Search

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of alpha 1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy on respiratory disease in people with alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: In people with mild asthma poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. The use of fixed-dose combination inhalers containing an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a fast-acting β 2 -agonist (FABA) is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined FABA/ICS inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma., Design and Setting: Cochrane meta-analysis of available trial data., Participants: Children aged 12+ and adults with mild asthma., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal on 19 March 2021., Interventions: A single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trial. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data., Data Collection and Analysis: We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures and applied the GRADE approach to assess the evidence., Main Outcome Measures: We included six studies from which 9657 participants contributed to the meta-analyses. All used dry powder budesonide and formoterol as the combination inhaler. Two studies included children aged 12+ years and two studies were open-label., Faba/ics As-Required Versus Faba As-Required: Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reducing the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (mean difference (MD) -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42)., Faba/ics as Required Versus Regular Ics Plus Faba as Required: There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than MCID. Adverse events and total systemic corticosteroid doses were similar between groups. FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to ICS than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 mcg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09)., Conclusions: FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma and reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events compared with FABA as required alone. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely associated with increased adverse events., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IC has been involved in recruitment for a GlaxoSmithKline-sponsored trial of inhaled nemiralisib for COPD, but did not directly receive funding for this. ST reports money for travel from Novartis in 2019 for an educational event. SR is undertaking a PhD supported by an unrestricted research grant from AstraZeneca. He has attended educational events sponsored by AstraZeneca (2019). TSCH has received research funding from the Wellcome Trust, NIHR, the Beit Guardians; has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim; his research team have received funding from Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, 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 19 March 2021., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We 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. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control., Main Results: We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09)., Authors' Conclusions: We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major cause of hospital admissions, disease-related morbidity and mortality. COPD is a heterogeneous disease with distinct inflammatory phenotypes, including eosinophilia, which may drive acute exacerbations in a subgroup of patients. Monoclonal antibodies targeting interleukin 5 (IL-5) or its receptor (IL-5R) have a role in the care of people with severe eosinophilic asthma, and may similarly provide therapeutic benefit for people with COPD of eosinophilic phenotype., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) compared with placebo in the treatment of adults with COPD., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. Our most recent search was 23 September 2020., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing anti-IL-5 therapy with placebo in adults with COPD., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model.The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring antibiotics or oral steroids, hospitalisations due to exacerbation of COPD, serious adverse events, and quality of life. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence., Main Results: Six studies involving a total of 5542 participants met our inclusion criteria. Three studies used mepolizumab (1530 participants), and three used benralizumab (4012 participants). The studies were on people with COPD, which was similarly defined with a documented history of COPD for at least one year. We deemed the risk of bias to be generally low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. Mepolizumab 100 mg reduces the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations by 19% in those with an eosinophil count of at least 150/μL (rate ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.93; participants = 911; studies = 2, high-certainty evidence). When participants with lower eosinophils are included, mepolizumab 100 mg probably reduces the exacerbation rate by 8% (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; participants = 1285; studies = 2, moderate-certainty evidence). Mepolizumab 300 mg probably reduces the rate of exacerbations by 14% in participants all of whom had raised eosinophils (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.06; participants = 451; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence); the evidence was uncertain for a single small study of mepolizumab 750 mg. In participants with high eosinophils, mepolizumab probably reduces the rate of hospitalisation by 10% (100 mg, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.24; participants = 911; studies = 2, moderate-certainty evidence) and 17% (300 mg, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; participants = 451; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence). Mepolizumab 100 mg increases the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation compared to the placebo group, in people with the eosinophilic phenotype (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 981; studies 2, high-certainty evidence). When participants with lower eosinophils were included this difference was smaller and less certain (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.0; participants = 1285; studies 2, moderate-certainty evidence). Mepolizumab 300 mg probably increases the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation in participants who all had eosinophilic phenotype (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; participants = 451; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence). Benralizumab 100 mg reduces the rate of severe exacerbations requiring hospitalisation in those with an eosinophil count of at least 220/μL (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81; participants = 1512; studies = 2, high-certainty evidence). Benralizumab 10 mg probably reduces the rate of severe exacerbations requiring hospitalisation in those with an eosinophil count of at least 220/μL (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94; participants = 765; studies = 1, moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably little or no difference between the intervention and placebo for quality of life measures. Where there were differences the mean difference fell below the pre-specified minimum clinically significant difference. Treatment with mepolizumab and benralizumab appeared to be safe. All pooled analyses showed that there was probably little or no difference in serious adverse events, adverse events, or side effects between the use of a monoclonal antibody therapy compared to placebo., Authors' Conclusions: We found that mepolizumab and benralizumab probably reduce the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations in the highly selected group of people who have both COPD and higher levels of blood eosinophils. This highlights the importance of disease phenotyping in COPD, and may play a role in the personalised treatment strategy in disease management. Further research is needed to elucidate the role of monoclonal antibodies in the management of COPD in clinical practice. In particular, it is not clear whether there is a threshold blood eosinophil level above which these drugs may be effective. Studies including cost effectiveness analysis may be beneficial given the high cost of these therapies, to support use if appropriate., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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 beta 2 -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.

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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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.

Background: Adolescents with asthma are at high risk of poor adherence with treatment. This may be compounded by activities that worsen asthma, in particular smoking. Additional support above and beyond routine care has the potential to encourage good self-management. We wanted to find out whether sessions led by their peers or by lay leaders help to reduce these risks and improve asthma outcomes among adolescents., Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma., Search Methods: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains reports of randomised trials obtained from multiple electronic and handsearched sources, and we searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 25 November 2016., Selection Criteria: Eligible studies randomised adolescents with asthma to an intervention led by lay people or peers or to a control. We included parallel randomised controlled trials with individual or cluster designs. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened the searches, extracted numerical data and study characteristics and assessed each included study for risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life and exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids. We graded the analyses and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we described skewed data narratively., Main Results: Five studies including a total of 1146 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. As ever with systematic reviews of complex interventions, studies varied by design (cluster and individually randomised), duration (2.5 to 9 months), setting (school, day camp, primary care) and intervention content. Most risk of bias concerns were related to blinding and incomplete reporting, which limited the meta-analyses that could be performed. Studies generally controlled well for selection and attrition biases.All participants were between 11 and 17 years of age. Asthma diagnosis and severity varied, as did smoking prevalence. Three studies used the Triple A programme; one of these studies tested the addition of a smoke-free pledge; another delivered peer support group sessions and mp3 messaging to encourage adherence; and the third compared a peer-led asthma day camp with an equivalent camp led by healthcare practitioners.We had low confidence in all findings owing to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Results from an analysis of asthma-related quality of life based on the prespecified random-effects model were imprecise and showed no differences (MD 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.81); a sensitivity analysis based on a fixed-effect model and a responder analysis suggested small benefit may be derived for this outcome. Most other results were summarised narratively and did not show an important benefit of the intervention; studies provided no analysable data on asthma exacerbations or unscheduled visits (data were skewed), and one study measuring adherence reported a drop in both groups. Effects on asthma control favoured the intervention but findings were not statistically significant. Results from two studies with high levels of baseline smoking showed some promise for self-efficacy to stop smoking, but overall nicotine dependence and smoking-related knowledge were not significantly better in the intervention group. Investigators did not report adverse events., Authors' Conclusions: Although weak evidence suggests that lay-led and peer support interventions could lead to a small improvement in asthma-related quality of life for adolescents, benefits for asthma control, exacerbations and medication adherence remain unproven. Current evidence is insufficient to reveal whether routine use of lay-led or peer support programmes is beneficial for adolescents receiving asthma care.Ongoing and future research may help to identify target populations for lay-led and peer support interventions, along with attributes that constitute a successful programme.

Background: Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control., Objectives: To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS., Search Methods: We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm., Authors' Conclusions: The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Background: Mucus retention in the lungs is a prominent feature of bronchiectasis. The stagnant mucus becomes chronically colonised with bacteria, which elicit a host neutrophilic response. This fails to eliminate the bacteria, and the large concentration of host-derived protease may contribute to the airway damage. The sensation of retained mucus is itself a cause of suffering, and the failure to maintain airway sterility probably contributes to the frequent respiratory infections experienced by many patients.Hypertonic saline inhalation is known to accelerate tracheobronchial clearance in many conditions, probably by inducing a liquid flux into the airway surface, which alters mucus rheology in a way favourable to mucociliary clearance. Inhaled dry powder mannitol has a similar effect. Such agents are an attractive approach to the problem of mucostasis, and deserve further clinical evaluation., Objectives: To determine whether inhaled hyperosmolar substances are effective in the treatment of bronchiectasis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, trials registries, and the reference lists of included studies and review articles. Searches are current up to April 2014., Selection Criteria: Any randomised controlled trial (RCT) using hyperosmolar inhalation in patients with bronchiectasis not caused by cystic fibrosis., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed studies for suitability. We used standard methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria of the review (1021 participants).Five studies on 833 participants compared inhaled mannitol with placebo but poor outcome reporting meant we could pool very little data and most outcomes were reported by only one study. One 12-month trial on 461 participants provided results for exacerbations and demonstrated an advantage for mannitol in terms of time to first exacerbation (median time to exacerbation 165 versus 124 days for mannitol and placebo respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.96, P = 0.022) and number of days on antibiotics for bronchiectasis exacerbations was significantly better with mannitol (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95%CI 0.58 to 1.00, P = 0.0496). However, exacerbation rate per year was not significantly different between mannitol and placebo (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08). The quality of this evidence was rated as moderate. There was also an indication, from only three trials, again based on moderate quality evidence, that mannitol improves health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) -2.05; 95% CI -3.69 to -0.40). An analysis of adverse events data, also based on moderate quality evidence, revealed no difference between mannitol and placebo (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.51). Two additional small trials on 25 participants compared mannitol versus no treatment and the data from these studies were inconclusive.Four studies (combined N = 113) compared hypertonic saline versus isotonic saline. On most outcomes there were conflicting results and the opportunities for the statistical aggregation of data from studies was very limited. It is not possible to draw robust conclusions for this comparison and judgments should be reserved until further data are available., Authors' Conclusions: There is an indication from a single, large, unpublished study that inhaled mannitol increases time to first exacerbation in patients with bronchiectasis. In patients with near normal lung function, spirometry does not change dramatically with mannitol and adverse events are not more frequent than placebo. Further investigation is required in a patient population with impaired lung function.It is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding the effect of nebulised hypertonic saline due to significant differences in the methodology, patient groups, and findings amongst the limited data available. The data suggest that it is unlikely to have benefit over isotonic saline in patients with milder disease, and hence future studies should test its use in those with more severe disease.

Background: Bronchiectasis is predominantly an acquired disease process that represents the end stage of a variety of unrelated pulmonary insults. It is defined as persistent irreversible dilatation and distortion of medium-sized bronchi. It has been suggested that with widespread use of high-resolution computed tomography, more bronchiectasis diagnoses are being made. Patients diagnosed with bronchiectasis frequently have difficulty expectorating sputum. Sputum therefore is retained in the lungs and may become infected, leading to further lung damage. Mucolytic agents target hypersecretion or changed physiochemical properties of sputum to make it easier to clear. One drug, recombinant human DNase, breaks down the DNA that is released at the site of infection by neutrophils.Mucus clearance along with antimicrobial therapy remains an integral part of bronchiectasis management. Chest physiotherapy along with mucolytic agents is commonly used in practice without clear supportive evidence., Objectives: To determine whether ingested or inhaled mucolytics are effective in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted experts in the field and drug companies. Searches were current as of June 2013., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials of mucolytic treatment in people with bronchiectasis but not cystic fibrosis., Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction was performed independently by two review authors. Study authors were contacted for confirmation., Main Results: Four trials (with a combined total of 528 adult participants) were included, but almost none of the data from these studies could be aggregated in a meta-analysis.One trial (with 88 participants) compared bromhexine versus placebo. Compared with placebo, high doses of bromhexine with antibiotics eased difficulty in expectoration (mean difference (MD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.25 at 16 days); the quality of the evidence was rated as low. A reduction in sputum production was noted with bromhexine (MD -21.5%, 95% CI -38.9 to -4.1 at day 16); again the quality of the evidence was rated as low. No significant differences between bromhexine and placebo were observed with respect to reported adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 2.93; 95% CI 0.12 to 73.97), and again the quality of the evidence was rated as low.In a single small, blinded but not placebo-controlled trial of older (> 55 years) participants with stable bronchiectasis and mucus hypersecretion, erdosteine combined with physiotherapy over a 15-day period improved spirometry and sputum purulence more effectively compared with physiotherapy alone. The spirometric improvement was small (MD 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and 300 mL in forced vital capacity (FVC)) and was apparent only at day 15, not at earlier time points.The remaining two studies (with a combined total of 410 participants) compared recombinant human DNase (RhDNase) versus placebo. These two studies were very different (one was a two-week study of 61 participants, and the other ran for 24 weeks and included 349 participants), and the opportunity for combining data from the two studies was very limited. Compared with placebo, recombinant human DNase showed no difference in FEV1 or FVC in the smaller study but showed a significant negative effect on FEV1 in the larger and longer study. For reported adverse events, no significant differences between recombinant human DNase and placebo were noted. In all of the above comparisons of recombinant human DNase versus placebo, the quality of the evidence was judged to be low., Authors' Conclusions: Given the harmful effects of recombinant human DNase in one trial and no evidence of benefit, this drug should be avoided in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, except in the context of clinical trials. Evidence is insufficient to permit evaluation of the routine use of other mucolytics for bronchiectasis. High doses of bromhexine coupled with antibiotics may help with sputum production and clearance, but long-term data and robust clinical outcomes are lacking. Similarly, erdosteine may be a useful adjunct to physiotherapy in stable patients with mucus hypersecretion, but robust longer-term trials are required.Generally, clinical trials in children on the use of various mucolytic agents are lacking. As the number of agents available on the market, such as RhDNase, acetylcysteine and bromhexine, is increasing, improvement of the evidence base is needed.

The hospital standardised mortality ratio (HSMR) and the summary hospital mortality index (SHMI) are both in current use in the UK as measures of the performance of acute hospitals. Characteristics of both the acute hospital itself and of its local healthcare environment influence these indices. Whilst many hope that measures of mortality can be used as a surrogate for healthcare quality, this is an evolving area.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute demyelinating disorder of the peripheral nervous system that results in motor weakness, absent reflexes and autonomic nervous system dysfunction. Autonomic failure is reported in approximately 65 % of patients with GBS and usually follows extensive motor involvement. In this case our patient presented with syncope and other signs of autonomic failure before the motor weakness developed. Few cases in the literature have reported features of autonomic failure before established weakness in GBS; to our knowledge, syncope has not been described previously as a presenting feature of GBS.