97, 6 trials, 325 participants) but did show a statistically significant improvement in FEV₁/forced vital capacity (FVC) (MD 2.66, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.2; P = 0.04; 6 trials, 325 participants). A sensitivity analysis excluding two trials at high risk of bias showed no statistically significant difference in FEV₁/FVC (MD 2.05, 95% CI -0.87 to -4.97; P = 0.17; 4 trials, 255 participants). We also found no significant differences between the two groups in functional capacity measured by six-minute walk distance in metres (MD 1.79, 95% CI -52.51 to 56.09, 3 trials, 71 participants), with wide confidence intervals suggesting uncertainty about the precision of the results. Results show no clear difference in quality of life, which was reported in three trials, and a slight reduction in C-reactive protein (CRP) in the intervention group, which was statistically significant (MD -1.03, 95% CI -1.95 to -0.11; I² = 0%, P = 0.03; 3 trials, 142 participants). We noted a significant reduction in interleukin (IL)-6 in the intervention group (MD -2.11, 95% CI -2.65 to -1.56; I² = 0%, P ≤ 0.00001; 2 trials, 125 participants). All trials mentioned adverse events and indicated that statins were generally well tolerated. One study reported adverse events in detail and indicated that rates of all non-fatal adverse events (the number of serious adverse events per person-year) were similar in both groups (0.63 ± 1.56 events (intervention group) and 0.62 ± 1.48 events (control group); P > 0.20) for all comparisons, except for non-fatal serious adverse events involving the gastrointestinal tract, which were more frequent in the intervention group (in 30 patients (0.05 events per person-year) vs 17 patients (0.02 events per person-year); P = 0.02). Another trial lists the total numbers and percentages of adverse events in the intervention group (12 (26%)) and in the control group (21 (43%)) and of serious adverse events in the intervention group (4 (9%)) and in the control group (3 (6%)).The other trials stated that researchers found no significant adverse effects of statins but did not report adverse events in detail.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small number of trials providing low- or moderate-quality evidence were suitable for inclusion in this review. They showed that use of statins resulted in a reduction in CRP and IL-6, but that this did not translate into clear clinical benefit for people with COPD. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to explore this topic.

Speech and language therapy for management of chronic cough

BACKGROUND

Cough both protects and clears the airway. Cough has three phases: breathing in (inspiration), closure of the glottis, and a forced expiratory effort. Chronic cough has a negative, far-reaching impact on quality of life. Few effective medical treatments for individuals with unexplained (idiopathic/refractory) chronic cough (UCC) are known. For this group, current guidelines advocate the use of gabapentin. Speech and language therapy (SLT) has been considered as a non-pharmacological option for managing UCC without the risks and side effects associated with pharmacological agents, and this review considers the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of SLT in this context.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for treatment of people with unexplained (idiopathic/refractory) chronic cough.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trials registries, and reference lists of included studies. Our most recent search was 8 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs in which participants had a diagnosis of UCC having undergone a full diagnostic workup to exclude an underlying cause, as per published guidelines or local protocols, and where the intervention included speech and language therapy techniques for UCC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 94 records. Two clinical trials, represented in 10 study reports, met our predefined inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study and extracted outcome data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or geometric mean differences. We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

We found two studies involving 162 adults that met our inclusion criteria. Neither of the two studies included children. The duration of treatment and length of sessions varied between studies from four sessions delivered weekly, to four sessions over two months. Similarly, length of sessions varied slightly from one 60-minute session and three 45-minute sessions to four 30-minute sessions. The control interventions were healthy lifestyle advice in both studies.One study contributed HRQoL data, using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), and we judged the quality of the evidence to be low using the GRADE approach. Data were reported as between-group difference from baseline to four weeks (MD 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 2.85; participants = 71), revealing a statistically significant benefit for people receiving a physiotherapy and speech and language therapy intervention (PSALTI) versus control. However, the difference between PSALTI and control was not observed between week four and three months. The same study provided information on SAEs, and there were no SAEs in either the PSALTI or control arms. Using the GRADE approach we judged the quality of evidence for this outcome to be low.Data were also available for our prespecified secondary outcomes. In each case data were provided by only one study, therefore there were no opportunities for aggregation; we judged the quality of this evidence to be low for each outcome. A significant difference favouring therapy was demonstrated for: objective cough counts (ratio for mean coughs per hour on treatment was 59% (95% CI 37% to 95%) relative to control; participants = 71); symptom score (MD 9.80, 95% CI 4.50 to 15.10; participants = 87); and clinical improvement as defined by trialists (OR 48.13, 95% CI 13.53 to 171.25; participants = 87). There was no significant difference between therapy and control regarding subjective measures of cough (MD on visual analogue scale of cough severity: -9.72, 95% CI -20.80 to 1.36; participants = 71) and cough reflex sensitivity (capsaicin concentration to induce five coughs: 1.11 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; participants = 49) times higher on treatment than on control). One study reported data on adverse events, and there were no adverse events reported in either the therapy or control arms of the study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of data in this review highlights the need for more controlled trial data examining the efficacy of SLT interventions in the management of UCC. Although a large number of studies were found in the initial search as per protocol, we could include only two studies in the review. In addition, this review highlights that endpoints vary between published studies.The improvements in HRQoL (LCQ) and reduction in 24-hour cough frequency seen with the PSALTI intervention were statistically significant but short-lived, with the between-group difference lasting up to four weeks only. Further studies are required to replicate these findings and to investigate the effects of SLT interventions over time. It is clear that SLT interventions vary between studies. Further research is needed to understand which aspects of SLT interventions are most effective in reducing cough (both objective cough frequency and subjective measures of cough) and improving HRQoL. We consider these endpoints to be clinically important. It is also important for future studies to report information on adverse events.Because of the paucity of data, we can draw no robust conclusions regarding the efficacy of SLT interventions for improving outcomes in unexplained chronic cough. Our review identifies the need for further high-quality research, with comparable endpoints to inform robust conclusions.

Inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma: effects of different drugs and delivery devices on growth

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective treatment for children with persistent asthma. Although treatment with ICS is generally considered to be safe in children, the potential adverse effects of these drugs on growth remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different inhaled corticosteroid drugs and delivery devices on the linear growth of children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' clinical trial databases, or contacted the manufacturer, to search for potential relevant unpublished studies. The literature search was initially conducted in September 2014, and updated in November 2015, September 2018, and April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected parallel-group randomized controlled trials of at least three months' duration. To be included, trials had to compare linear growth between different inhaled corticosteroid molecules at equivalent doses, delivered by the same type of device, or between different devices used to deliver the same inhaled corticosteroid molecule at the same dose, in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected studies and assessed risk of bias in included studies. The data were extracted by one author and checked by another. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. We conducted meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3 software. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs ) as the metrics for treatment effects, and the random-effects model for meta-analyses. We did not perform planned subgroup analyses due to there being too few included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomized trials involving 1199 children aged from 4 to 12 years (per-protocol population: 1008), with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Two trials were from single hospitals, and the remaining four trials were multicentre studies. The duration of trials varied from six to 20 months.One trial with 23 participants compared fluticasone with beclomethasone, and showed that fluticasone given at an equivalent dose was associated with a significant greater linear growth velocity (MD 0.81 cm/year, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.16, low certainty evidence). Three trials compared fluticasone with budesonide. Fluticasone given at an equivalent dose had a less suppressive effect than budesonide on growth, as measured by change in height over a period from 20 weeks to 12 months (MD 0.97 cm, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 2 trials, 359 participants; moderate certainty evidence). However, we observed no significant difference in linear growth velocity between fluticasone and budesonide at equivalent doses (MD 0.39 cm/year, 95% CI -0.94 to 1.73; 2 trials, 236 participants; very low certainty evidence).Two trials compared inhalation devices. One trial with 212 participants revealed a comparable linear growth velocity between beclomethasone administered via hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) and beclomethasone administered via chlorofluorocarbon-metered dose inhaler (CFC-MDI) at an equivalent dose (MD -0.44 cm/year, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.12; low certainty evidence). Another trial with 229 participants showed a small but statistically significant greater increase in height over a period of six months in favour of budesonide via Easyhaler, compared to budesonide given at the same dose via Turbuhaler (MD 0.37 cm, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.62; low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that the drug molecule and delivery device may impact the effect size of ICS on growth in children with persistent asthma. Fluticasone at an equivalent dose seems to inhibit growth less than beclomethasone and budesonide. Easyhaler is likely to have less adverse effect on growth than Turbuhaler when used for delivery of budesonide. However, the evidence from this systematic review of head-to-head trials is not certain enough to inform the selection of inhaled corticosteroid or inhalation device for the treatment of children with persistent asthma. Further studies are needed, and pragmatic trials and real-life observational studies seem more attractive and feasible.

Head-to-head oral prophylactic antibiotic therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; including chronic bronchitis and emphysema) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by shortness of breath, cough and recurrent exacerbations. Long-term antibiotic use may reduce both bacterial load and inflammation in the airways. Studies have shown a reduction of exacerbations with antibiotics in comparison to placebo in people with COPD, but there are concerns about antibiotic resistance and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of different classes of antibiotics (continuous, intermittent or pulsed) for prophylaxis of exacerbations in patients with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant studies. The latest literature search was conducted on 6 February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected that compared one prophylactic antibiotic with another in patients with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved by involving a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs, both published in 2015 involving a total of 391 participants with treatment duration of 12 to 13 weeks. One RCT compared a quinolone (moxifloxacin pulsed, for 5 days every 4 weeks), with a tetracycline (doxycycline continuous) or a macrolide (azithromycin intermittent).The second RCT compared a tetracycline (doxycycline continuous) plus a macrolide (roxithromycin continuous), with roxithromycin (continuous) alone.The trials recruited participants with a mean age of 68 years, with moderate-severity COPD. Both trials included participants who had between two and five exacerbations in the previous one to two years. In one trial, 17% of patients had previously been using inhaled corticosteroids. In the other study, all patients were positive for Chlamydophila pneumoniae (C pneumoniae).Overall, we judged the evidence presented to be of very low-certainty, mainly due to imprecision, but we also had concerns about indirectness and methodological quality of the included studies. The primary outcome measures for this review included exacerbations, quality of life, drug resistance and serious adverse events.Macrolide + tetracycline versus macrolide There was no clear difference between treatments in improvement in quality of life as assessed by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). The CRQ scale ranges from 0 to 10 and higher scores on the scale indicate better quality of life. CRQ sub-scales for dyspnoea (mean difference (MD) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 2.00; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence), fatigue (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.12; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence), emotional function (MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.74 to 1.00; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or mastery (MD -0.79, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.28; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at 12 weeks. For serious adverse events, it was uncertain if there was a difference between combined roxithromycin and doxycycline versus roxithromycin alone at 48 weeks follow-up after active treatment of 12 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.93; 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were five deaths reported in the combined treatment arm, versus three in the single treatment arm at 48 weeks follow-up after active treatment of 12 weeks (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.02; 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Quinolone versus tetracycline There was no clear difference between moxifloxacin and doxycycline for the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.38; 50 participants, very low-certainty evidence) at 13 weeks. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported in either treatment groups. We did not identify any evidence for our other primary outcomes.Quinolone versus macrolide There was no clear difference between moxifloxacin and azithromycin for the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at 13 weeks. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported in either treatment groups. We did not identify any evidence for our other primary outcomes.Marcolide versus tetracycline There was no clear difference between azithromycin and doxycycline for the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.38; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at 13 weeks. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported in either treatment groups. We did not identify any evidence for our other primary outcomes.We did not find head-to-head evidence for impact of antibiotics on drug resistance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear from the evidence included in this review whether there is a difference in efficacy or safety between different classes or regimens of prophylactic antibiotic, given for 12 to 13 weeks to people with COPD. Whilst no head-to-head comparisons of antibiotic resistance were identified, concerns about this continue. The sample size in this review is small and both included studies are of short duration. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty in effects observed and the effects of different prophylactic antibiotics requires further research.

Mucolytic agents versus placebo for chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer recurrent exacerbations with an increase in volume or purulence of sputum, or both. Personal and healthcare costs associated with exacerbations indicate that therapies that reduce the occurrence of exacerbations are likely to be useful. Mucolytics are oral medicines that are believed to increase expectoration of sputum by reducing its viscosity, thus making it easier to cough it up. Improved expectoration of sputum may lead to a reduction in exacerbations of COPD.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective• To determine whether treatment with mucolytics reduces exacerbations and/or days of disability in patients with chronic bronchitis or COPDSecondary objectives• To assess whether mucolytics lead to improvement in lung function or quality of life• To determine frequency of adverse effects associated with use of mucolytics SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles on 12 separate occasions, most recently on 23 April 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies that compared oral mucolytic therapy versus placebo for at least two months in adults with chronic bronchitis or COPD. We excluded studies of people with asthma and cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This review analysed summary data only, most derived from published studies. For earlier versions, one review author extracted data, which were rechecked in subsequent updates. In later versions, review authors double-checked extracted data and then entered data into RevMan 5.3 for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We added four studies for the 2019 update. The review now includes 38 trials, recruiting a total of 10,377 participants. Studies lasted between two months and three years and investigated a range of mucolytics, including N-acetylcysteine, carbocysteine, erdosteine, and ambroxol, given at least once daily. Many studies did not clearly describe allocation concealment, and we had concerns about blinding and high levels of attrition in some studies. The primary outcomes were exacerbations and number of days of disability.Results of 28 studies including 6723 participants show that receiving mucolytics may be more likely to be exacerbation-free during the study period compared to those given placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 1.91; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more recent studies show less benefit of treatment than was reported in earlier studies in this review. The overall number needed to treat with mucolytics for an average of nine months to keep an additional participant free from exacerbations was eight (NNTB 8, 95% CI 7 to 10). High heterogeneity was noted for this outcome (I² = 62%), so results need to be interpreted with caution. The type or dose of mucolytic did not seem to alter the effect size, nor did the severity of COPD, including exacerbation history. Longer studies showed smaller effects of mucolytics than were reported in shorter studies.Mucolytic use was associated with a reduction of 0.43 days of disability per participant per month compared with use of placebo (95% CI -0.56 to -0.30; studies = 9; I² = 61%; moderate-certainty evidence). With mucolytics, the number of people with one or more hospitalisations was reduced, but study results were not consistent (Peto OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; participants = 1788; studies = 4; I² = 58%; moderate-certainty evidence). Investigators reported improved quality of life with mucolytics (mean difference (MD) -1.37, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.11; participants = 2721; studies = 7; I² = 64%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the mean difference did not reach the minimal clinically important difference of -4 units, and the confidence interval includes no difference. Mucolytic treatment was associated with a possible reduction in adverse events (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; participants = 7264; studies = 24; I² = 46%; moderate-certainty evidence), but the pooled effect includes no difference if a random-effects model is used. Several studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported high numbers of adverse events, up to a mean of five events per person during follow-up. There was no clear difference between mucolytics and placebo for mortality, but the confidence interval is too wide to confirm that treatment has no effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.87; participants = 3527; studies = 11; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In participants with chronic bronchitis or COPD, we are moderately confident that treatment with mucolytics leads to a small reduction in the likelihood of having an acute exacerbation, in days of disability per month and possibly hospitalisations, but is not associated with an increase in adverse events. There appears to be limited impact on lung function or health-related quality of life. Results are too imprecise to be certain whether or not there is an effect on mortality. Our confidence in the results is reduced by high levels of heterogeneity in many of the outcomes and the fact that effects on exacerbations shown in early trials were larger than those reported by more recent studies. This may be a result of greater risk of selection or publication bias in earlier trials, thus benefits of treatment may not be as great as was suggested by previous evidence.

Galactomannan detection in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid for invasive aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients

BACKGROUND

Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is a life-threatening opportunistic mycosis that occurs in some people with a compromised immune system. The serum galactomannan enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) rapidly gained widespread acceptance as part of the diagnostic work-up of a patient suspected of IA. Due to its non-invasive nature, it can be used as a routine screening test. The ELISA can also be performed on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), allowing sampling of the immediate vicinity of the infection. The invasive nature of acquiring BAL, however, changes the role of the galactomannan test significantly, for example by precluding its use as a routine screening test.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of galactomannan detection in BAL for the diagnosis of IA in people who are immunocompromised, at different cut-off values for test positivity, in accordance with the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Handbook.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched three bibliographic databases including MEDLINE on 9 September 2016 for aspergillosis and galactomannan as text words and subject headings where appropriate. We checked reference lists of included studies for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cohort studies that examined the accuracy of BAL galactomannan for the diagnosis of IA in immunocompromised patients if they used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) classification as reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed study quality and extracted data. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used for quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies in our review. All studies except one had a high risk of bias in two or more domains. The diagnostic performance of an optical density index (ODI) of 0.5 as cut-off value was reported in 12 studies (with 1123 patients). The estimated sensitivity was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.00) and specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.91). The performance of an ODI of 1.0 as cut-off value could be determined in 11 studies (with 648 patients). The sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95) and specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.98). At a cut-off ODI of 1.5 or higher, the heterogeneity in specificity decreased significantly and was invariably >90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The optimal cut-off value depends on the local incidence and clinical pathway. At a prevalence of 12% a hypothetical population of 1000 patients will consist of 120 patients with IA. At a cut-off value of 0.5 14 patients with IA will be missed and there will be 167 patients incorrectly diagnosed with IA. If we use the test at a cut-off value of 1.0, we will miss 26 patients with IA. And there will be 62 patients incorrectly diagnosed with invasive aspergillosis. The populations and results were very heterogeneous. Therefore, interpretation and extrapolation of these results has to be performed with caution. A test result of 1.5 ODI or higher appears a strong indicator of IA.

Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea

BACKGROUND

The modalities of therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) include behavioural and lifestyle modifications, positional therapy, oral appliances, surgery and continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP). Though CPAP has proven efficacy in treating OSA, adherence with CPAP therapy is suboptimal. Positional therapy (to keep people sleeping on their side) is less invasive and therefore expected to have better adherence. This review considered the efficacy of positional therapy compared to CPAP as well as positional therapy against no positional therapy. Devices designed for positional therapy include lumbar or abdominal binders, semi-rigid backpacks, full-length pillows, a tennis ball attached to the back of nightwear, and electrical sensors with alarms that indicate change in position.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of positional therapy versus CPAP and positional therapy versus inactive control (sham intervention or no positional therapy intervention) in people with OSA.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AHMED and PsycINFO), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP). It also contains results derived from handsearching of respiratory journals and abstract books of major annual meetings. We searched all databases from their inception to September 2018, with no restrictions on language of publication or publication type.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing positional therapy with CPAP and positional therapy with inactive control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted the data. We used a random-effects model in the meta-analysis to estimate mean differences and confidence intervals. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies. The studies randomised 323 participants into two types of interventions. The comparison between positional therapy and CPAP included 72 participants, while the comparison between positional therapy and inactive control included 251 participants. Three studies used supine vibration alarm devices, while five studies used physical positioning like specially designed pillows or semirigid backpacks.Positional therapy versus CPAPThe three studies included for this comparison were randomised cross-over trials. Two studies found that there was no difference in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores between CPAP and positional therapy. Two studies showed that CPAP produced a greater reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) with a mean difference (MD) of 6.4 events per hour (95% CI 3.00 to 9.79; low-certainty evidence) compared to positional therapy. Subjective adherence, evaluated in one study, was found to be significantly greater with positional therapy (MD 2.5 hours per night, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.59; moderate-certainty evidence).In terms of secondary outcomes, one study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcomes using multiple parameters and found no difference between the groups. There were insufficient data to comment on other secondary outcomes like respiratory disturbance index (RDI), and frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation. None of the studies clearly reported adverse effects.Positional therapy versus inactive controlThree studies of positional therapy versus no intervention were randomised cross-over trials, while two studies were parallel-arm studies. Data from two studies showed that positional therapy significantly improved ESS scores (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.89 to -0.29; moderate-certainty evidence). Positional therapy showed a reduction in AHI compared with control (MD -7.38 events per hour, 95% CI -10.06 to -4.7; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adherence. The number of participants who continued to use the device at two months was no different between the two groups (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; low-certainty evidence). The same study reported adverse effects, the most common being pain in the back and chest, and sleep disturbance but there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of device discontinuation (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.5 to 3.03; low-certainty evidence). One study each reported quality-of-life indices and quality-of-sleep indices, with no significant difference between the two groups. One study reported cognitive outcome, and found no difference between the groups. There was insufficient evidence to comment on other secondary outcomes (RDI, frequency and duration of nocturnal desaturation).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found that CPAP has a greater effect on improving AHI compared with positional therapy in positional OSA, while positional therapy was better than inactive control for improving ESS and AHI. Positional therapy may have better adherence than CPAP. There were no significant differences for other clinically relevant outcomes such as quality of life or cognitive function. All the studies were of short duration. We are unable to comment on the long-term effects of the therapies. This is important, as most of the quality-of-life outcomes will be evident only when the therapies are given over a longer period of time. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.

Prostacyclin for pulmonary arterial hypertension

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is characterised by pulmonary vascular changes, leads to elevated pulmonary artery pressures, dyspnoea, a reduction in exercise tolerance, right heart failure, and ultimately death.Prostacyclin analogue drugs mimic endogenous prostacyclin which leads to vasodilation, inhibition of platelet aggregation, and reversal of vascular remodelling. Prostacyclin's short half-life theoretically enhances selectivity for the pulmonary vascular bed by direct (via central venous catheter) administration. Initial continuous infusion prostacyclins were efficacious, but use of intravenous access increases the risk of adverse events. Newer and safer subcutaneous, oral and inhaled preparations are now available, though possibly less potent.Selexipag is an oral selective prostacyclin receptor (IP receptor) agonist that works similarly to prostacyclin, potentially more stable, with less complex administration and titration.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of prostacyclin, prostacyclin analogues or prostacyclin receptor agonists for PAH in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase up to 16 September 2018. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared prostacyclin, prostacyclin analogues or prostacyclin receptor agonists to control (placebo, any other treatment or usual care) for at least six weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods specified by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included change in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials with 3765 mostly adult participants were included; median trial duration was 12 weeks. Fifteen trials used prostacyclin analogues: intravenous (N = 4); subcutaneous (N = 1); oral (N = 5); inhaled (N = 5); two used oral prostacyclin receptor agonists. Three intravenous and two inhaled trials were open-label.Participants using prostacyclin had 2.39 times greater odds of improving by at least one WHO functional class (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.32; 24 per 100 (95% CI 18.5 to 30.4) with prostacyclin compared to 12 per 100 with control; 8 trials, 1066 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement occurred with intravenous (odds ratio (OR) 14.96, 95% CI 4.76 to 47.04), and inhaled (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.66), but not with oral preparations. Participants using prostacyclin increased their 6MWD by 19.50 metres (95% CI 14.82 to 24.19; 13 trials, 2283 participants; low-certainty evidence), which was clinically significant with intravenous (mean difference (MD) 91.76 metres; 95% CI 58.97 to 124.55), but not with non-intravenous preparations (subcutaneous: MD 16.00 metres, 95% CI 7.38 to 24.62; oral: MD 14.76 metres, 95% CI 7.81 to 21.70; inhaled: MD 26.97 metres, 95% CI 17.21 to 36.73). Mortality was reduced in the intravenous (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69; risk of death 6 per 100 (95% CI 2.38 to 12.31) with prostacyclin compared to 17 per 100 with control; 4 trials, 255 participants), but not in the non-intravenous studies (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40; risk of death 21 per 1000 (95% CI 12.00 to 34.20) with prostacyclin compared to 25 per 1000 with control; moderate-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 2299 participants). We reduced the certainty of evidence due to few studies per subgroup and use of open-label trials.Prostacyclins improved cardiopulmonary haemodynamics (reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure by 3.60 mmHg (95% CI -4.73 to -2.48); pulmonary vascular resistance by 2.81 WU (95% CI -3.80 to -1.82); right atrial pressure by 1.90 mmHg (95% CI -2.58 to -1.22), and increase in cardiac index by 0.31 L/min/m² (95% CI 0.23 to 0.38); low-certainty evidence), improved dyspnoea (low-certainty evidence, and improved quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), when compared to control. When only subcutaneous/inhaled trials were included the effect was still significant, but the magnitude was smaller. There was no difference across oral trials.Adverse events were increased in all prostacyclin preparations, including vasodilation (OR 5.03, 95% CI 3.84 to 6.58), headache (OR 3.16, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.80), jaw pain (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.96 to 6.98), diarrhoea (OR 2.81, 95% CI 2.29 to 3.46), nausea/vomiting (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.88), myalgias (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.58), upper respiratory tract events (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.13), extremity pain (OR 3.36, 95% CI 2.32 to 4.85), and infusion site reactions (OR 14.41, 95% CI 9.16 to 22.66). In the intravenous trials, there was a 12%-25% risk of serious non-fatal events including sepsis, haemorrhage, pneumothorax and pulmonary embolism.Two trials (1199 participants) compared oral selexipag to placebo; no trials compared selexipag with prostacyclin. There was a small 12.62 metre improvement in 6MWD (95% CI 1.90 to 23.34; high-certainty evidence), and weak evidence for haemodynamics. The effect was uncertain for WHO functional class. The risk of death with selexipag was five per 100 compared to three per 100 with placebo, though the CI crossed zero so the true effect is uncertain (risk difference (RD) 0.02 (95% CI -0.00 to 0.04). There was less clinical worsening with selexipag (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.60), though more side effects, including vasodilation (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.72 to 4.17), headache (OR 3.91, 95% CI 3.07 to 4.98), jaw pain (OR 5.33, 95% CI 3.64 to 7.81), diarrhoea (OR 3.11, 95% CI 2.39 to 4.05), nausea/vomiting (OR 2.92, 95% CI 2.29 to 3.73), pain in the extremities (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.52), and myalgias (OR 3.05, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.58).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates clinical and statistical benefit for intravenous prostacyclin (compared to control) with improved functional class, 6MWD, mortality, symptoms scores, and cardiopulmonary haemodynamics, but at a cost of adverse events. This may be due to a true effect, or may be overestimated due to the inclusion of small, short or open-label studies. There was a statistical and small clinical benefit in function and haemodynamics for inhaled prostacyclin, but the effect is uncertain for mortality. The effect of oral prostacyclins are less certain. Selexipag demonstrated less clinical worsening without discernable impact on survival, increased adverse events; and the effect on other outcomes is less certain. Real-world registry data may provide further information about clinical effect.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD.

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 and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine 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. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. 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 identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) comprises a group of complex and heterogenous conditions, characterised by elevated pulmonary artery pressure, and which left untreated leads to right-heart failure and death. PH includes World Health Organisation (WHO) Group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH); Group 2 consists of PH due to left-heart disease (PH-LHD); Group 3 comprises PH as a result of lung diseases or hypoxia, or both; Group 4 includes PH due to chronic thromboembolic occlusion of pulmonary vasculature (CTEPH), and Group 5 consists of cases of PH due to unclear and/or multifactorial mechanisms including haematological, systemic, or metabolic disorders. Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors increase vasodilation and inhibit proliferation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of PDE5 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to 26 September 2018. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared any PDE5 inhibitor versus placebo, or any other PAH disease-specific therapies, for at least 12 weeks. We include separate analyses for each PH group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text versions of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were: change in WHO functional class, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and mortality. Secondary outcomes were haemodynamic parameters, quality of life/health status, dyspnoea, clinical worsening (hospitalisation/intervention), and adverse events. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses by severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, and radiological pattern of fibrosis. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 studies with 2999 participants (with pulmonary hypertension from all causes) in the final review. Trials were conducted for 14 weeks on average, with some as long as 12 months. Two trials specifically included children.Nineteen trials included group 1 PAH participants. PAH participants treated with PDE5 inhibitors were more likely to improve their WHO functional class (odds ratio (OR) 8.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.95 to 18.72; 4 trials, 282 participants), to walk 48 metres further in 6MWD (95% CI 40 to 56; 8 trials, 880 participants), and were 22% less likely to die over a mean duration of 14 weeks (95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 8 trials, 1119 participants) compared to placebo (high-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one additional death was 32 participants. There was an increased risk of adverse events with PDE5 inhibitors, especially headache (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.92; 5 trials, 848 participants), gastrointestinal upset (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.48; 5 trials, 848 participants), flushing (OR 4.12, 95% CI 1.83 to 9.26; 3 trials, 748 participants), and muscle aches and joint pains (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.99; 4 trials, 792 participants).Data comparing PDE5 inhibitors to placebo whilst on other PAH-specific therapy were limited by the small number of included trials. Those PAH participants on PDE5 inhibitors plus combination therapy walked 19.66 metres further in six minutes (95% CI 9 to 30; 4 trials, 509 participants) compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). There were limited trials comparing PDE5 inhibitors directly with other PAH-specific therapy (endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs)). Those on PDE5 inhibitors walked 49 metres further than on ERAs (95% CI 4 to 95; 2 trials, 36 participants) (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in WHO functional class or mortality across both treatments.Five trials compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo in PH secondary to left-heart disease (PH-LHD). The quality of data were low due to imprecision and inconsistency across trials. In those with PH-LHD there were reduced odds of an improvement in WHO functional class using PDE5 inhibitors compared to placebo (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87; 3 trials, 285 participants), and those using PDE5 inhibitors walked 34 metres further compared to placebo (95% CI 23 to 46; 3 trials, 284 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in mortality. Five trials compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo in PH secondary to lung disease/hypoxia, mostly in COPD. Data were of low quality due to imprecision of effect and inconsistency across trials. There was a small improvement of 27 metres in 6MWD using PDE5 inhibitors compared to placebo in those with PH due to lung disease. There was no evidence of worsening hypoxia using PDE5 inhibitors, although data were limited. Three studies compared PDE5 inhibitors to placebo or other PAH-specific therapy in chronic thromboembolic disease. There was no significant difference in any outcomes. Data quality was low due to imprecision of effect and heterogeneity across trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PDE5 inhibitors appear to have clear beneficial effects in group 1 PAH. Sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil are all efficacious in this clinical setting, and clinicians should consider the side-effect profile for each individual when choosing which PDE5 inhibitor to prescribe.While there appears to be some benefit for the use of PDE5 inhibitors in PH-left-heart disease, it is not clear based on the mostly small, short-term studies, which type of left-heart disease stands to benefit. These data suggest possible harm in valvular heart disease. There is no clear benefit for PDE5 inhibitors in pulmonary hypertension secondary to lung disease or chronic thromboembolic disease. Further research is required into the mechanisms of pulmonary hypertension secondary to left-heart disease, and cautious consideration of which subset of these patients may benefit from PDE5 inhibitors. Future trials in PH-LHD should be sufficiently powered, with long-term follow-up, and should include invasive haemodynamic data, WHO functional class, six-minute walk distance, and clinical worsening.

School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common respiratory condition in children that is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. Children with asthma may be able to manage their condition more effectively by improving inhaler technique, and by recognising and responding to symptoms. Schools offer a potentially supportive environment for delivering interventions aimed at improving self-management skills among children. The educational ethos aligns with skill and knowledge acquisition and makes it easier to reach children with asthma who do not regularly engage with primary care. Given the multi-faceted nature of self-management interventions, there is a need to understand the combination of intervention features that are associated with successful delivery of asthma self-management programmes.

OBJECTIVES

This review has two primary objectives.• To identify the intervention features that are aligned with successful intervention implementation.• To assess effectiveness of school-based interventions provided to improve asthma self-management among children.We addressed the first objective by performing qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), a synthesis method described in depth later, of process evaluation studies to identify the combination of intervention components and processes that are aligned with successful intervention implementation.We pursued the second objective by undertaking meta-analyses of outcomes reported by outcome evaluation studies. We explored the link between how well an intervention is implemented and its effectiveness by using separate models, as well as by undertaking additional subgroup analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register for randomised studies. To identify eligible process evaluation studies, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Web of Knowledge, the Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the International Biography of Social Science (IBSS), Bibliomap, Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), and Sociological Abstracts (SocAbs). We conducted the latest search on 28 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants were school-aged children with asthma who received the intervention in school. Interventions were eligible if their purpose was to help children improve management of their asthma by increasing knowledge, enhancing skills, or changing behaviour. Studies relevant to our first objective could be based on an experimental or quasi-experimental design and could use qualitative or quantitative methods of data collection. For the second objective we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where children were allocated individually or in clusters (e.g. classrooms or schools) to self-management interventions or no intervention control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to identify intervention features that lead to successful implementation of asthma self-management interventions. We measured implementation success by reviewing reports of attrition, intervention dosage, and treatment adherence, irrespective of effects of the interventions.To measure the effects of interventions, we combined data from eligible studies for our primary outcomes: admission to hospital, emergency department (ED) visits, absence from school, and days of restricted activity due to asthma symptoms. Secondary outcomes included unplanned visits to healthcare providers, daytime and night-time symptoms, use of reliever therapies, and health-related quality of life as measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 studies in the review. Thirty-three studies in 14,174 children provided information for the QCA, and 33 RCTs in 12,623 children measured the effects of interventions. Eleven studies contributed to both the QCA and the analysis of effectiveness. Most studies were conducted in North America in socially disadvantaged populations. High school students were better represented among studies contributing to the QCA than in studies contributing to effectiveness evaluations, which more commonly included younger elementary and junior high school students. The interventions all attempted to improve knowledge of asthma, its triggers, and stressed the importance of regular practitioner review, although there was variation in how they were delivered.QCA results highlighted the importance of an intervention being theory driven, along with the importance of factors such as parent involvement, child satisfaction, and running the intervention outside the child's own time as drivers of successful implementation.Compared with no intervention, school-based self-management interventions probably reduce mean hospitalisations by an average of about 0.16 admissions per child over 12 months (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; 1873 participants; 6 studies, moderate certainty evidence). They may reduce the number of children who visit EDs from 7.5% to 5.4% over 12 months (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92; 3883 participants; 13 studies, low certainty evidence), and probably reduce unplanned visits to hospitals or primary care from 26% to 21% at 6 to 9 months (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.90; 3490 participants; 5 studies, moderate certainty evidence). Self-management interventions probably reduce the number of days of restricted activity by just under half a day over a two-week period (MD 0.38 days 95% CI -0.41 to -0.18; 1852 participants; 3 studies, moderate certainty evidence). Effects of interventions on school absence are uncertain due to the variation between the results of the studies (MD 0.4 fewer school days missed per year with self-management (-1.25 to 0.45; 4609 participants; 10 studies, low certainty evidence). Evidence is insufficient to show whether the requirement for reliever medications is affected by these interventions (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.81; 437 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Self-management interventions probably improve children's asthma-related quality of life by a small amount (MD 0.36 units higher on the Paediatric AQLQ(95% CI 0.06 to 0.64; 2587 participants; 7 studies, moderate certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

School-based asthma self-management interventions probably reduce hospital admission and may slightly reduce ED attendance, although their impact on school attendance could not be measured reliably. They may also reduce the number of days where children experience asthma symptoms, and probably lead to small improvements in asthma-related quality of life. Many of the studies tested the intervention in younger children from socially disadvantaged populations. Interventions that had a theoretical framework, engaged parents and were run outside of children's free time were associated with successful implementation.

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta₂-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV₁ of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV₁ compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

Caseworker-assigned discharge plans to prevent hospital readmission for acute exacerbations in children with chronic respiratory illness

BACKGROUND

Chronic respiratory conditions are major causes of mortality and morbidity. Children with chronic health conditions have increased morbidity associated with their physical, emotional, and general well-being. Acute respiratory exacerbations (AREs) are common in children with chronic respiratory disease, often requiring admission to hospital. Reducing the frequency of AREs and recurrent hospitalisations is therefore an important goal in the individual and public health management of chronic respiratory illnesses in children. Discharge planning is used to decide what a person needs for transition from one level of care to another and is usually considered in the context of discharge from hospital to the home. Discharge planning from hospital for ongoing management of an illness has historically been referral to a general practitioner or allied health professional or self management by the individual and their family with limited communication between the hospital and patient once discharged. Effective discharge planning can decrease the risk of recurrent AREs requiring medical care. An individual caseworker-assigned discharge plan may further decrease exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of individual caseworker-assigned discharge plans, as compared to non-caseworker-assigned plans, in preventing hospitalisation for AREs in children with chronic lung diseases such as asthma and bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trials registries, and reference lists of articles. The latest searches were undertaken in November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing individual caseworker-assigned discharge planning compared to traditional discharge-planning approaches (including self management), and their effectiveness in reducing the subsequent need for emergency care for AREs (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and/or unscheduled general practitioner visits) in children hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease. We excluded studies that included children with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Review methodological approaches. Relevant studies were independently selected in duplicate. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the authors of one study for further information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies involving a total of 773 randomised participants aged between 14 months and 16 years. All four studies involved children with asthma, with the case-planning undertaken by a trained nurse educator. However, the discharge planning/education differed among the studies. We could include data from only two studies (361 children) in the meta-analysis. Two further studies enrolled children in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and one of these studies also included children with acute wheezing illness (no previous asthma diagnosis); the data specific to this review could not be obtained. For the primary outcome of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, those in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be rehospitalised (odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.50) compared to controls. This equates to 189 (95% CI 124 to 236) fewer admissions per 1000 children. No adverse events were reported in any study. In the context of substantial statistical heterogeneity between the two studies, there were no statistically significant effects on emergency department (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or general practitioner (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.44) presentations. There were no data on cost-effectiveness, length of stay of subsequent hospitalisations, or adherence to medications. One study reported quality of life, with no significant differences observed between the intervention and control groups.We considered three of the studies to have an unclear risk of bias, primarily due to inadequate description of the blinding of participants and investigators. The fourth study was assessed as at high risk of bias as a single unblinded investigator was used. Using the GRADE system, we assessed the quality of the evidence as moderate for the outcome of hospitalisation and low for the outcomes of emergency department visits and general practitioner consultations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that individual caseworker-assigned discharge plans, as compared to non-caseworker-assigned plans, may be beneficial in preventing hospital readmissions for acute exacerbations in children with asthma. There was no clear indication that the intervention reduces emergency department and general practitioner attendances for asthma, and there is an absence of data for children with other chronic respiratory conditions. Given the potential benefit and cost savings to the healthcare sector and families if hospitalisations and outpatient attendances can be reduced, there is a need for further randomised controlled trials encompassing different chronic respiratory illnesses, ethnicity, socio-economic settings, and cost-effectiveness, as well as defining the essential components of a complex intervention.

Prophylactic antibiotic therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

There has been renewal of interest in the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not regular (continuous, intermittent or pulsed) treatment of COPD patients with prophylactic antibiotics reduces exacerbations or affects quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant studies. The latest literature search was performed on 27 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic antibiotics with placebo in patients with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies involving 3932 participants in this review. We identified two further studies meeting inclusion criteria but both were terminated early without providing results. All studies were published between 2001 and 2015. Nine studies were of continuous macrolide antibiotics, two studies were of intermittent antibiotic prophylaxis (three times per week) and two were of pulsed antibiotic regimens (e.g. five days every eight weeks). The final study included one continuous, one intermittent and one pulsed arm. The antibiotics investigated were azithromycin, erythromycin, clarithromycin, doxycyline, roxithromycin and moxifloxacin. The study duration varied from three months to 36 months and all used intention-to-treat analysis. Most of the pooled results were of moderate quality. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low.The studies recruited participants with a mean age between 65 and 72 years and mostly at least moderate-severity COPD. Five studies only included participants with frequent exacerbations and two studies recruited participants requiring systemic steroids or antibiotics or both, or who were at the end stage of their disease and required oxygen. One study recruited participants with pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD and a further study was specifically designed to asses whether eradication of Chlamydia pneumoniae reduced exacerbation rates.The co-primary outcomes for this review were the number of exacerbations and quality of life.With use of prophylactic antibiotics, the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations was reduced (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.78; participants = 2716; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence). This represented a reduction from 61% of participants in the control group compared to 47% in the treatment group (95% CI 39% to 55%). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome with prophylactic antibiotics given for three to 12 months to prevent one person from experiencing an exacerbation (NNTB) was 8 (95% CI 5 to 17). The test for subgroup difference suggested that continuous and intermittent antibiotics may be more effective than pulsed antibiotics (P = 0.02, I² = 73.3%).The frequency of exacerbations per patient per year was also reduced with prophylactic antibiotic treatment (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; participants = 1384; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence). Although we were unable to pool the result, six of the seven studies reporting time to first exacerbation identified an increase (i.e. benefit) with antibiotics, which was reported as statistically significant in four studies.There was a statistically significant improvement in quality of life as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with prophylactic antibiotic treatment, but this was smaller than the four unit improvement that is regarded as being clinically significant (mean difference (MD) -1.94, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.75; participants = 2237; studies = 7, high-quality evidence).Prophylactic antibiotics showed no significant effect on the secondary outcomes of frequency of hospital admissions, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), serious adverse events or all-cause mortality (moderate-quality evidence). There was some evidence of benefit in exercise tolerance, but this was driven by a single study of lower methodological quality.The adverse events that were recorded varied among the studies depending on the antibiotics used. Azithromycin was associated with significant hearing loss in the treatment group, which was in many cases reversible or partially reversible. The moxifloxacin pulsed study reported a significantly higher number of adverse events in the treatment arm due to the marked increase in gastrointestinal adverse events (P < 0.001). Some adverse events that led to drug discontinuation, such as development of long QTc or tinnitus, were not significantly more frequent in the treatment group than the placebo group but pose important considerations in clinical practice.The development of antibiotic resistance in the community is of major concern. Six studies reported on this, but we were unable to combine results. One study found newly colonised participants to have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. Participants colonised with moxifloxacin-sensitive pseudomonas at initiation of therapy rapidly became resistant with the quinolone treatment. A further study with three active treatment arms found an increase in the degree of antibiotic resistance of isolates in all three arms after 13 weeks treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of continuous and intermittent prophylactic antibiotics results in a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations in COPD patients. All studies of continuous and intermittent antibiotics used macrolides, hence the noted benefit applies only to the use of macrolide antibiotics prescribed at least three times per week. The impact of pulsed antibiotics remains uncertain and requires further research.The studies in this review included mostly participants who were frequent exacerbators with at least moderate-severity COPD. There were also older individuals with a mean age over 65 years. The results of these studies apply only to the group of participants who were studied in these studies and may not be generalisable to other groups.Because of concerns about antibiotic resistance and specific adverse effects, consideration of prophylactic antibiotic use should be mindful of the balance between benefits to individual patients and the potential harms to society created by antibiotic overuse. Monitoring of significant side effects including hearing loss, tinnitus, and long QTc in the community in this elderly patient group may require extra health resources.

Antibiotics for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain, as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of antibiotics on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) for management of acute COPD exacerbations, as well as their effects on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay, time to next exacerbation).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and other electronically available databases up to 26 September 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo and providing follow-up of at least seven days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised as a single group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation, and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. When authors of primary studies did not report outcomes or study details, we contacted them to request missing data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (ORs) for rare events (mortality and adverse events), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes using random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 2663 participants (11 with outpatients, seven with inpatients, and one with ICU patients).For outpatients (with mild to moderate exacerbations), evidence of low quality suggests that currently available antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.94; I² = 31%; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 295 to 212 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 165 to 277). Studies providing older antibiotics not in use anymore yielded an RR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 31%). Evidence of low quality from one trial in outpatients suggested no effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30). One trial reported no effects of antibiotics on re-exacerbations between two and six weeks after treatment initiation. Only one trial (N = 35) reported health-related quality of life but did not show a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups.Evidence of moderate quality does not show that currently used antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure among inpatients with severe exacerbations (i.e. for inpatients excluding ICU patients) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12; I² = 50%), but trial results remain uncertain. In turn, the effect was statistically significant when trials included older antibiotics no longer in clinical use (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00; I² = 39%). Evidence of moderate quality from two trials including inpatients shows no beneficial effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.94 to 6.55). Length of hospital stay (in days) was similar in antibiotic and placebo groups.The only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; moderate-quality evidence; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 565 to 107 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 45 to 254). Results of this trial show a statistically significant effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72; moderate-quality evidence) and on length of hospital stay (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -12.84 to -6.36; low-quality evidence).Evidence of moderate quality gathered from trials conducted in all settings shows no statistically significant effect on overall incidence of adverse events (Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.63; moderate-quality evidence) nor on diarrhoea (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.07; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Researchers have found that antibiotics have some effect on inpatients and outpatients, but these effects are small, and they are inconsistent for some outcomes (treatment failure) and absent for other outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay). Analyses show a strong beneficial effect of antibiotics among ICU patients. Few data are available on the effects of antibiotics on health-related quality of life or on other patient-reported symptoms, and data show no statistically significant increase in the risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. These inconsistent effects call for research into clinical signs and biomarkers that can help identify patients who would benefit from antibiotics, while sparing antibiotics for patients who are unlikely to experience benefit and for whom downsides of antibiotics (side effects, costs, and multi-resistance) should be avoided.

Active mind-body movement therapies as an adjunct to or in comparison with pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Active mind-body movement therapies (AMBMTs), including but not limited to yoga, tai chi, and qigong, have been applied as exercise modalities for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AMBMT strategies have been found to be more effective than usual care; however, whether AMBMT is inferior, equivalent, or superior to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in people with COPD remains to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of AMBMTs compared with, or in addition to, PR in the management of COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and major Chinese databases, as well as trial registries from inception to July 2017. In addition, we searched references of primary studies and review articles. We updated this search in July 2018 but have not yet incorporated these results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included (1) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AMBMT (i.e. controlled breathing and/or focused meditation/attention interventions for which patients must actively move their joints and muscles for at least four weeks with no minimum intervention frequency) versus PR (any inpatient or outpatient, community-based or home-based rehabilitation programme lasting at least four weeks, with no minimum intervention frequency, that included conventional exercise training with or without education or psychological support) and (2) RCTs comparing AMBMT + PR versus PR alone in people with COPD. Two independent review authors screened and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors if necessary to ask them to provide missing data. We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the meta-analysis 10 studies with 762 participants across one or more comparisons. The sample size of included studies ranged from 11 to 206 participants. Nine out of 10 studies involving all levels of COPD severity were conducted in China with adults from 55 to 88 years of age, a higher proportion of whom were male (78%). Nine out of 10 studies provided tai chi and/or qigong programmes as AMBMT, and one study provided yoga. Overall, the term 'PR' has been uncritically applied in the vast majority of studies, which limits comparison of AMBMT and PR. For example, eight out of 10 studies considered walking training as equal to PR and used this as conventional exercise training within PR. Overall study quality for main comparisons was moderate to very low mainly owing to imprecision, indirectness (exercise component inconsistent with recommendations), and risk of bias issues. The primary outcomes for our review were quality of life, dyspnoea, and serious adverse events.When researchers compared AMBMT versus PR alone (mainly unstructured walking training), statistically significant improvements in disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score) favoured AMBMT: mean difference (MD) -5.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.75 to -2.92; three trials; 249 participants; low-quality evidence. The common effect size, but not the 95% CI around the pooled treatment effect, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of minus four. The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) also revealed statistically significant improvements favouring AMBMT over PR, with scores exceeding the MCID of three, with an MD of 6.58 units (95% CI -9.16 to - 4.00 units; one trial; 74 participants; low-quality evidence). Results show no between-group differences with regard to dyspnoea measured by the modified Medical Research Council Scale (MD 0.00 units, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.37; two trials; 127 participants; low-quality evidence), the Borg Scale (MD 0.44 units, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.00; one trial; 139 participants; low-quality evidence), or the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnoea Scale (MD -0.21, 95% CI -2.81 to 2.38; one trial; 11 participants; low-quality evidence). Comparisons of AMBMT versus PR alone did not include assessments of generic quality of life, adverse events, limb muscle function, exacerbations, or adherence.Comparisons of AMBMT added to PR versus PR alone (mainly unstructured walking training) revealed significant improvements in generic QoL as measured by Short Form (SF)-36 for both the SF-36 general health summary score (MD 5.42, 95% CI 3.82 to 7.02; one trial; 80 participants; very low-quality evidence) and the SF-36 mental health summary score (MD 3.29, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.95; one trial; 80 participants; very low-quality evidence). With regard to disease-specific QoL, investigators noted no significant improvement with addition of AMBMT to PR versus PR alone (SGRQ total score: MD -2.57, 95% CI -7.76 to 2.62 units; one trial; 192 participants; moderate-quality evidence; CRQ Dyspnoea Scale score: MD 0.04, 95% CI -2.18 to 2.26 units; one trial; 80 participants; very low-quality evidence). Comparisons of AMBMT + PR versus PR alone did not include assessments of dyspnoea, adverse events, limb muscle function, exacerbations, or adherence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the quality of available evidence, the effects of AMBMT versus PR or of AMBMT added to PR versus PR alone in people with stable COPD remain inconclusive. Evidence of low quality suggests better disease-specific QoL with AMBMT versus PR in people with stable COPD, and evidence of very low quality suggests no differences in dyspnoea between AMBMT and PR. Evidence of moderate quality shows that AMBMT added to PR does not result in improved disease-specific QoL, and evidence of very low quality suggests that AMBMT added to PR may lead to better generic QoL versus PR alone. Future studies with adequate descriptions of conventional exercise training (i.e. information on duration, intensity, and progression) delivered by trained professionals with a comprehensive understanding of respiratory physiology, exercise science, and the pathology of COPD are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding treatment outcomes with AMBMT versus PR or AMBMT added to PR versus PR alone for patients with COPD.

Head-to-head trials of antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of bronchiectasis is defined by abnormal dilation of the airways related to a pathological mechanism of progressive airway destruction that is due to a 'vicious cycle' of recurrent bacterial infection, inflammatory mediator release, airway damage, and subsequent further infection. Antibiotics are the main treatment option for reducing bacterial burden in people with exacerbations of bronchiectasis and for longer-term eradication, but their use is tempered against potential adverse effects and concerns regarding antibiotic resistance. The comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of different antibiotics have been highlighted as important issues, but currently little evidence is available to help resolve uncertainty on these questions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative effects of different antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials and online trials registries, run 30 April 2018. We augmented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data. We included adults and children (younger than 18 years) with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography or high-resolution computed tomography who reported daily signs and symptoms, such as cough, sputum production, or haemoptysis, and those with recurrent episodes of chest infection; we included studies that compared one antibiotic versus another when they were administered by the same delivery method.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction, and risk of bias. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We made efforts to collect missing data from trial authors. We have presented results with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs).

MAIN RESULTS

Four randomised trials were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review - two studies with 83 adults comparing fluoroquinolones with β-lactams and two studies with 55 adults comparing aminoglycosides with polymyxins.None of the included studies reported information on exacerbations - one of our primary outcomes. Included studies reported no serious adverse events - another of our primary outcomes - and no deaths. We graded this evidence as low or very low quality. Included studies did not report quality of life. Comparison between fluoroquinolones and β-lactams (amoxicillin) showed fewer treatment failures in the fluoroquinolone group than in the amoxicillin group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32; low-quality evidence) after 7 to 10 days of therapy. Researchers reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection was eradicated in more participants treated with fluoroquinolones (Peto OR 20.09, 95% CI 2.83 to 142.59; low-quality evidence) but provided no evidence of differences in the numbers of participants showing improvement in sputum purulence (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.96 to 5.72; very low-quality evidence). Study authors presented no evidence of benefit in relation to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). The two studies that compared polymyxins versus aminoglycosides described no clear differences between groups in the proportion of participants with P aeruginosa eradication (OR 1.40. 95% CI 0.36 to 5.35; very low-quality evidence) or improvement in sputum purulence (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.85; very low-quality evidence). The evidence for changes in FEV₁ was inconclusive. Two of three trials reported adverse events but did not report the proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events, so we were unable to interpret the information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited low-quality evidence favours short-term oral fluoroquinolones over beta-lactam antibiotics for patients hospitalised with exacerbations. Very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit from inhaled aminoglycosides verus polymyxins. RCTs have presented no evidence comparing other modes of delivery for each of these comparisons, and no RCTs have included children. Overall, current evidence from a limited number of head-to-head trials in adults or children with bronchiectasis is insufficient to guide the selection of antibiotics for short-term or long-term therapy. More research on this topic is needed.

Once-daily long-acting beta₂-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids combined inhalers versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Three classes of inhaler medication are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA); and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To encourage patient adherence, two classes of medication are often combined in a single medication device; it seems that once-daily dosing offers greatest convenience to patients and may markedly influence adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To compare a once-daily combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist inhalers (ICS/LABA) versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists alone (LAMA) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group (14 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (14 May 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (20 September 2017), then a search of other resources, including reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registers (10 October 2017). Two pairs of review authors screened and scrutinised selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily administered ICS/LABA and LAMA in adults with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each study. We analysed dichotomous data as random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 880 participants. We identified one ongoing trial with planned recruitment of 80 participants. Included studies enrolled participants with both partially reversible and non-reversible COPD and baseline mean per cent predicted (%pred) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) of 43.4 to 49.6. Both studies lasted 12 weeks. Both studies used the same combination of inhaled ICS/LABA (fluticasone furoate and vilanterol 100/25 mcg once daily; FF/VI) versus LAMA (18 mcg tiotropium; TIO). They were published as full articles, and neither study was at low risk of bias in all domains.Compared to the TIO arm, results for pooled primary outcomes for the FF/VI arm were as follows: mortality: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.73, 880 participants (deaths reported only in the TIO arm), very low-quality evidence; COPD exacerbation (requiring short-burst oral corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both): OR 0.72, 95% Cl 0.35 to 1.50, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; pneumonia: reported in both studies only during treatment with FF/VI: OR 6.12, 95% Cl 0.73 to 51.24, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; and total serious adverse events: OR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.50 to 1.83, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence. None of the pneumonias were fatal. Compared to the TIO arm, we found no statistically significant difference for pooled secondary outcomes, including St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) mean total score change; hospital admissions (all-cause); disease-specific adverse events; mean weekly rescue medication use (results available from only one of the studies); and mean weekly percentage of rescue-free days for FF/VI. We found no statistically significant differences between ICS/LABA and LAMA for improvement in symptoms measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT score) nor for FEV₁ (change from baseline trough in 24-hour weighted mean on treatment day 84). Many pooled estimates lacked precision. Data for other endpoints such as exacerbations leading to intubation and physical activity measures were not available in included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on analysis of primary and secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether once-daily ICS/LABA, combined in one inhaler, has a different efficacy or adverse effect profile compared to LAMA for treatment of people with COPD. However, the current review is based on only two trials with the main focus on primary outcomes other than those considered in this review. The short follow-up period and the very low quality of evidence limit our confidence in the result and increase uncertainty. Further trials of longer duration are needed. Current evidence is not strong enough to demonstrate important differences between inhalers in terms of effects, nor to establish that once-daily fluticasone/vilanterol 100/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg are equivalent.

Antibiotics for prolonged wet cough in children

BACKGROUND

Cough is a frequent symptom presenting to doctors. The most common cause of childhood chronic (greater than fours weeks' duration) wet cough is protracted bacterial bronchitis (PBB) in some settings, although other more serious causes can also present this way. Timely and effective management of chronic wet or productive cough improves quality of life and clinical outcomes. Current international guidelines suggest a course of antibiotics is the first treatment of choice in the absence of signs or symptoms specific to an alternative diagnosis. This review sought to clarify the current evidence to support this recommendation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of antibiotics in treating children with prolonged wet cough (excluding children with bronchiectasis or other known underlying respiratory illness) and to assess risk of harm due to adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook an updated search (from 2008 onwards) using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trials registries, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest searches were performed in September 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antibiotics with a placebo or a control group in children with chronic wet cough. We excluded cluster and cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods as recommended by Cochrane. We reviewed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. Two independent review authors selected, extracted and assessed the data for inclusion. We contacted authors of eligible studies for further information as needed. We analysed data as 'intention to treat.'

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three studies as eligible for inclusion in the review. Two were in the previous review and one new study was included. We considered the older studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias whereas we judged the newly included study at low risk of bias. The studies varied in treatment duration (from 7 to 14 days) and the antibiotic used (two studies used amoxicillin/clavulanate acid and one used erythromycin).We included 190 children (171 completed), mean ages ranged from 21 months to six years, in the meta-analyses. Analysis of all three trials (190 children) found that treatment with antibiotics reduced the proportion of children not cured at follow-up (primary outcome measure) (odds ratio (OR) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.31, using intention-to -treat analysis), which translated to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). We identified no significant heterogeneity (for both fixed-effect and random-effects model the I² statistic was 0%). Two older trials assessed progression of illness, defined by requirement for further antibiotics (125 children), which was significantly lower in the antibiotic group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.34; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5). All three trials (190 children) reported adverse events, which were not significantly increased in the antibiotic group compared to the control group (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.69). We assessed the quality of evidence GRADE rating as moderate for all outcome measures, except adverse events which we assessed as low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests antibiotics are efficacious for the treatment of children with chronic wet cough (greater than four weeks) with an NNTB of three. However, antibiotics have adverse effects and this review reported only uncertainty as to the risk of increased adverse effects when they were used in this setting. The inclusion of a more robust study strengthened the previous Cochrane review and its results.

Influenza vaccine for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccinations are currently recommended in the care of people with COPD, but these recommendations are based largely on evidence from observational studies, with very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported. Influenza infection causes excess morbidity and mortality in people with COPD, but there is also the potential for influenza vaccination to cause adverse effects, or not to be cost effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether influenza vaccination in people with COPD reduces respiratory illness, reduces mortality, is associated with excess adverse events, and is cost effective.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, two clinical trials registries, and reference lists of articles. A number of drug companies we contacted also provided references. The latest search was carried out in December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared live or inactivated virus vaccines with placebo, either alone or with another vaccine, in people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. All entries were double-checked. We contacted study authors and drug companies for missing information. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with 6750 participants, but only six of these included people with COPD (2469 participants). The others were conducted on elderly and high-risk individuals, some of whom had chronic lung disease. Interventions compared with placebo were inactivated virus injections and live attenuated intranasal virus vaccines. Some studies compared intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal live attenuated vaccine with intra-muscular inactivated vaccine and intranasal placebo. Studies were conducted in the UK, USA and Thailand.Inactivated vaccine reduced the total number of exacerbations per vaccinated participant compared with those who received placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.11; P = 0.006; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). This was due to the reduction in 'late' exacerbations, occurring after three or four weeks (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.18; P = 0.0004; two RCTs, 180 participants; low quality evidence). Both in people with COPD, and in older people (only a minority of whom had COPD), there were significantly more local adverse reactions in people who had received the vaccine, but the effects were generally mild and transient.There was no evidence of an effect of intranasal live attenuated virus when this was added to inactivated intramuscular vaccination.Two studies evaluating mortality for influenza vaccine versus placebo were too small to have detected any effect on mortality. However, a large study (N=2215) noted that there was no difference in mortality when adding live attenuated virus to inactivated virus vaccination, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It appeared, from the limited number of RCTs we were able to include, all of which were more than a decade old, that inactivated vaccine reduced exacerbations in people with COPD. The size of effect was similar to that seen in large observational studies, and was due to a reduction in exacerbations occurring three or more weeks after vaccination, and due to influenza. There was a mild increase in transient local adverse effects with vaccination, but no evidence of an increase in early exacerbations. Addition of live attenuated virus to the inactivated vaccine was not shown to confer additional benefit.

Antibiotics for exacerbations of asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition that affects over 300 million adults and children worldwide. It is characterised by wheeze, cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically are intermittent and may worsen over a short time, leading to an exacerbation. Asthma exacerbations can be serious, leading to hospitalisation or even death in rare cases. Exacerbations may be treated by increasing an individual's usual medication and providing additional medication, such as oral steroids. Although antibiotics are sometimes included in the treatment regimen, bacterial infections are thought to be responsible for only a minority of exacerbations, and current guidance states that antibiotics should be reserved for cases in which clear signs, symptoms, or laboratory test results are suggestive of bacterial infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in the treatment of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing antibiotic therapy for asthma exacerbations in adults or children versus placebo or usual care not involving an antibiotic. We allowed studies including any type of antibiotic, any dose, and any duration, providing the aim was to treat the exacerbation. We included parallel studies of any duration conducted in any setting and planned to include cluster trials. We excluded cross-over trials. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), all with a fixed-effect model. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit/high dependence unit (ICU/HDU) admission, duration of symptoms/exacerbations, and all adverse events. Seconday outcomes were mortality, length of hospital admission, relapse after index presentation, and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR).

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met our inclusion criteria and included a total of 681 adults and children with exacerbations of asthma. Mean age in the three studies in adults ranged from 36.2 to 41.2 years. The three studies in children applied varied inclusion criteria, ranging from one to 18 years of age. Five studies explicitly excluded participants with obvious signs and symptoms of bacterial infection (i.e. those clearly meeting current guidance to receive antibiotics). Four studies investigated macrolide antibiotics, and two studies investigated penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin) antibiotics; both studies using penicillin were conducted over 35 years ago. Five studies compared antibiotics versus placebo, and one was open-label. Study follow-up ranged from one to twelve weeks. Trials were of varied methodological quality, and we were able to perform only limited meta-analysis.None of the included trials reported ICU/HDU admission, although one participant in the placebo group of a study including children with status asthmaticus experienced a respiratory arrest and was ventilated. Four studies reported asthma symptoms, but we were able to combine results for only two macrolide studies of 416 participants; the MD in diary card symptom score was -0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.08), with lower scores (on a 7 point scale) denoting improved symptoms. Two macrolide studies reported symptom-free days. One study of 255 adults authors reported the percentage of symptom-free days at 10 days as 16% in the antibiotic group and 8% in the placebo group. In a further study of 40 children study authors reported significantly more symptom-free days at all time points in the antibiotic group compared with the usual care group. The same study reported the duration in days of the index asthma exacerbation, again favouring the antibiotic group. One study of a penicillin including 69 participants reported asthma symptoms at hospital discharge; the between-group difference for both studies was reported as non-significant.We combined data for serious adverse events from three studies involving 502 participants, but events were rare; the three trials reported only 10 events: five in the antibiotic group and five in the placebo group. We combined data for all adverse events (AEs) from three studies, but the effect estimate is imprecise (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43). No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.Two studies investigating penicillins reported admission duration; neither study reported a between-group difference. In one study (263 participants) of macrolides, two participants in each arm were reported as experiencing a relapse, defined as a further exacerbation, by the six-week time points. We combined PEFR endpoint results at 10 days for two macrolide studies; the result favoured antibiotics over placebo (MD 23.42 L/min, 95% CI 5.23 to 41.60). One study in children reported the maximum peak flow recorded during the follow-up period, favouring the clarithromycin group, but the confidence interval includes no difference (MD 38.80, 95% CI -11.19 to 88.79).Grading of outcomes ranged from moderate to very low quality, with quality of outcomes downgraded for suspicion of publication bias, indirectness, imprecision, and poor methodological quality of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence that antibiotics given at the time of an asthma exacerbation may improve symptoms and PEFR at follow-up compared with standard care or placebo. However, findings were inconsistent across the six heterogeneous studies included, two of the studies were conducted over 30 years ago and most of the participants included in this review were recruited from emergency departments, limiting the applicability of findings to this population. Therefore we have limited confidence in the results. We found insufficient evidence about several patient-important outcomes (e.g. hospital admission) to form conclusions. We were unable to rule out a difference between groups in terms of all adverse events, but serious adverse events were rare.

Nurse-led versus doctor-led care for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Specialist nursing roles to manage stable disease populations are being used to meet the needs of both patients and health services. With increasing cost pressures on health departments, alternative models such as nurse-led care are gaining momentum as a substitute for traditional doctor-led care. This review evaluates the safety, effectiveness, and health outcomes of nurses practising in autonomous roles while using advanced practice skills, within the context of bronchiectasis management in subacute, ambulatory, and/or community care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of nurse-led care versus doctor-led care in the management of stable bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and bibliographies of selected papers in addition to grey literature such as electronic clinical trials registries. Searches were current as of March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers extracted and entered data from included studies. Primary outcomes were numbers of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics, hospital admissions, and emergency department attendances.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one United Kingdom (UK) study in the review. In this randomised controlled trial, a total of 80 participants, with a mean age of 58 years, were treated for 12 months by a specialist nurse or doctor, then were crossed over to the other clinician for the next 12 months. Two participants died during the study period. Six participants failed to cross over to nurse-led care because of unstable bronchiectasis. Overall, the level of study completion was high.Data show no difference in the numbers of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics (rate ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.30, 80 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Investigators reported more hospital admissions in the nurse-led care group (rate ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.23, 80 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and did not report emergency department attendance.For secondary outcomes, participants in the nurse-led care group used more healthcare resources during the first year of the trial. Increased admissions and greater use of resources made treatment costs for nurse-led groups' higher. Total costs for both years of the study were £8,464 and £5,228 for nurse-led care compared with doctor-led care. However, by the second year, treatment costs were almost equitable between the two groups, which may reflect the nurses' learning of how to better treat people with bronchiectasis. No statistically significant changes were observed in quality of life, exercise capacity, mortality, or lung function. Wide confidence intervals led to uncertainty regarding these results. Adverse events were not an outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update of the review shows that only one trial met review criteria. Review authors were unable to demonstrate effectiveness of nurse-led care compared with doctor-led care on the basis of findings of a single study. The included study reported no significant differences, but limited evidence means that differences in clinical outcomes between nurse-led care and usual care within the setting of a specialist clinic remain unclear. Further research is required to determine whether nurse-led care is cost-effective, if guidelines and protocols for bronchiectasis management are followed does this increases costs and how effective nurse-led management of bronchiectasis is in other clinical settings such as inpatient and outreach.

Dual antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation of the smaller airways and associated with a mortality rate greater than twice that of the general population. Antibiotics serve as front-line therapy for managing bacterial load, but their use is weighed against the development of antibiotic resistance. Dual antibiotic therapy has the potential to suppress infection from multiple strains of bacteria, leading to more successful treatment of exacerbations, reduced symptoms, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of dual antibiotics in terms of management of exacerbations and extent of antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dual antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and PsycINFO, as well as studies obtained by handsearching of journals/abstracts. We also searched the following trial registries: US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We imposed no restriction on language of publication. We conducted our search in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing dual antibiotics versus a single antibiotic for short-term (< 4 weeks) or long-term management of bronchiectasis diagnosed in adults and/or children by bronchography, plain film chest radiography, or high-resolution computed tomography. Primary outcomes included exacerbations, length of hospitalisation, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were response rates, emergence of resistance to antibiotics, systemic markers of infection, sputum volume and purulence, measures of lung function, adverse events/effects, deaths, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. We did not apply outcome measures as selection criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 287 records, along with the full text of seven reports. Two studies met review inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted data from only one study and conducted GRADE assessments for the following outcomes: successful treatment of exacerbation; response rates; and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised trials assessed the effectiveness of oral plus inhaled dual therapy versus oral monotherapy in a total of 118 adults with a mean age of 62.8 years. One multi-centre trial compared inhaled tobramycin plus oral ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin alone, and one single-centre trial compared nebulised gentamicin plus systemic antibiotics versus a systemic antibiotic alone. Published papers did not report study funding sources.Effect estimates from one small study with 53 adults showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy for the following primary outcomes at the end of the study: successful management of exacerbation - cure at day 42 (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.01; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); number of participants with Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication at day 21 (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.24; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and serious adverse events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.87; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, researchers provided no evidence of treatment benefit for the following secondary outcomes: clinical response rates - relapse at day 42 (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); microbiological response rate at day 21 - eradicated (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.65; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and adverse events - incidence of wheeze (OR 5.75, 95% CI 1.55 to 21.33). Data show no evidence of benefit in terms of sputum volume, lung function, or antibiotic resistance. Outcomes from a second small study with 65 adults, available only as an abstract, were not included in the quantitative data synthesis. The included studies did not report our other primary outcomes: duration; frequency; and time to next exacerbation; nor our secondary outcomes: systemic markers of infection; exercise capacity; and quality of life. We did not identify any trials that included children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small number of studies in adults have generated high-quality evidence that is insufficient to inform robust conclusions, and studies in children have provided no evidence. We identified only one dual-therapy combination of oral and inhaled antibiotics. Results from this single trial of 53 adults that we were able to include in the quantitative synthesis showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy in terms of successful treatment of exacerbations, serious adverse events, sputum volume, lung function, and antibiotic resistance. Further high-quality research is required to determine the efficacy and safety of other combinations of dual antibiotics for both adults and children with bronchiectasis, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance.

Continuous versus intermittent antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic airway disease characterised by a destructive cycle of recurrent airway infection, inflammation and tissue damage. Antibiotics are a main treatment for bronchiectasis. The aim of continuous therapy with prophylactic antibiotics is to suppress bacterial load, but bacteria may become resistant to the antibiotic, leading to a loss of effectiveness. On the other hand, intermittent prophylactic antibiotics, given over a predefined duration and interval, may reduce antibiotic selection pressure and reduce or prevent the development of resistance. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence for studies comparing continuous versus intermittent administration of antibiotic treatment in bronchiectasis in terms of clinical efficacy, the emergence of resistance and serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis, using the primary outcomes of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and serious adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

On 1 August 2017 and 4 May 2018 we searched the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. On 25 September 2017 and 4 May 2018 we also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, conference proceedings and the reference lists of existing systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with bronchiectasis that compared continuous versus intermittent administration of long-term prophylactic antibiotics of at least three months' duration. We considered eligible studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results and full-text reports.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 268 unique records. Of these we retrieved and examined 126 full-text reports, representing 114 studies, but none of these studies met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No randomised controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and risks of continuous antibiotic therapy versus intermittent antibiotic therapy for bronchiectasis. High-quality clinical trials are needed to establish which of these interventions is more effective for reducing the frequency and duration of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and the occurrence of serious adverse events.

Intramuscular versus oral corticosteroids to reduce relapses following discharge from the emergency department for acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Acute asthma is a common cause of presentations to acute care centres, such as the emergency department (ED), and while the majority of patients can be discharged, relapse requiring additional medical care is common. Systemic corticosteroids are a major part in the treatment of moderate to severe acute asthma; however, there is no clear evidence regarding the most effective route of administration for improving outcomes in patients discharged from acute care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of a single dose of intramuscular (IM) corticosteroids provided prior to discharge compared to a short course of oral corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma patients discharged from an ED or equivalent acute care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Airways Group conducted searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, most recently on 14 March 2018. In addition in April 2017 we completed an extensive search of nine electronic databases including Medline, Embase, EBM ALL, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and LILACS. Furthermore, we searched the grey literature to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials if they compared the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) versus oral corticosteroids to treat paediatric or adult patients presenting with acute asthma to an ED or equivalent acute care setting. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility and study quality. We resolved disagreements via a third party and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We reported continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model. We reported heterogeneity using I² and Cochran Q statistics. We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 804 participants (IM = 402 participants; oral = 402 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. Four studies enrolled children (n = 245 participants), while five studies enrolled adults (n = 559 participants). All of the studies recruited participants presenting to an ED, except one study which recruited participants attending a primary care clinic. All of the paediatric studies compared intramuscular (IM) dexamethasone to oral prednisone/prednisolone. In the adult studies, the IM corticosteroid provided ranged from methylprednisolone, betamethasone, dexamethasone, or triamcinolone, while the regimen of oral corticosteroids provided consisted of prednisone, methylprednisolone, or dexamethasone. Only five studies were placebo controlled. For the purposes of this review, we did not take corticosteroid dose equivalency into account in the analysis. The most common co-intervention provided to participants during the acute care visit included short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA), methylxanthines, and ipratropium bromide. In some instances, some studies reported providing some participants with supplemental oral or IV corticosteroids during their stay in the ED. Co-interventions provided to participants at discharge consisted primarily of SABA, methylxanthine, long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA), and ipratropium bromide. The risk of bias of the included studies ranged from unclear to high across various domains. The primary outcome of interest was relapse to additional care defined as an unscheduled visit to a health practitioner for worsening asthma symptoms, or requiring subsequent treatment with corticosteroids which may have occurred at any time point after discharge from the ED.We found intramuscular and oral corticosteroids to be similarly effective in reducing the risk for relapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 9 studies, 804 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). We found no subgroup differences in relapse rates between paediatric and adult participants (P = 0.71), relapse occurring within or after 10 days post-discharge (P = 0.22), or participants with mild/moderate or severe exacerbations (P = 0.35). While we found no statistical difference between participants receiving IM versus oral corticosteroids regarding the risk for adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 5 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), an estimated 50 fewer patients per 1000 receiving IM corticosteroids reported experiencing adverse events (95% from 106 fewer to 21 more). We found inconsistent reporting of specific adverse events across the studies. There were no differences in the frequency of specific adverse events including nausea and vomiting, pain, swelling, redness, insomnia, or personality changes. We did not seek additional adverse events data.Participants receiving IM corticosteroids or oral corticosteroids both reported decreases in peak expiratory flow (MD -7.78 L/min, 95% CI -38.83 L/min to 23.28 L/min; 4 studies, 272 participants; I² = 33%; moderate-quality evidence), similar symptom persistence (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.20; 3 studies, 80 participants; I² = 44%; low-quality evidence), and 24-hour beta-agonist use (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; 2 studies, 48 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to identify whether IM corticosteroids are more effective in reducing relapse compared to oral corticosteroids among children or adults discharged from an ED or equivalent acute care setting for acute asthma. While we found no statistical differences, patients receiving IM corticosteroids reported fewer adverse events. Additional studies comparing the effectiveness of IM versus oral corticosteroids could provide further evidence clarity. Furthermore, there is a need for studies comparing different IM corticosteroids (e.g. IM dexamethasone versus IM methylprednisone) and different oral corticosteroids (e.g. oral dexamethasone versus oral prednisone), with consideration for dosing and pharmacokinetic properties, to better identify the optimal IM or oral corticosteroid regimens to improve patient outcomes. Other factors, such as patient preference and potential issues with adherence, may dictate practitioner prescribing.

Neuromuscular electrostimulation for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the use of neuromuscular electrostimulation (NMES) either alone, or together with conventional exercise training, might improve the condition of the peripheral muscles, increase exercise capacity and functional performance, reduce symptoms and improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of NMES, applied in isolation or concurrently with conventional exercise training to one or more peripheral muscles, on peripheral muscle force and endurance, muscle size, exercise capacity, functional performance, symptoms, HRQoL and adverse events in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, clinical trial registries and conference abstracts on 14 March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that recruited adults with COPD if they had compared outcomes between a group that received NMES and a group that received usual care or compared outcomes between a group that received NMES plus conventional exercise training and a group that participated in conventional exercise training alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We expressed continuous data as either the standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria of which 16 contributed data on 267 participants with COPD (mean age 56 to 76 years and 67% were men). Of these 16 studies, seven explored the effect of NMES versus usual care and nine explored the effect of NMES plus conventional exercise training versus conventional exercise training alone. Six studies utilised sham stimulation in the control group. When applied in isolation, NMES produced an increase in peripheral muscle force (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.65; low-quality evidence) and quadriceps endurance (SMD 1.36, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.12; low-quality evidence) but the effect on thigh muscle size was unclear (MD 0.25, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.61; low-quality evidence). There were increases in six-minute walk distance (6MWD) (MD 39.26 m, 95% CI 16.31 to 62.22; low-quality evidence) and time to symptom limitation exercising at a submaximal intensity (MD 3.62 minutes, 95% CI 2.33 to 4.91). There was a reduction in the severity of leg fatigue on completion of an exercise test (MD -1.12 units, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.43). The increase in peak rate of oxygen uptake (VO_2peak) was of borderline significance (MD 0.10 L/minute, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19).For NMES with conventional exercise training, there was an uncertain effect on peripheral muscle force (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.04; very low-quality evidence) and there were insufficient studies to undertake a meta-analysis on the effect on quadriceps endurance or thigh muscle size. However, there was an increase in 6MWD in favour of NMES combined with conventional exercise training (MD 25.87 m, 95% CI 1.06 to 50.69; very low-quality evidence). In people admitted to either in an intensive care unit or a respiratory high dependency centre, NMES combined with conventional exercise reduced the time taken for participants to first sit out of bed by 4.98 days (95% CI -8.55 to -1.41; very low-quality evidence), although the statistical heterogeneity for this analysis was high (I² = 60%). For both types of studies (i.e. NMES versus usual care and NMES with conventional exercise training versus conventional exercise training alone), there was no risk difference for mortality or minor adverse events in participants who received NMES.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NMES, when applied in isolation, increased quadriceps force and endurance, 6MWD and time to symptom limitation exercising at a submaximal intensity, and reduced the severity of leg fatigue on completion of exercise testing. It may increase VO_2peak, but the true effect on this outcome measure could be trivial. However, the quality of evidence was low or very low due to risk of bias within the studies, imprecision of the estimates, small number of studies and inconsistency between the studies. Although there were no additional gains in quadriceps force with NMES plus conventional exercise training, there was evidence of an increase in 6MWD. Further, in people who were the most debilitated, the addition of NMES may have accelerated the achievement of a functional milestone, that is, the first time someone sits out of bed.

Inhaled corticosteroids for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is being increasingly diagnosed and recognised as an important contributor to chronic lung disease in both adults and children in high- and low-income countries. It is characterised by irreversible dilatation of airways and is generally associated with airway inflammation and chronic bacterial infection. Medical management largely aims to reduce morbidity by controlling the symptoms, reduce exacerbation frequency, improve quality of life and prevent the progression of bronchiectasis. This is an update of a review first published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adults with stable state bronchiectasis, specifically to assess whether the use of ICS: (1) reduces the severity and frequency of acute respiratory exacerbations; or (2) affects long-term pulmonary function decline.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, MEDLINE and Embase databases. We ran the latest literature search in June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICS with a placebo or no medication. We included children and adults with clinical or radiographic evidence of bronchiectasis, but excluded people with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reviewed search results against predetermined criteria for inclusion. In this update, two independent review authors assessed methodological quality and risk of bias in trials using established criteria and extracted data using standard pro forma. We analysed treatment as 'treatment received' and performed sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven studies, involving 380 adults. Of the 380 randomised participants, 348 completed the studies.Due to differences in outcomes reported among the seven studies, we could only perform limited meta-analysis for both the short-term ICS use (6 months or less) and the longer-term ICS use (> 6 months).During stable state in the short-term group (ICS for 6 months or less), based on the two studies from which data could be included, there were no significant differences from baseline values in the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) at the end of the study (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.09) and forced vital capacity (FVC) (MD 0.01 L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.17) in adults on ICS (compared to no ICS). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the average exacerbation frequency (MD 0.09, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.79) or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) total scores in adults on ICS when compared with no ICS, though data available were limited. Based on a single non-placebo controlled study from which we could not extract clinical data, there was marginal, though statistically significant improvement in sputum volume and dyspnoea scores on ICS.The single study on long-term outcomes (over 6 months) that examined lung function and other clinical outcomes, showed no significant effect of ICS on any of the outcomes. We could not draw any conclusion on adverse effects due to limited available data.Despite the authors of all seven studies stating they were double-blind, we judged one study (in the short duration ICS) as having a high risk of bias based on blinding, attrition and reporting of outcomes. The GRADE quality of evidence was low for all outcomes (due to non-placebo controlled trial, indirectness and imprecision with small numbers of participants and studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review indicates that there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of ICS in adults with stable state bronchiectasis. Further, we cannot draw any conclusion for the use of ICS in adults during an acute exacerbation or in children (for any state), as there were no studies.

Oral versus inhaled antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. 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 handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.

Different durations of corticosteroid therapy for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be treated with systemic corticosteroid for seven to 14 days. Intermittent systemic corticosteroid use is cumulatively associated with adverse effects such as osteoporosis, hyperglycaemia and muscle weakness. Shorter treatment could reduce adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of short-duration (seven or fewer days) and conventional longer-duration (longer than seven days) systemic corticosteroid treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were carried out using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and ongoing trials registers up to March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different durations of systemic corticosteroid defined as short (i.e. seven or fewer days) or longer (i.e. longer than seven days). Other interventions-bronchodilators and antibiotics-were standardised. Studies with participants requiring assisted ventilation were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies with 582 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which five studies conducted in hospitals with 519 participants (range 28 to 296) contributed to the meta-analysis. Mean ages of study participants were 65 to 73 years, the proportion of male participants varied (58% to 84%) and COPD was classified as severe or very severe. Corticosteroid treatment was given at equivalent daily doses for three to seven days for short-duration treatment and for 10 to 15 days for longer-duration treatment. Five studies administered oral prednisolone (30 mg in four, tapered in one), and two studies provided intravenous corticosteroid treatment. Studies contributing to the meta-analysis were at low risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. In four studies we did not find a difference in risk of treatment failure between short-duration and longer-duration systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 457; odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.46)), which was equivalent to 22 fewer per 1000 for short-duration treatment (95% CI 51 fewer to 34 more). No difference in risk of relapse (a new event) was observed between short-duration and longer-duration systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 457; OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.56), which was equivalent to nine fewer per 1000 for short-duration treatment (95% CI 68 fewer to 100 more). Time to the next COPD exacerbation did not differ in one large study that was powered to detect non-inferiority and compared five days versus 14 days of systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 311; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37). In five studies no difference in the likelihood of an adverse event was found between short-duration and longer-duration systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 503; OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.69, or nine fewer per 1000 (95% CI 44 fewer to 51 more)). Length of hospital stay (n = 421; mean difference (MD) -0.61 days, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.28) and lung function at the end of treatment (n = 185; MD FEV1 -0.04 L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10) did not differ between short-duration and longer-duration treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Information from a new large study has increased our confidence that five days of oral corticosteroids is likely to be sufficient for treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of COPD, and this review suggests that the likelihood is low that shorter courses of systemic corticosteroids (of around five days) lead to worse outcomes than are seen with longer (10 to 14 days) courses. We graded most available evidence as moderate in quality because of imprecision; further research may have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect or may change the estimates. The studies in this review did not include people with mild or moderate COPD; further studies comparing short-duration systemic corticosteroid versus conventional longer-duration systemic corticosteroid for treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of COPD are required.

Macrolide antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation and distortion of the smaller airways. Bacterial colonisation of the damaged airways leads to chronic cough and sputum production, often with breathlessness and further structural damage to the airways. Long-term macrolide antibiotic therapy may suppress bacterial infection and reduce inflammation, leading to fewer exacerbations, fewer symptoms, improved lung function, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of macrolides in terms of specific bacterial eradication and the extent of antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of macrolide antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

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 all searches on 18 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' duration that compared macrolide antibiotics with placebo or no intervention for the long-term management of stable bronchiectasis in adults or children with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography, plain film chest radiograph, or high-resolution computed tomography. We excluded studies in which participants had received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before enrolment or before a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, or allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Our primary outcomes were exacerbation, hospitalisation, and serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 103 records. We independently screened the full text of 40 study reports and included 15 trials from 30 reports. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 parallel-group RCTs and one cross-over RCT with interventions lasting from 8 weeks to 24 months. Of 11 adult studies with 690 participants, six used azithromycin, four roxithromycin, and one erythromycin. Four studies with 190 children used either azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin.We included nine adult studies in our comparison between macrolides and placebo and two in our comparison with no intervention. We included one study with children in our comparison between macrolides and placebo and one in our comparison with no intervention.In adults, macrolides reduced exacerbation frequency to a greater extent than placebo (OR 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.54; 341 participants; three studies; I² = 65%; moderate-quality evidence). This translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 8). Data show no differences in exacerbation frequency between use of macrolides (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.15; 43 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence) and no intervention. Macrolides were also associated with a significantly better quality of life compared with placebo (MD -8.90, 95% CI -13.13 to -4.67; 68 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a reduction in hospitalisations (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.62; 151 participants; two studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), in the number of participants with serious adverse events, including pneumonia, respiratory and non-respiratory infections, haemoptysis, and gastroenteritis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.23; 326 participants; three studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or in the number experiencing adverse events (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; 435 participants; five studies; I² = 28%) in adults with macrolides compared with placebo.In children, there were no differences in exacerbation frequency (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; 89 children; one study; low-quality evidence); hospitalisations (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.11; 89 children; one study; low-quality evidence), serious adverse events, defined within the study as exacerbations of bronchiectasis or investigations related to bronchiectasis (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.05; 89 children; one study; low-quality evidence), or adverse events (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.83; 89 children; one study), in those receiving macrolides compared to placebo. The same study reported an increase in macrolide-resistant bacteria (OR 7.13, 95% CI 2.13 to 23.79; 89 children; one study), an increase in resistance to Streptococcus pneumoniae (OR 13.20, 95% CI 1.61 to 108.19; 89 children; one study), and an increase in resistance to Staphylococcus aureus (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 16.32; 89 children; one study) with macrolides compared with placebo. Quality of life was not reported in the studies with children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Long-term macrolide therapy may reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve quality of life, although supporting evidence is derived mainly from studies of azithromycin, rather than other macrolides, and predominantly among adults rather than children. However, macrolides should be used with caution, as limited data indicate an associated increase in microbial resistance. Macrolides are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and other serious adverse events in other populations, and available data cannot exclude a similar risk among patients with bronchiectasis.

Interventions for autumn exacerbations of asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations in school-aged children peak in autumn, shortly after children return to school following the summer holiday. This might reflect a combination of risk factors, including poor treatment adherence, increased allergen and viral exposure, and altered immune tolerance. Since this peak is predictable, interventions targeting modifiable risk factors might reduce exacerbation-associated morbidity and strain upon health resources. The peak occurs in September in the Northern Hemisphere and in February in the Southern Hemisphere.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions enacted in anticipation of school return during autumn that are designed to reduce asthma exacerbations in children during this period.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries (Merck, Novartis and Ono Parmaceuticals). We searched databases from their inception to 1 December 2017, and imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing interventions aimed specifically at reducing autumn exacerbations with usual care, (no systematic change in management in preparation for school return). We included studies providing data on children aged 18 years or younger.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened records identified by the search and then extracted data and assessed bias for trials meeting the inclusion criteria. A third review author checked for accuracy and mediated consensus on disagreements. The primary outcome was proportion of children experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or oral corticosteroids during the autumn period.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches returned 546 trials, of which five met our inclusion criteria. These studies randomised 14,252 children to receive either an intervention or usual care. All studies were conducted in the Northern Hemisphere. Three interventions used a leukotriene receptor antagonist, one used omalizumab or a boost of inhaled corticosteroids, and the largest study, (12,179 children), used a medication reminder letter. Whilst the risk of bias within individual studies was generally low, we downgraded the evidence quality due to imprecision associated with low participant numbers, poor consistency between studies, and indirect outcome ascertainment.A US study of 513 children with mild/severe asthma and allergic sensitisation was the only study to provide data for our primary outcome. In this study, the proportion of participants experiencing an exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids or hospital admission in the 90 days after school return was significantly reduced to 11.3% in those receiving omalizumab compared to 21.0% in those receiving placebo (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.92, moderate-quality evidence). The remaining studies used alternative exacerbation definitions. When data from two leukotriene receptor antagonist studies with comparable outcomes were combined in a random-effects model, there was no evidence of an effect upon exacerbations. There was no evidence that a seasonal medication reminder letter decreased unscheduled contacts for a respiratory diagnosis between September and December.Four studies recorded adverse events. There was no evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing at least one adverse event differed between intervention and usual care groups. Lack of data prevented planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Seasonal omalizumab treatment from four to six weeks before school return might reduce autumn asthma exacerbations. We found no evidence that this strategy is associated with increased adverse effects other than injection site pain, but it is costly. There were no data upon which to judge the effect of this or other seasonal interventions on asthma control, quality of life, or asthma-related death. In future studies definitions of exacerbations should be provided, and standardised where possible. To investigate possible differential effects according to subgroup, participants in future trials should be well characterised with respect to baseline asthma severity and exacerbation history in addition to age and gender.

Self-management for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a long term respiratory condition with an increasing rate of diagnosis. It is associated with persistent symptoms, repeated infective exacerbations, and reduced quality of life, imposing a burden on individuals and healthcare systems. The main aims of therapeutic management are to reduce exacerbations and improve quality of life. Self-management interventions are potentially important for empowering people with bronchiectasis to manage their condition more effectively and to seek care in a timely manner. Self-management interventions are beneficial in the management of other airways diseases such as asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and have been identified as a research priority for bronchiectasis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of self-management interventions for adults and children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register of trials, clinical trials registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers' websites up to 13 December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials of any duration that included adults or children with a diagnosis of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis assessing self-management interventions delivered in any form. Self-management interventions included at least two of the following elements: patient education, airway clearance techniques, adherence to medication, exercise (including pulmonary rehabilitation) and action plans.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were, health-related quality of life, exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the number of participants admitted to hospital on at least one occasion, lung function, symptoms, self-efficacy and economic costs. We used a random effects model for analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies with a total of 84 participants were included: a 12-month RCT of early rehabilitation in adults of mean age 72 years conducted in two centres in England (UK) and a six-month proof-of-concept RCT of an expert patient programme (EPP) in adults of mean age 60 years in a single regional respiratory centre in Northern Ireland (UK). The EPP was delivered in group format once a week for eight weeks using standardised EPP materials plus disease-specific education including airway clearance techniques, dealing with symptoms, exacerbations, health promotion and available support. We did not find any studies that included children. Data aggregation was not possible and findings are reported narratively in the review.For the primary outcomes, both studies reported health-related quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), but there was no clear evidence of benefit. In one study, the mean SGRQ total scores were not significantly different at 6 weeks', 3 months' and 12 months' follow-up (12 months mean difference (MD) -10.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -45.15 to 24.61). In the second study there were no significant differences in SGRQ. Total scores were not significantly different between groups (six months, MD 3.20, 95% CI -6.64 to 13.04). We judged the evidence for this outcome as low or very low. Neither of the included studies reported data on exacerbations requiring antibiotics. For serious adverse events, one study reported more deaths in the intervention group compared to the control group, (intervention: 4 of 8, control: 2 of 12), though interpretation is limited by the low event rate and the small number of participants in each group.For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of benefit in terms of frequency of hospital admissions or FEV1 L, based on very low-quality evidence. One study reported self-efficacy using the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy scale, which comprises 10 components. All scales showed significant benefit from the intervention but effects were only sustained to study endpoint on the Managing Depression scale. Further details are reported in the main review. Based on overall study quality, we judged this evidence as low quality. Neither study reported data on respiratory symptoms, economic costs or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether self-management interventions benefit people with bronchiectasis. In the absence of high-quality evidence it is advisable that practitioners adhere to current international guidelines that advocate self-management for people with bronchiectasis.Future studies should aim to clearly define and justify the specific nature of self-management, measure clinically important outcomes and include children as well as adults.

Cyclophosphamide for connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately one-third of individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD) have associated connective tissue disease (CTD). The connective tissue disorders most commonly associated with ILD include scleroderma/systemic sclerosis (SSc), rheumatoid arthritis, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, and Sjögren's syndrome. Although many people with CTD-ILD do not develop progressive lung disease, a significant proportion do progress, leading to reduced physical function, decreased quality of life, and death. ILD is now the major cause of death amongst individuals with systemic sclerosis.Cyclophosphamide is a highly potent immunosuppressant that has demonstrated efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in autoimmune and inflammatory illnesses. However this comes with potential toxicities, including nausea, haemorrhagic cystitis, bladder cancer, bone marrow suppression, increased risk of opportunistic infections, and haematological and solid organ malignancies.Decision-making in the treatment of individuals with CTD-ILD is difficult; the clinician needs to identify those who will develop progressive disease, and to weigh up the balance between a high level of need for therapy in a severely unwell patient population against the potential for adverse effects from highly toxic therapy, for which only relatively limited data on efficacy can be found. Similarly, it is not clear whether histological subtype, disease duration, or disease extent can be used to predict treatment responsiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of cyclophosphamide in the treatment of individuals with CTD-ILD.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science up to May 2017. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled parallel-group trials that compared cyclophosphamide in any form, used individually or concomitantly with other immunomodulating therapies, versus non-cyclophosphamide-containing therapies for at least six months, with follow-up of at least 12 months from the start of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We imported studies identified by the search into a reference manager database. We retrieved the full-text versions of relevant studies, and two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were change in lung function (change in forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted), adverse events, and health-related quality of life measures. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, dyspnoea, cough, and functional exercise testing. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses by severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, and radiological pattern of fibrosis. We assessed the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the analysis four trials with 495 participants (most with systemic sclerosis). We formed two separate comparisons: cyclophosphamide versus placebo (two trials, 195 participants) and cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate (two trials, 300 participants). We found evidence to be of low quality, as dropout rates were high in the intervention groups, and as we noted a wide confidence interval around the effect with small differences, which affected the precision of results.The data demonstrates significant improvement in lung function with cyclophosphamide compared with placebo (post-treatment FVC % mean difference (MD) 2.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 4.87; P = 0.006) but no significant difference in post-treatment DLCO (% MD -1.68, 95% CI -4.37 to 1.02; P = 0.22; two trials, 182 participants).Risk of adverse effects was increased in the cyclophosphamide treatment groups compared with the placebo groups, in particular, haematuria, leukopenia, and nausea, leading to a higher rate of withdrawal from cyclophosphamide treatment. The data demonstrates statistically significant improvement in one-measure of quality of life in one trial favouring cyclophosphamide over placebo and clinically and statistically significant improvement in breathlessness in one trial favouring cyclophosphamide compared with placebo, with no significant impact on mortality.Trialists reported no significant impact on lung function when cyclophosphamide was used compared with mycophenolate at 12 months (FVC % MD -0.82, 95% CI -3.95 to 2.31; P = 0.61; two trials, 149 participants; DLCO % MD -1.41, 95% CI -10.40 to 7.58; P = 0.76; two trials, 149 participants).Risk of side effects was increased with cyclophosphamide versus mycophenolate, in particular, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia.The data demonstrates no significant impact on health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, dyspnoea, or cough severity in the cyclophosphamide group compared with the mycophenolate group. No trials reported outcomes associated with functional exercise tests.We performed subgroup analysis to determine whether severity of lung function, connective tissue disease diagnosis, or radiological pattern had any impact on outcomes. One trial reported that cyclophosphamide protected against decreased FVC in individuals with worse fibrosis scores, and also showed that cyclophosphamide may be more effective in those with worse lung function. No association could be made between connective tissue disease diagnosis and outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review, which is based on studies of varying methodological quality, demonstrates that overall, in this population, small benefit may be derived from the use of cyclophosphamide in terms of mean difference in % FVC when compared with placebo, but not of the difference in % DLCO, or when compared with mycophenolate. Modest clinical improvement in dyspnoea may be noted with the use of cyclophosphamide. Clinical practice guidelines should advise clinicians to consider individual patient characteristics and to expect only modest benefit at best in preserving FVC. Clinicians should carefully monitor for adverse effects during treatment and in the years thereafter.Further studies are required to examine the use of cyclophosphamide; they should be adequately powered to compare outcomes within different subgroups, specifically, stratified for extent of pulmonary infiltrates on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and skin involvement in SSc. Studies on other forms of connective tissue disease are needed. Researchers may consider comparing cyclophosphamide (a potent immunosuppressant) versus antifibrotic agents, or comparing both versus placebo, in particular, for those with evidence of rapidly progressive fibrotic disease, who may benefit the most.

Singing for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Singing is a complex physical activity dependent on the use of the lungs for air supply to regulate airflow and create large lung volumes. In singing, exhalation is active and requires active diaphragm contraction and good posture. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive, chronic lung disease characterised by airflow obstruction. Singing is an activity with potential to improve health outcomes in people with COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of singing on health-related quality of life and dyspnoea in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization trials portal and PEDro, from their inception to August 2017. We also reviewed reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in people with stable COPD, in which structured supervised singing training of at least four sessions over four weeks' total duration was performed. The singing could be performed individually or as part of a group (choir) facilitated by a singing leader. Studies were included if they compared: 1) singing versus no intervention (usual care) or another control intervention; or 2) singing plus pulmonary rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected trials for inclusion, extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors of trials for missing data. We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We were only able to analyse data for the comparison of singing versus no intervention or a control group.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies (a total of 112 participants) were included. All studies randomised participants to a singing group or a control group. The comparison groups included a film workshop, handcraft work, and no intervention. The frequency of the singing intervention in the studies ranged from 1 to 2 times a week over a 6 to 24 week period. The duration of each singing session was 60 minutes.All studies included participants diagnosed with COPD with a mean age ranging from 67 to 72 years and a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 37% to 64% of predicted values. The sample size of included studies was small (33 to 43 participants) and overall study quality was low to very low. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible due to the physical nature of the intervention, and selection and reporting bias was present in two studies.For the primary outcome of health-related quality of life, there was no statistically significant improvement in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (mean difference (MD) -0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.67 to 3.02, 2 studies, n = 58, low-quality evidence). However, there was a statistically significant improvement in the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score favouring the singing group (MD 12.64, 95% CI 5.50 to 19.77, 2 studies, n = 52, low-quality evidence). Only one study reported results for the other primary outcome of dyspnoea, in which the mean improvement in Baseline Dyspnoea Index (BDI) score favouring the singing group was not statistically significant (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to 1.45, 1 study, n = 30, very low-quality evidence).No studies examined any long-term outcomes and no adverse events or side effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to very low-quality evidence that singing is safe for people with COPD and improves physical health (as measured by the SF-36 physical component score), but not dyspnoea or respiratory-specific quality of life. The evidence is limited due to the low number of studies and the small sample size of each study. No evidence exists examining the long-term effect of singing for people with COPD. The absence of studies examining singing performed in conjunction with pulmonary rehabilitation precludes the formulation of conclusions about the effects of singing in this context. More randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up, and trials examining the effect of singing in addition to pulmonary rehabilitation, are required to determine the effect of singing on health-related quality of life and dyspnoea in people with COPD.

Inhaled magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma exacerbations can be frequent and range in severity from mild to life-threatening. The use of magnesium sulfate (MgSO₄) is one of numerous treatment options available during acute exacerbations. While the efficacy of intravenous MgSO₄ has been demonstrated, the role of inhaled MgSO₄ is less clear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled MgSO₄ administered in acute asthma.

SPECIFIC AIMS

to quantify the effects of inhaled MgSO₄ I) in addition to combination treatment with inhaled β₂-agonist and ipratropium bromide; ii) in addition to inhaled β₂-agonist; and iii) in comparison to inhaled β₂-agonist.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials and online trials registries in September 2017. We supplemented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies and by contact with trialists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs including adults or children with acute asthma were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included studies if patients were treated with nebulised MgSO₄ alone or in combination with β₂-agonist or ipratropium bromide or both, and were compared with the same co-intervention alone or inactive control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias. We made efforts to collect missing data from authors. We present results, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pulmonary function, clinical severity scores and vital signs; and risk ratios (RRs) for hospital admission. We used risk differences (RDs) to analyse adverse events because events were rare.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (43 references) of varying methodological quality were eligible; they included 2907 randomised patients (2777 patients completed). Nine of the 25 included studies involved adults; four included adult and paediatric patients; eight studies enrolled paediatric patients; and in the remaining four studies the age of participants was not stated. The design, definitions, intervention and outcomes were different in all 25 studies; this heterogeneity made direct comparisons difficult. The quality of the evidence presented ranged from high to very low, with most outcomes graded as low or very low. This was largely due to concerns about the methodological quality of the included studies and imprecision in the pooled effect estimates. Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled β₂-agonist and ipratropiumWe included seven studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, results were inconsistent overall and the largest study reporting this outcome found no between-group difference at 60 minutes (MD -0.3 % predicted peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), 95% CI -2.71% to 2.11%). Admissions to hospital at initial presentation may be reduced by the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; participants = 1308; studies = 4; I² = 52%) but no difference was detected for re-admissions or escalation of care to ITU/HDU. Serious adverse events during admission were rare. There was no difference between groups for all adverse events during admission (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; participants = 1197; studies = 2). Inhaled magnesium sulfate in addition to inhaled β₂-agonistWe included 13 studies in this comparison. Although some individual studies reported improvement in lung function indices favouring the intervention group, none of the pooled results showed a conclusive benefit as measured by FEV1 or PEFR. Pooled results for hospital admission showed a point estimate that favoured the combination of MgSO₄ and β₂-agonist, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of admissions increasing in the intervention group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.15; participants = 375; studies = 6; I² = 0%). There were no serious adverse events reported by any of the included studies and no between-group difference for all adverse events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03; participants = 694; studies = 5). Inhaled magnesium sulfate versus inhaled β₂-agonistWe included four studies in this comparison. The evidence for the efficacy of β₂-agonists in acute asthma is well-established and therefore this could be considered a historical comparison. Two studies reported a benefit of β₂-agonist over MgSO₄ alone for PEFR and two studies reported no difference; we did not pool these results. Admissions to hospital were only reported by one small study and events were rare, leading to an uncertain result. No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies in this comparison; one small study reported mild to moderate adverse events but the result is imprecise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with nebulised MgSO₄ may result in modest additional benefits for lung function and hospital admission when added to inhaled β₂-agonists and ipratropium bromide, but our confidence in the evidence is low and there remains substantial uncertainty. The recent large, well-designed trials have generally not demonstrated clinically important benefits. Nebulised MgSO₄ does not appear to be associated with an increase in serious adverse events. Individual studies suggest that those with more severe attacks and attacks of shorter duration may experience a greater benefit but further research into subgroups is warranted.Despite including 24 trials in this review update we were unable to pool data for all outcomes of interest and this has limited the strength of the conclusions reached. A core outcomes set for studies in acute asthma is needed. This is particularly important in paediatric studies where measuring lung function at the time of an exacerbation may not be possible. Placebo-controlled trials in patients not responding to standard maximal treatment, including inhaled β₂-agonists and ipratropium bromide and systemic steroids, may help establish if nebulised MgSO₄ has a role in acute asthma. However, the accumulating evidence suggests that a substantial benefit may be unlikely.

Shared decision-making for people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.One study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.Future trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended.

Positive expiratory pressure therapy versus other airway clearance techniques for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

People with bronchiectasis experience chronic cough and sputum production and require the prescription of airway clearance techniques (ACTs). A common type of ACT prescribed is positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy. A previous review has suggested that ACTs including PEP therapy are beneficial compared to no treatment in people with bronchiectasis. However, the efficacy of PEP therapy in a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation compared to other ACTs in bronchiectasis is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to determine the effects of PEP therapy compared with other ACTs on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), rate of acute exacerbations, and incidence of hospitalisation in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.Secondary aims included determining the effects of PEP therapy upon physiological outcomes and clinical signs and symptoms compared with other ACTs in individuals with stable or an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, PEDro and clinical trials registries from inception to February 2017 and we handsearched relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled parallel and cross-over trials that compared PEP therapy versus other ACTs in participants with bronchiectasis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 213 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which seven were cross-over in design. All studies included adults with bronchiectasis, with eight including participants in a stable clinical state and one including participants experiencing an acute exacerbation. Eight studies used oscillatory PEP therapy, using either a Flutter or Acapella device and one study used Minimal PEP therapy. The comparison intervention differed between studies. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with cross-over studies including suboptimal or no washout period, and a lack of blinding of participants, therapists or personnel for outcome measure assessment in most studies. Clinical heterogeneity between studies limited meta-analysis.Daily use of oscillatory PEP therapy for four weeks was associated with improved general health according to the Short-Form 36 questionnaire compared to the active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT). When applied for three sessions over one week, minimal PEP therapy resulted in similar improvement in cough-related quality of life as autogenic drainage (AD) and L'expiration Lente Totale Glotte Ouverte en Decubitus Lateral (ELTGOL). Oscillatory PEP therapy twice daily for four weeks had similar effects on disease-specific HRQOL (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.19; low-quality evidence). Data were not available to determine the incidence of hospitalisation or rate of exacerbation in clinically stable participants.Two studies of a single session comparison of oscillatory PEP therapy and gravity-assisted drainage (GAD) with ACBT had contrasting findings. One study found a similar sputum weight produced with both techniques (SMD 0.54g (-0.38 to 1.46; 20 participants); the other found greater sputum expectoration with GAD and ACBT (SMD 5.6 g (95% CI 2.91 to 8.29: 36 participants). There was no difference in sputum weight yielded between oscillatory PEP therapy and ACBT with GAD when applied daily for four weeks or during an acute exacerbation. Although a single session of oscillatory PEP therapy was associated with less sputum compared to AD (median difference 3.1 g (95% CI 1.5 to 4.8 g; one study, 31 participants), no difference between oscillatory PEP therapy and seated ACBT was evident. PEP therapy had a similar effect on dynamic and static measures of lung volumes and gas exchange as all other ACTs. A single session of oscillatory PEP therapy (Flutter) generated a similar level of fatigue as ACBT with GAD, but greater fatigue was noted with oscillatory PEP therapy compared to ACBT alone. The degree of breathlessness experienced with PEP therapy did not differ from other techniques. Among studies exploring adverse events, only one study reported nausea with use of oscillatory PEP therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PEP therapy appears to have similar effects on HRQOL, symptoms of breathlessness, sputum expectoration, and lung volumes compared to other ACTs when prescribed within a stable clinical state or during an acute exacerbation. The number of studies and the overall quality of the evidence were both low. In view of the chronic nature of bronchiectasis, additional information is needed to establish the long-term clinical effects of PEP therapy over other ACTs for outcomes that are important to people with bronchiectasis and on clinical parameters which impact on disease progression and patient morbidity in individuals with stable bronchiectasis. In addition, the role of PEP therapy during an acute exacerbation requires further exploration. This information is necessary to provide further guidance for prescription of PEP therapy for people with bronchiectasis.

Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea and a reduction in lung function, quality of life and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, there are no other treatments that slow lung function decline. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE₄) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE₄ inhibitors in the management of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search October 2016). We found other trials from web-based clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared oral PDE₄ inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data and a second review author checked the data. We reported pooled data in Review Manager as mean differences (MD), standardised mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR). We converted the odds ratios into absolute treatment effects in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four separate RCTs studying roflumilast (20 trials with 17,627 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) met the inclusion criteria, with a duration of between six weeks and one year. These included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II-IV), with a mean age of 64 years.We considered that the methodological quality of the 34 published and unpublished trials was acceptable overall. Treatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) over the trial period compared with placebo (MD 51.53 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.17 to 59.90, 27 trials with 20,585 participants, moderate-quality evidence due to moderate levels of heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias). There were small improvements in quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43, 11 trials with 7645 participants, moderate-quality evidence due to moderate levels of heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias) and COPD-related symptoms, but no significant change in exercise tolerance. Treatment with a PDE₄ inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.83; 23 trials with 19,948 participants, high-quality evidence). For every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 26). More participants in the treatment groups experienced non-serious adverse events compared with controls, particularly a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting or dyspepsia. For every 100 people treated with PDE₄ inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms. There was no significant effect of treatment on non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07) or mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.23), although mortality was a rare event during the trials. Participants treated with PDE₄ inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from the trials because of adverse effects; on average 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with COPD, PDE₄ inhibitors offered benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations; however, they had little impact on quality of life or symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and safety data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised concerns over psychiatric adverse events with roflumilast. The findings of this review give cautious support to the use of PDE₄ inhibitors in COPD. They may be best used as add-on therapy in a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management. This is in accordance with the GOLD 2017 guidelines. Longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE₄ inhibitors modify FEV₁ decline, hospitalisation or mortality in COPD.

Tailored interventions based on sputum eosinophils versus clinical symptoms for asthma in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Asthma severity and control can be measured both subjectively and objectively. Sputum analysis for evaluation of percentage of sputum eosinophilia directly measures airway inflammation, and is one method of objectively monitoring asthma. Using sputum analysis to adjust or tailor asthma medications is potentially superior to traditional methods based on symptoms and spirometry.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on sputum analysis in comparison to traditional methods (usually symptom-based with or without spirometry/peak flow) for asthma-related outcomes in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trials' registries, and reference lists of articles. The last search was conducted in February 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled comparisons of adjustment of asthma therapy based on sputum eosinophils compared to traditional methods (primarily clinical symptoms and spirometry/peak flow).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Results of searches were reviewed against pre-determined criteria for inclusion. In this update, two reviewers selected relevant studies, independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We contacted authors for further information when relevant. We analysed data as 'treatment received' and performed sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Three new studies were added in this update, resulting in a total of six included studies (five in adults and one involving children/adolescents). These six studies were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous (use of medications, cut-off for percentage of sputum eosinophils and definition of asthma exacerbation). Of 374 participants randomised, 333 completed the trials. In the meta-analysis, there was a significant reduction in the occurrence of any exacerbations when treatment was based on sputum eosinophil counts, compared to that based on clinical symptoms with or without lung function; pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.86). The risk of having one or more exacerbations over 16 months was 82% in the control arm and 62% (95% CI 49% to 74%) in the sputum strategy arm, resulting in a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 13).There were also differences between the groups in the rate of exacerbation (any exacerbation per year) and severity of exacerbations defined by requirement for use of oral corticosteroids and hospitalisations: the risk of one or more hospitalisations over 16 months was 24% in controls compared to 8% (95% CI 3% to 21%) in the sputum arm. Data for clinical symptoms, quality of life and spirometry were not significantly different between groups. The mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per day was also similar in both groups. However sputum induction was not always possible. The included studies did not record any adverse events.One study was not blinded and thus was considered to have a high risk of bias. However, when this study was removed in a sensitivity analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcome (exacerbations) remained statistically significant between groups. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcomes 'Occurrence of any exacerbation' and 'Hospitalisation' ) to low (for the outcome 'Mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per person per day') due to the inconsistency in defining exacerbations and the small number of hospital admissions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this updated review, tailoring asthma interventions based on sputum eosinophils is beneficial in reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations in adults with asthma. Adults with frequent exacerbations and severe asthma may derive the greatest benefit from this additional monitoring test, although we were unable to confirm this through subgroup analysis. There is insufficient data available to assess tailoring asthma medications based on sputum eosinophilia in children.Further robust RCTs need to be undertaken and these should include participants with different underlying asthma severities and endotypes.