BACKGROUND: The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low. Long-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) -0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; I2 = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -1.22 units/year, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.60; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS reduced the rate of decline in FEV1 in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
ADVERSE EVENTS: in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV1 of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.
BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to acquire and practise the skills they need to carry out disease-specific medical regimens, guide changes in health behaviour and provide emotional support to enable them to control their disease. Since the 2014 update of this review, several studies have been published.
OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and respiratory-related hospital admissions. To evaluate the safety of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of respiratory-related mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions compared to usual care in terms of other health outcomes and healthcare utilisation. To evaluate effective characteristics of COPD self-management interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, trials registries and the reference lists of included studies up until January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials (CRTs) published since 1995. To be eligible for inclusion, self-management interventions had to include at least two intervention components and include an iterative process between participant and healthcare provider(s) in which goals were formulated and feedback was given on self-management actions by the participant.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by reaching consensus or by involving a third review author. We contacted study authors to obtain additional information and missing outcome data where possible. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), number of respiratory-related hospital admissions, respiratory-related mortality, and all-cause mortality. When appropriate, we pooled study results using random-effects modelling meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies involving 6008 participants with COPD. The follow-up time ranged from two-and-a-half to 24 months and the content of the interventions was diverse. Participants' mean age ranged from 57 to 74 years, and the proportion of male participants ranged from 33% to 98%. The post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of participants ranged from 33.6% to 57.0%. The FEV1/FVC ratio is a measure used to diagnose COPD and to determine the severity of the disease. Studies were conducted on four different continents (Europe (n = 15), North America (n = 8), Asia (n = 1), and Oceania (n = 4); with one study conducted in both Europe and Oceania). Self-management interventions likely improve HRQoL, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (lower score represents better HRQoL) with a mean difference (MD) from usual care of -2.86 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.87 to -0.85; 14 studies, 2778 participants; low-quality evidence). The pooled MD of -2.86 did not reach the SGRQ minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of four points. Self-management intervention participants were also at a slightly lower risk for at least one respiratory-related hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3263 participants; very low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one respiratory-related hospital admission over a mean of 9.75 months' follow-up was 15 (95% CI 8 to 399) for participants with high baseline risk and 26 (95% CI 15 to 677) for participants with low baseline risk. No differences were observed in respiratory-related mortality (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 8 studies, 1572 participants ; low-quality evidence) and all-cause mortality (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 24 studies, 5719 participants; low-quality evidence). We graded the evidence to be of 'moderate' to 'very low' quality according to GRADE. All studies had a substantial risk of bias, because of lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the interventions, which is inherently impossible in a self-management intervention. In addition, risk of bias was noticeably increased because of insufficient information regarding a) non-protocol interventions, and b) analyses to estimate the effect of adhering to interventions. Consequently, the highest GRADE evidence score that could be obtained by studies was 'moderate'.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Self-management interventions for people with COPD are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and a lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess respiratory-related and all-cause mortality risks were observed, which strengthens the view that COPD self-management interventions are unlikely to cause harm. By using stricter inclusion criteria, we decreased heterogeneity in studies, but also reduced the number of included studies and therefore our capacity to conduct subgroup analyses. Data were therefore still insufficient to reach clear conclusions about effective (intervention) characteristics of COPD self-management interventions. As tailoring of COPD self-management interventions to individuals is desirable, heterogeneity is and will likely remain present in self-management interventions. For future studies, we would urge using only COPD self-management interventions that include iterative interactions between participants and healthcare professionals who are competent using behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to elicit participants' motivation, confidence and competence to positively adapt their health behaviour(s) and develop skills to better manage their disease. In addition, to inform further subgroup and meta-regression analyses and to provide stronger conclusions regarding effective COPD self-management interventions, there is a need for more homogeneity in outcome measures. More attention should be paid to behavioural outcome measures and to providing more detailed, uniform and transparently reported data on self-management intervention components and BCTs. Assessment of outcomes over the long term is also recommended to capture changes in people's behaviour. Finally, information regarding non-protocol interventions as well as analyses to estimate the effect of adhering to interventions should be included to increase the quality of evidence.
BACKGROUND: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.
MAIN RESULTS: Along with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high. We found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL. IDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up. The number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses.
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.
BACKGROUND: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of pneumococcal disease, especially pneumonia, as well as acute exacerbations with associated morbidity and healthcare costs.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of injectable pneumococcal vaccination for preventing pneumonia in persons with COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways COPD Trials Register and the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, using prespecified terms. Searches are current to November 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing injectable pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) or pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV) versus a control or alternative vaccine type in people with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by vaccine type.
MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we added five studies (606 participants), meaning that the review now includes a total of 12 RCTs involving 2171 participants with COPD. Average age of participants was 66 years, male participants accounted for 67% and mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 1.2 L (five studies), 54% predicted (four studies). We assessed risks of selection, attrition and reporting bias as low, and risks of performance and detection bias as moderate.Compared with control, the vaccine group had a lower likelihood of developing community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (odds ratio (OR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.89; six studies, n = 1372; GRADE: moderate), but findings did not differ specifically for pneumococcal pneumonia (Peto OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.31; three studies, n = 1158; GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) (preventing one episode of CAP) was 21 (95% CI 15 to 74). Mortality from cardiorespiratory causes did not differ between vaccine and control groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.66; three studies, n = 888; GRADE: moderate), nor did all-cause mortality differ (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.40; five studies, n = 1053; GRADE: moderate). The likelihood of hospital admission for any cause, or for cardiorespiratory causes, did not differ between vaccine and control groups. Vaccination significantly reduced the likelihood of a COPD exacerbation (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93; four studies, n = 446; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to prevent a patient from experiencing an acute exacerbation was 8 (95% CI 5 to 58). Only one study (n = 181) compared the efficacy of different vaccine types - 23-valent PPV versus 7-valent PCV - and reported no differences for CAP, all-cause mortality, hospital admission or likelihood of a COPD exacerbation, but investigators described a greater likelihood of some mild adverse effects of vaccination with PPV-23.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Injectable polyvalent pneumococcal vaccination provides significant protection against community-acquired pneumonia, although no evidence indicates that vaccination reduced the risk of confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia, which was a relatively rare event. Vaccination reduced the likelihood of a COPD exacerbation, and moderate-quality evidence suggests the benefits of pneumococcal vaccination in people with COPD. Evidence was insufficient for comparison of different pneumococcal vaccine types.
BACKGROUND: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major driver of decline in health status and impose high costs on healthcare systems. Action plans offer a form of self-management that can be delivered in the outpatient setting to help individuals recognise and initiate early treatment for exacerbations, thereby reducing their impact.
OBJECTIVES: To compare effects of an action plan for COPD exacerbations provided with a single short patient education component and without a comprehensive self-management programme versus usual care. Primary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, mortality and medication use. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, psychological morbidity, lung function and cost-effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers. Searches are current to November 2015. We handsearched bibliographic lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing use of an action plan versus usual care for patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD. We permitted inclusion of a single short education component that would allow individualisation of action plans according to management needs and symptoms of people with COPD, as well as ongoing support directed at use of the action plan.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies via phone call follow-up directed at facilitating use of the action plan.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes two additional studies (and 976 additional participants), for a total of seven parallel-group RCTs and 1550 participants, 66% of whom were male. Participants' mean age was 68 years and was similar among studies. Airflow obstruction was moderately severe in three studies and severe in four studies; mean post bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 54% predicted, and 27% of participants were current smokers. Four studies prepared individualised action plans, one study an oral plan and two studies standard written action plans. All studies provided short educational input on COPD, and two studies supplied ongoing support for action plan use. Follow-up was 12 months in four studies and six months in three studies.When compared with usual care, an action plan with phone call follow-up significantly reduced the combined rate of hospitalisations and emergency department (ED) visits for COPD over 12 months in one study with 743 participants (rate ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.79; high-quality evidence), but the rate of hospitalisations alone in this study failed to achieve statistical significance (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). Over 12 months, action plans significantly decreased the likelihood of hospital admission (odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19 (11 to 201)) and the likelihood of an ED visit (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78; n = 897; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB over 12 months 12 (9 to 26)) compared with usual care.Results showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality during 12 months (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.31; n = 1134; four RCTs; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence interval). Over 12 months, use of oral corticosteroids was increased with action plans compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 0.74 courses, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; n = 200; two RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and the cumulative prednisolone dose was significantly higher (MD 779.0 mg, 95% CI 533.2 to 10248; n = 743; one RCT; high-quality evidence). Use of antibiotics was greater in the intervention group than in the usual care group (subgrouped by phone call follow-up) over 12 months (MD 2.3 courses, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.7; n = 943; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).Subgroup analysis by ongoing support for action plan use was limited; review authors noted no subgroup differences in the likelihood of hospital admission or ED visits or all-cause mortality over 12 months. Antibiotic use over 12 months showed a significant difference between subgroups in studies without and with ongoing support.Overall quality of life score on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a small improvement with action plans compared with usual care over 12 months (MD -2.8, 95% CI -0.8 to -4.8; n = 1009; three RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed no benefit for psychological morbidity as measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of COPD exacerbation action plans with a single short educational component along with ongoing support directed at use of the action plan, but without a comprehensive self-management programme, reduces in-hospital healthcare utilisation and increases treatment of COPD exacerbations with corticosteroids and antibiotics. Use of COPD action plans in this context is unlikely to increase or decrease mortality. Whether additional benefit is derived from periodic ongoing support directed at use of an action plan cannot be determined from the results of this review.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines have provided positive recommendations for pulmonary rehabilitation after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but recent studies indicate that postexacerbation rehabilitation may not always be effective in patients with unstable COPD.
OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of pulmonary rehabilitation after COPD exacerbations on hospital admissions (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes (mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity).
SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and the Cochrane Airways Review Group Register of Trials. Searches were current as of 20 October 2015, and handsearches were run up to 5 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pulmonary rehabilitation of any duration after exacerbation of COPD versus conventional care. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes had to include at least physical exercise (endurance or strength exercise, or both). We did not apply a criterion for the minimum number of exercise sessions a rehabilitation programme had to offer to be included in the review. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We expected substantial heterogeneity across trials in terms of how extensive rehabilitation programmes were (i.e. in terms of number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision of exercise training; and patient education), duration of follow-up (< 3 months vs ≥ 3 months) and risk of bias (generation of random sequence, concealment of random allocation and blinding); therefore, we performed subgroup analyses that were defined before we carried them out. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane in preparing this update, and we used GRADE for assessing the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we added 11 studies and included a total of 20 studies (1477 participants). Rehabilitation programmes showed great diversity in terms of exercise training (number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision), patient education (from none to extensive self-management programmes) and how they were organised (within one setting, e.g. pulmonary rehabilitation, to across several settings, e.g. hospital, outpatient centre and home). In eight studies, participants completed extensive pulmonary rehabilitation, and in 12 studies, participants completed pulmonary rehabilitation ranging from not extensive to moderately extensive.Eight studies involving 810 participants contributed data on hospital readmissions. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that pulmonary rehabilitation reduced hospital readmissions (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.91), but results were heterogenous (I2 = 77%). Extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and risk of bias may offer an explanation for the heterogeneity, but subgroup analyses were not statistically significant (P values for subgroup effects were between 0.07 and 0.11). Six studies including 670 participants contributed data on mortality. The quality of evidence was low, and the meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant effect of rehabilitation on mortality (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.67). Again, results were heterogenous (I2 = 59%). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences in subgroup effects between trials with more and less extensive rehabilitation programmes and between trials at low and high risk for bias, indicating possible explanations for the heterogeneity. Hospital readmissions and mortality studies newly included in this update showed, on average, significantly smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies.High-quality evidence suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation after an exacerbation improves health-related quality of life. The eight studies that used St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) reported a statistically significant effect on SGRQ total score, which was above the minimal important difference (MID) of four points (mean difference (MD) -7.80, 95% CI -12.12 to -3.47; I2 = 64%). Investigators also noted statistically significant and important effects (greater than MID) for the impact and activities domains of the SGRQ. Effects were not statistically significant for the SGRQ symptoms domain. Again, all of these analyses showed heterogeneity, but most studies showed positive effects of pulmonary rehabilitation, some studies showed large effects and others smaller but statistically significant effects. Trials at high risk of bias because of lack of concealment of random allocation showed statistically significantly larger effects on the SGRQ than trials at low risk of bias. High-quality evidence shows that six-minute walk distance (6MWD) improved, on average, by 62 meters (95% CI 38 to 86; I2 = 87%). Heterogeneity was driven particularly by differences between studies showing very large effects and studies showing smaller but statistically significant effects. For both health-related quality of life and exercise capacity, studies newly included in this update showed, on average, smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies, but the overall results of this review have not changed to an important extent compared with results reported in the earlier version of this review.Five studies involving 278 participants explicitly recorded adverse events, four studies reported no adverse events during rehabilitation programmes and one study reported one serious event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence of high quality shows moderate to large effects of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with COPD after an exacerbation. Some recent studies showed no benefit of rehabilitation on hospital readmissions and mortality and introduced heterogeneity as compared with the last update of this review. Such heterogeneity of effects on hospital readmissions and mortality may be explained to some extent by the extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and by the methodological quality of the included studies. Future researchers must investigate how the extent of rehabilitation programmes in terms of exercise sessions, self-management education and other components affects the outcomes, and how the organisation of such programmes within specific healthcare systems determines their effects after COPD exacerbations on hospital readmissions and mortality.
BACKGROUND: Tiotropium and ipratropium bromide are both recognised treatments in the management of people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with ipratropium bromide, making an update necessary.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative effects of tiotropium to ipratropium bromide on markers of quality of life, exacerbations, symptoms, lung function and serious adverse events in patients with COPD using available randomised controlled trial (RCT) data.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified RCTs from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel group RCTs of 12 weeks duration or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium with ipratropium bromide for patients with stable COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and then extracted data on study quality and outcome results. We contacted trial sponsors for additional information. We analysed the data using Cochrane Review Manager.
MAIN RESULTS: This review included two studies of good methodological quality that enrolled 1073 participants with COPD. The studies used a similar design and inclusion criteria and were of at least 12 weeks duration; the participants had a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 40% predicted value at baseline. One study used tiotropium via the HandiHaler (18 µg) for 12 months and the other via the Respimat device (5 µg and 10 µg) for 12 weeks. In general, the treatment groups were well matched at baseline but not all outcomes were reported for both studies. Overall the risk of bias across the included RCTs was low.For primary outcomes this review found that at the three months trough (the lowest level measured before treatment) FEV1 significantly increased with tiotropium compared to ipratropium bromide (mean difference (MD) 109 mL; 95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 137, moderate quality evidence, I(2) = 62%). There were fewer people experiencing one or more non-fatal serious adverse events on tiotropium compared to ipratropium (odds ratio (OR) 0.5; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73, high quality evidence). This represents an absolute reduction in risk from 176 to 97 per 1000 people over three to 12 months. Concerning disease specific adverse events, the tiotropium group were also less likely to experience a COPD-related serious adverse event when compared to ipratropium bromide (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85, moderate quality evidence).For secondary outcomes, both studies reported fewer hospital admissions in the tiotropium group (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70, moderate quality evidence); as well as fewer patients experiencing one or more exacerbations leading to hospitalisation in the people on tiotropium in both studies (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference in mortality between the treatments (OR 1.39; 95% CI 0.44 to 4.39, moderate quality evidence). One study measured quality of life using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); the mean SGRQ score at 52 weeks was lower in the tiotropium group than the ipratropium group (lower on the scale is favourable) (MD -3.30; 95% CI -5.63 to -0.97, moderate quality evidence). There were fewer participants suffering one of more exacerbations in the tiotropium arm (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95, high quality evidence) and there was also a reported difference in the mean number of exacerbations per person per year which reached statistical significance (MD -0.23; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.07, P = 0.006, moderate quality evidence). From the 1073 participants there were significantly fewer withdrawals from the tiotropium group (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.83, high quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that tiotropium treatment, when compared with ipratropium bromide, was associated with improved lung function, fewer hospital admissions (including those for exacerbations of COPD), fewer exacerbations of COPD and improved quality of life. There were both fewer serious adverse events and disease specific events in the tiotropium group, but no significant difference in deaths with ipratropium bromide when compared to tiotropium. Thus, tiotropium appears to be a reasonable choice (instead of ipratropium bromide) for patients with stable COPD, as proposed in guidelines. A recent large double-blind trial of the two delivery devices found no substantial difference in mortality using 2.5 µg or 5 µg of tiotropium via Respimat in comparison to 18 µg via Handihaler.
BACKGROUND: Tiotropium is an anticholinergic agent which has gained widespread acceptance as a once daily maintenance therapy for symptoms and exacerbations of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In the past few years there have been several systematic reviews of the efficacy of tiotropium, however, several new trials have compared tiotropium treatment with placebo, including those of a soft mist inhaler, making an update necessary.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tiotropium and placebo in patients with COPD, upon clinically important endpoints.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel group RCTs of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium against placebo for patients with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and then extracted data on study quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information, and collected information on adverse effects from all trials. We analysed the data using Cochrane Review Manager 5, RevMan 5.2.
MAIN RESULTS: This review included 22 studies of good methodological quality that had enrolled 23,309 participants with COPD. The studies used similar designs, however, the duration varied from three months to four years. In 19 of the studies, 18 mcg tiotropium once daily via the Handihaler dry powder inhaler was evaluated, and in three studies, 5 or 10 mcg tiotropium once daily via the Respimat soft mist inhaler was evaluated. Compared to placebo, tiotropium treatment significantly improved the mean quality of life (mean difference (MD) -2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.35 to -2.44), increased the number of participants with a clinically significant improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.52; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.68), and reduced the number of participants with a clinically significant deterioration (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) in quality of life (measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)). Tiotropium treatment significantly reduced the number of participants suffering from exacerbations (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87). This corresponds to a need to treat 16 patients (95% CI 10 to 36) with tiotropium for a year in order to avoid one additional patient suffering exacerbations, based on the average placebo event rate of 44% from one-year studies. Tiotropium treatment led to fewer hospitalisations due to exacerbations (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00), but there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalisations (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13) or non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the tiotropium and placebo groups (Peto OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11). However, subgroup analysis found a significant difference between the studies using a dry powder inhaler and those with a soft mist inhaler (test for subgroup differences: P = 0.01). With the dry powder inhaler there were fewer deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 2.8%), but with the soft mist inhaler there were significantly more deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.08) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 1.8%). It is noted that the rates of patients discontinuing study treatment were uneven, with significantly fewer participants withdrawing from tiotropium treatment than from placebo treatment (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.73). Participants on tiotropium had improved lung function at the end of the study compared with those on placebo (trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) MD 118.92 mL; 95% CI 113.07 to 124.77).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that tiotropium treatment was associated with a significant improvement in patients' quality of life and it reduced the risk of exacerbations, with a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 16 to prevent one exacerbation. Tiotropium also reduced exacerbations leading to hospitalisation but no significant difference was found for hospitalisation of any cause or mortality. Thus, tiotropium appears to be a reasonable choice for the management of patients with stable COPD, as proposed in guidelines. The trials included in this review showed a difference in the risk of mortality when compared with placebo depending on the type of tiotropium delivery device used. However, these results have not been confirmed in a recent trial when 2.5 mcg or 5 mcg of tiotropium via Respimat was used in a direct comparison to the 18 mcg Handihaler.
BACKGROUND: Both long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their co-administration in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens and to improve efficacy. Three preparations are currently available: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS). budesonide/formoterol (BDF) and mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of combined long-acting beta2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) preparations, as measured by clinical endpoints and pulmonary function testing, compared with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, which is compiled from systematic searches of multiple literature databases. The search was conducted in June 2013. In addition, we checked the reference lists of included studies and contacted the relevant manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Compared studies combined LABA/ICS with the ICS component.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia. Health-related quality of life (as measured by validated scales), lung function and side effects were secondary outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences or rate ratios and 95% CIs.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 15 studies of good methodological quality met the inclusion criteria by randomly assigning 7814 participants with predominantly poorly reversible, severe COPD. Data were most plentiful for the FPS combination. Exacerbation rates were significantly reduced with combination therapies (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, 6 studies, N = 5601) compared with ICS alone. The mean exacerbation rate in the control (ICS) arms of the six included studies was 1.21 exacerbations per participant per year (range 0.88 to 1.60), and we would expect this to be reduced to a rate of 1.05 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.14) among those given combination therapy. Mortality was also lower with the combination (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, 12 studies, N = 7518) than with ICS alone, but this was heavily weighted by a three-year study of FPS. When this study was removed, no significant mortality difference was noted. The reduction in exacerbations did not translate into significantly reduced rates of hospitalisation due to COPD exacerbation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, 10 studies, N = 7060). Lung function data favoured combination treatment in the FPS, BDF and MF/F trials, but the improvement was small. Small improvements in health-related quality of life were measured on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with FPS or BDF compared with ICS, but this was well below the minimum clinically important difference. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two treatments arms, and rates of pneumonia when it was diagnosed by chest x-ray (CXR) were lower than those reported in earlier trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combination ICS and LABA offer some clinical benefits in COPD compared with ICS alone, especially for reduction in exacerbations. This review does not support the use of ICS alone when LABAs are available. Adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. Further long-term assessments using practical outcomes of current and new 24-hour LABAs will help determine their efficacy and safety. For robust comparisons as to their relative effects, long-term head-to-head comparisons are needed.
The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS:
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
Thirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low. Long-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) -0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; I2 = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -1.22 units/year, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.60; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS reduced the rate of decline in FEV1 in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
ADVERSE EVENTS:
in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
This systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV1 of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.
