A core outcome set for bronchiectasis in children and adolescents for use in clinical research: an international consensus study.

Improving the treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents requires high-quality research with outcomes that meet study objectives and are meaningful for patients and their parents and caregivers. In the absence of systematic reviews or agreement on the health outcomes that should be measured in paediatric bronchiectasis, we established an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a core outcome set (COS) that incorporates patient and parent perspectives. We undertook a systematic review from which a list of 21 outcomes was constructed; these outcomes were used to inform the development of separate surveys for ranking by parents and patients and by health-care professionals. 562 participants (201 parents and patients from 17 countries, 361 health-care professionals from 58 countries) completed the surveys. Following two consensus meetings, agreement was reached on a ten-item COS with five outcomes that were deemed to be essential: quality of life, symptoms, exacerbation frequency, non-scheduled health-care visits, and hospitalisations. Use of this international consensus-based COS will ensure that studies have consistent, patient-focused outcomes, facilitating research worldwide and, in turn, the development of evidence-based guidelines for improved clinical care and outcomes. Further research is needed to develop validated, accessible measurement instruments for several of the outcomes in this COS.

European Respiratory Society statement for defining respiratory exacerbations in children and adolescents with bronchiectasis for clinical trials.

Bronchiectasis is being diagnosed increasingly in children and adolescents. Recurrent respiratory exacerbations are common in children and adolescents with this chronic pulmonary disorder. Respiratory exacerbations are associated with an impaired quality of life, poorer long-term clinical outcomes, and substantial costs to the family and health systems. The 2021 European Respiratory Society (ERS) clinical practice guideline for the management of children and adolescents with bronchiectasis provided a definition of acute respiratory exacerbations for clinical use but to date there is no comparable universal definition for clinical research. Given the importance of exacerbations in the field, this ERS Task Force sought to obtain robust definitions of respiratory exacerbations for clinical research. The panel was a multidisciplinary team of specialists in paediatric and adult respiratory medicine, infectious disease, physiotherapy, primary care, nursing, radiology, methodology, patient advocacy, and parents of children and adolescents with bronchiectasis. We used a standardised process that included a systematic literature review, parent survey, and a Delphi approach involving 299 physicians (54 countries) caring for children and adolescents with bronchiectasis. Consensus was obtained for all four statements drafted by the panel as the disagreement rate was very low (range 3.6-7.2%). The panel unanimously endorsed the four consensus definitions for 1a) non-severe exacerbation and 1b) severe exacerbation as an outcome measure, 2) non-severe exacerbation for studies initiating treatment, and 3) resolution of a non-severe exacerbation for clinical trials involving children and adolescents with bronchiectasis. This ERS Task Force proposes using these internationally derived, consensus-based definitions of respiratory exacerbations for future clinical paediatric bronchiectasis research.

Quality standards for managing children and adolescents with bronchiectasis: an international consensus.

The global burden of bronchiectasis in children and adolescents is being recognised increasingly. However, marked inequity exists between, and within, settings and countries for resources and standards of care afforded to children and adolescents with bronchiectasis compared with those with other chronic lung diseases. The European Respiratory Society (ERS) clinical practice guideline for the management of bronchiectasis in children and adolescents was published recently. Here we present an international consensus of quality standards of care for children and adolescents with bronchiectasis based upon this guideline. The panel used a standardised approach that included a Delphi process with 201 respondents from the parents and patients' survey, and 299 physicians (across 54 countries) who care for children and adolescents with bronchiectasis. The seven quality standards of care statements developed by the panel address the current absence of quality standards for clinical care related to paediatric bronchiectasis. These internationally derived, clinician-, parent- and patient-informed, consensus-based quality standards statements can be used by parents and patients to access and advocate for quality care for their children and themselves, respectively. They can also be used by healthcare professionals to advocate for their patients, and by health services as a monitoring tool, to help optimise health outcomes.

A survey and stakeholder group prioritised key systematic review questions in airways disease.

Objective: Priority setting is important for healthcare research. The Cochrane Airways Group wanted to prioritise topics for systematic reviews across all chronic respiratory diseases with limited resources and according to latest Cochrane policy.The objective was to prioritise 10 reviews of importance to the public (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers) from a patient survey. Study design and setting: We convened a stakeholder group of patients, carers, healthcare professionals and representatives from charities. We conducted an online survey to collect uncertainties about the treatment and management of respiratory disease from the public. Uncertainties were ranked by the stakeholder group, and scoping searches refined the uncertainties into systematic review questions. Results: We received 147 survey responses. We removed duplicates and blank responses and asked the stakeholder group to rank 100 uncertainties. The first round of voting produced a list of 29 topics and the second round resulted in 12 uncertainties. These uncertainties were scoped with literature searches and teased out further into systematic review topics. We identified 3 Cochrane reviews to update, 8 new review topics, and 3 evidence gaps. Conclusion: We successfully convened a stakeholder group and prioritised a list of uncertainties in the treatment and management of airways diseases that had been identified by patients and the public.

Interventions to improve adherence to pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic lung condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and limited lung airflow, dyspnoea and recurrent exacerbations. Suboptimal therapy or non-adherence may result in limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and subsequently poor health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to single or combined pharmacological treatments compared with usual care or interventions that are not intended to improve adherence in people with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date 1 May 2020). We also searched web-based clinical trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs included adults with COPD diagnosed by established criteria (e.g. Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease). Interventions included change to pharmacological treatment regimens, adherence aids, education, behavioural or psychological interventions (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy), communication or follow-up by a health professional (e.g. telephone, text message or face-to-face), multi-component interventions, and interventions to improve inhaler technique. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Working in pairs, four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed confidence in the evidence for each primary outcome using GRADE. Primary outcomes were adherence, quality of life and hospital service utilisation. Adherence measures included the Adherence among Patients with Chronic Disease questionnaire (APCD). Quality of life measures included the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials (2191 participants) in the analysis with follow-up ranging from six to 52 weeks. Age ranged from 54 to 75 years, and COPD severity ranged from mild to very severe. Trials were conducted in the USA, Spain, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Iran, South Korea, China and Belgium. Risk of bias was high due to lack of blinding. Evidence certainty was downgraded due to imprecision and small participant numbers. Single component interventions Six studies (55 to 212 participants) reported single component interventions including changes to pharmacological treatment (different roflumilast doses or different inhaler types), adherence aids (Bluetooth inhaler reminder device), educational (comprehensive verbal instruction), behavioural or psychological (motivational interview). Change in dose of roflumilast may result in little to no difference in adherence (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.99; studies = 1, participants = 55; low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler reminder device did not improve adherence, but comprehensive verbal instruction from a health professional did improve mean adherence (prescription refills) (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54). Motivational interview improved mean adherence scores on the APCD scale (MD 22.22, 95% CI 8.42 to 36.02). Use of a single inhaler compared to two separate inhalers may have little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ; MD 0.80, 95% CI -3.12 to 4.72; very low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler monitoring device may provide a small improvement in quality of life on the CCQ (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.73; very low certainty). Single inhaler use may have little to no impact on the number of people admitted to hospital compared to two separate inhalers (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.90; very low certainty). Single component interventions may have little to no impact on the number of people expereincing adverse events (very low certainty evidence from studies of a change in pharmacotherapy or use of adherence aids). A change in pharmacotherapy may have little to no impact on exacerbations or deaths (very low certainty). Multi-component interventions Eight studies (30 to 734 participants) reported multi-component interventions including tailored care package that included adherence support as a key component or included inhaler technique as a component. A multi-component intervention may result in more people adhering to pharmacotherapy compared to control at 40.5 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.59; studies = 4, participants = 446; I2 = 0%; low certainty). There may be little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, CAT) (studies = 3; low to very low certainty). Multi-component interventions may help to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital for any cause (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.63; studies = 2, participants = 877; low certainty), or COPD-related hospitalisations (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; studies = 2, participants = 220; moderate certainty). There may be a small benefit on people experiencing severe exacerbations. There may be little to no effect on adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths, but events were infrequently reported and were rare (low to very certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single component interventions (e.g. education or motivational interviewing provided by a health professional) can help to improve adherence to pharmacotherapy (low to very low certainty). There were slight improvements in quality of life with a Bluetooth inhaler device, but evidence is from one study and very low certainty. Change to pharmacotherapy (e.g. single inhaler instead of two, or different doses of roflumilast) has little impact on hospitalisations or exacerbations (very low certainty). There is no difference in people experiencing adverse events (all-cause or COPD-related), or deaths (very low certainty). Multi-component interventions may improve adherence with education, motivational or behavioural components delivered by health professionals (low certainty). There is little to no impact on quality of life (low to very low certainty). They may help reduce the number of people admitted to hospital overall (specifically pharmacist-led approaches) (low certainty), and fewer people may have COPD-related hospital admissions (moderately certainty). There may be a small reduction in people experiencing severe exacerbations, but evidence is from one study (low certainty). Limited evidence found no difference in people experiencing adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths (low to very low certainty). The evidence presented should be interpreted with caution. Larger studies with more intervention types, especially single interventions, are needed. It is unclear which specific COPD subgroups would benefit, therefore discussions between health professionals and patients may help to determine whether they will help to improve health outcomes.

Individual-level interventions to reduce personal exposure to outdoor air pollution and their effects on people with long-term respiratory conditions.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of the global population lives in areas exceeding World Health Organization air quality limits. More than four million people each year are thought to die early due to air pollution, and poor air quality is thought to reduce an average European's life expectancy by one year. Individuals may be able to reduce health risks through interventions such as masks, behavioural changes and use of air quality alerts. To date, evidence is lacking about the efficacy and safety of such interventions for the general population and people with long-term respiratory conditions. This topic, and the review question relating to supporting evidence to avoid or lessen the effects of air pollution, emerged directly from a group of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in South London, UK. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of individual-level interventions that aim to help people with or without chronic respiratory conditions to reduce their exposure to outdoor air pollution. 2. To assess the efficacy, safety and acceptability of individual-level interventions that aim to help people with chronic respiratory conditions reduce the personal impact of outdoor air pollution and improve health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other major databases. We did not restrict our searches by date, language or publication type and included a search of the grey literature (e.g. unpublished information). We conducted the most recent search on 16 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) that included a comparison treatment arm, in adults and children that investigated the effectiveness of an individual-level intervention to reduce risks of outdoor air pollution. We included studies in healthy individuals and those in people with long-term respiratory conditions. We excluded studies which focused on non-respiratory long-term conditions, such as cardiovascular disease. We did not restrict eligibility of studies based on outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) as appropriate. One review author entered data into the review; this was spot-checked by a second author. We planned to meta-analyse results from RCTs and NRS separately, using a random-effects model. This was not possible, so we presented evidence narratively. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were: measures of air pollution exposure; exacerbation of respiratory conditions; hospital admissions; quality of life; and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies (3372 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria (10 RCTs and one NRS). Participants' ages ranged from 18 to 74 years, and the duration of studies ranged from 24 hours to 104 weeks. Six cross-over studies recruited healthy adults and five parallel studies included either people with pre-existing conditions (three studies) or only pregnant women (two studies). Interventions included masks (e.g. an N95 mask designed to filter out airborne particles) (five studies), an alternative cycle route (one study), air quality alerts and education (five studies). Studies were set in Australia, China, Iran, the UK, and the USA. Due to the diversity of study designs, populations, interventions and outcomes, we did not perform any meta-analyses and instead summarised results narratively. We judged both RCTs and the NRS to be at risk of bias from lack of blinding and lack of clarity regarding selection methods. Many studies did not provide a prepublished protocol or trial registration. From five studies (184 participants), we found that masks or altered cycle routes may have little or no impact on physiological markers of air pollution exposure (e.g. blood pressure and heart rate variability), but we are very uncertain about this estimate using the GRADE approach. We found conflicting evidence regarding health care usage from three studies of air pollution alerts, with one non-randomised cross-over trial (35 participants) reporting an increase in emergency hospital attendances and admissions, but the other two randomised parallel trials (1553 participants) reporting little to no difference. We also gave the evidence for this outcome a very uncertain GRADE rating. None of our included trials reported respiratory exacerbations, quality of life or serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were not well reported, but indicated inconsistent impacts of air quality alerts and education interventions on adherence, with some trials reporting improvements in the intervention groups and others reporting little or no difference. Symptoms were reported by three trials, with one randomised cross-over trial (15 participants) reporting a small increase in breathing difficulties associated with the mask intervention, one non-randomised cross-over trial (35 participants) reporting reduced throat and nasal irritation in the lower-pollution cycle route group (but no clear difference in other respiratory symptoms), and another randomised parallel trial (519 participants) reporting no clear difference in symptoms between those who received a smog warning and those who did not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The lack of evidence and study diversity has limited the conclusions of this review. Using a mask or a lower-pollution cycle route may mitigate some of the physiological impacts from air pollution, but evidence was very uncertain. We found conflicting results for other outcomes, including health care usage, symptoms and adherence/behaviour change. We did not find evidence for adverse events. Funders should consider commissioning larger, longer studies, using high-quality and well-described methods, recruiting participants with pre-existing respiratory conditions. Studies should report outcomes of importance to people with respiratory conditions, such as exacerbations, hospital admissions, quality of life and adverse events.

Clinical and research priorities for children and young people with bronchiectasis: an international roadmap.

The global burden of children and young people (CYP) with bronchiectasis is being recognised increasingly. They experience a poor quality of life and recurrent respiratory exacerbations requiring additional treatment, including hospitalisation. However, there are no published data on patient-driven clinical needs and/or research priorities for paediatric bronchiectasis. Parent/patient-driven views are required to understand the clinical needs and research priorities to inform changes that benefit CYP with bronchiectasis and reduce their disease burden. The European Lung Foundation and the European Respiratory Society Task Force for paediatric bronchiectasis created an international roadmap of clinical and research priorities to guide, and as an extension of, the clinical practice guideline. This roadmap was based on two global web-based surveys. The first survey (10 languages) was completed by 225 respondents (parents of CYP with bronchiectasis and adults with bronchiectasis diagnosed in childhood) from 21 countries. The parent/patient survey encompassed both clinical and research priorities. The second survey, completed by 258 health practitioners from 54 countries, was limited to research priorities. The two highest clinical needs expressed by parents/patients were: having an action management plan for flare-ups/exacerbations and access to physiotherapists. The two highest health practitioners' research priorities related to eradication of airway pathogens and optimal airway clearance techniques. Based on both surveys, the top 10 research priorities were derived, and unanimous consensus statements were formulated from these priorities. This document addresses parents'/patients' clinical and research priorities from both the parents'/patients' and clinicians' perspectives and will help guide research and clinical efforts to improve the lives of people with bronchiectasis.

European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of children and adolescents with bronchiectasis.

There is increasing awareness of bronchiectasis in children and adolescents, a chronic pulmonary disorder associated with poor quality of life for the child/adolescent and their parents, recurrent exacerbations, and costs to the family and health systems. Optimal treatment improves clinical outcomes. Several national guidelines exist, but there are no international guidelines.The European Respiratory Society (ERS) Task Force for the management of paediatric bronchiectasis sought to identify evidence-based management (investigation and treatment) strategies. It used the ERS standardised methodology that included a systematic review of the literature and application of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to define the quality of the evidence and level of recommendations.A multidisciplinary team of specialists in paediatric and adult respiratory medicine, infectious disease, physiotherapy, primary care, nursing, radiology, immunology, methodology, patient advocacy and parents of children/adolescents with bronchiectasis considered the most relevant clinical questions (for both clinicians and patients) related to managing paediatric bronchiectasis. 14 key clinical questions (seven PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and seven narrative) were generated. The outcomes for each PICO were decided by voting by the panel and parent/patient advisory group.This guideline addresses the definition, diagnostic approach and antibiotic treatment of exacerbations, pathogen eradication, long-term antibiotic therapy, asthma-type therapies (inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators), mucoactive drugs, airway clearance, investigation of underlying causes of bronchiectasis, disease monitoring, factors to consider before surgical treatment, and the reversibility and prevention of bronchiectasis in children/adolescents. Benchmarking quality of care for children/adolescents with bronchiectasis to improve clinical outcomes and evidence gaps for future research could be based on these recommendations.

Prophylactic antibiotics for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics. SEARCH METHODS: To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.

Management of children and adolescents with bronchiectasis: summary of the ERS clinical practice guideline.

Bronchiectasis, characterised by chronic wet/productive cough with recurrent respiratory exacerbations and abnormal bronchial dilatation on computed tomography scans, remains an increasingly recognised but often neglected chronic pulmonary disorder in children and adolescents. An early diagnosis combined with optimal management offers the prospect, at least in some patients, of curing a condition previously considered irreversible. However, unlike in adults, until now no international paediatric guidelines existed. The recently published European Respiratory Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of children and adolescents with bronchiectasis attempts to address this clinical information gap. The guidelines were formulated by panel members comprised of experts from several relevant health fields, the European Lung Foundation and parents of children with bronchiectasis. Systematic reviews and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach guided the nature and strength of recommendations. The recommendations are grouped into clinically relevant topics: diagnosis, evaluating for underlying causes, defining exacerbations, management, systematic care, monitoring, reversibility and prevention. The guidelines seek to achieve: 1) optimal lung growth, 2) preserved lung function, 3) enhanced quality of life, 4) minimal exacerbations, 5) few or no complications, and 6) if possible, reversal of lung injury for each child/adolescent with bronchiectasis. This review presents example cases that highlight the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines. EDUCATIONAL AIMS: This article is intended for those involved in caring for children/adolescents with bronchiectasis. It aims to inform:Clinicians of the European Respiratory Society recommendations for the diagnosis and management of children/adolescents with bronchiectasis.Adolescents and parents of children/adolescents with bronchiectasis of these recommendations, so as to assist discussions with healthcare teams and help facilitate access to appropriate care.

The effects of step-count monitoring interventions on physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based randomised controlled trials in adults.

BACKGROUND: Step-count monitors (pedometers, body-worn trackers and smartphone applications) can increase walking, helping to tackle physical inactivity. We aimed to assess the effect of step-count monitors on physical activity (PA) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) amongst community-dwelling adults; including longer-term effects, differences between step-count monitors, and between intervention components. METHODS: Systematic literature searches in seven databases identified RCTs in healthy adults, or those at risk of disease, published between January 2000-April 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcome was mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in steps at follow-up between treatment and control groups. Our preferred outcome measure was from studies with follow-up steps adjusted for baseline steps (change studies); but we also included studies reporting follow-up differences only (end-point studies). Multivariate-meta-analysis used random-effect estimates at different time-points for change studies only. Meta-regression compared effects of different step-count monitors and intervention components amongst all studies at ≤4 months. RESULTS: Of 12,491 records identified, 70 RCTs (at generally low risk of bias) were included, with 57 trials (16,355 participants) included in meta-analyses: 32 provided change from baseline data; 25 provided end-point only. Multivariate meta-analysis of the 32 change studies demonstrated step-counts favoured intervention groups: MD of 1126 steps/day 95%CI [787, 1466] at ≤4 months, 1050 steps/day [602, 1498] at 6 months, 464 steps/day [301, 626] at 1 year, 121 steps/day [- 64, 306] at 2 years and 434 steps/day [191, 676] at 3-4 years. Meta-regression of the 57 trials at ≤4 months demonstrated in mutually-adjusted analyses that: end-point were similar to change studies (+ 257 steps/day [- 417, 931]); body-worn trackers/smartphone applications were less effective than pedometers (- 834 steps/day [- 1542, - 126]); and interventions providing additional counselling/incentives were not better than those without (- 812 steps/day [- 1503, - 122]). CONCLUSIONS: Step-count monitoring leads to short and long-term step-count increases, with no evidence that either body-worn trackers/smartphone applications, or additional counselling/incentives offer further benefit over simpler pedometer-based interventions. Simple step-count monitoring interventions should be prioritised to address the public health physical inactivity challenge. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42017075810 .

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

Effectiveness of adult community-based physical activity interventions with objective physical activity measurements and long-term follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity (PA) interventions with objective PA outcomes in adults and to evaluate whether intervention effects were sustained beyond 12 months. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts)) were searched from January 2000 until December 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs reporting objective PA outcomes beyond 12 months with community-based participants aged ≥18 years were included; those where controls received active interventions, including advice to increase PA levels, were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed extraction of aggregate data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses used random-effects models at different follow-up points. Primary outcomes were daily steps and weekly minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). RESULTS: Of 33 282 records identified, nine studies (at generally low risk of bias) were included, five in meta-analyses with 12 months to 4 year follow-up. We observed 12 month increases for intervention vs control participants in steps/day (mean difference (MD)=554 (95% CIs: 384 to 724) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 2446 participants; four studies) and weekly MVPA minutes (MD=35 (95% CI: 27 to 43) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 2647 participants; four studies). Effects were sustained up to 4 years for steps/day (MD=494 (95% CI: 251 to 738) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 1944 participants; four studies) and weekly MVPA minutes (MD=25 (95% CI: 13 to 37) p<0.0001, I2=0%; 1458 participants; three studies). CONCLUSIONS: There are few PA interventions with objective follow-up beyond 12 months, more studies are needed. However, this review provided evidence of PA intervention effects beyond 12 months and sustained up to 4 years for both steps/day and MVPA. These findings have important implications for potential long-term health benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017075753.

Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with cough, sputum production or dyspnoea, and a reduction in lung function, quality of life, and life expectancy. Apart from smoking cessation, no other treatments that slow lung function decline are available. Roflumilast and cilomilast are oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitors proposed to reduce the airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction seen in COPD. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2011, and was updated in 2017 and 2020. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral PDE4 inhibitors for management of stable COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 9 March 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs if they compared oral PDE4 inhibitors with placebo in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were change in lung function (minimally important difference (MID) = 100 mL) and quality of life (scale 0 to 100; higher score indicates more limitations). MAIN RESULTS: We found 42 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses for roflumilast (28 trials with 18,046 participants) or cilomilast (14 trials with 6457 participants) or tetomilast (1 trial with 84 participants), with a duration between six weeks and one year or longer. These trials included people across international study centres with moderate to very severe COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades II to IV), with mean age of 64 years. We judged risks of selection bias, performance bias, and attrition bias as low overall amongst the 39 published and unpublished trials. Lung function Treatment with a PDE4 inhibitor was associated with a small, clinically insignificant improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) over a mean of 40 weeks compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 49.33 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.17 to 54.49; participants = 20,815; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were also improved over 40 weeks (FVC: MD 86.98 mL, 95% CI 74.65 to 99.31; participants = 22,108; studies = 17; high-certainty evidence; PEF: MD 6.54 L/min, 95% CI 3.95 to 9.13; participants = 4245; studies = 6; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life Trials reported improvements in quality of life over a mean of 33 weeks (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.06 units, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.43; participants = 7645 ; moderate-certainty evidence). Incidence of exacerbations Treatment with a PDE4 inhibitor was associated with a reduced likelihood of COPD exacerbation over a mean of 40 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.84; participants = 20,382; studies = 27; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE4 inhibitors, five more remained exacerbation-free during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20, 95% CI 16 to 27). No change in COPD-related symptoms nor in exercise tolerance was found. Adverse events More participants in the treatment groups experienced an adverse effect compared with control participants over a mean of 39 weeks (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.38; participants = 21,310; studies = 30; low-certainty evidence). Participants experienced a range of gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, or dyspepsia. Diarrhoea was more commonly reported with PDE4 inhibitor treatment (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.74 to 3.50; participants = 20,623; studies = 29; high-certainty evidence), that is, for every 100 people treated with PDE4 inhibitors, seven more suffered from diarrhoea during the study period compared with those given placebo (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 15, 95% CI 13 to 17). The likelihood of psychiatric adverse events was higher with roflumilast 500 µg than with placebo (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.54; participants = 11,168; studies = 15 (COPD pool data); moderate-certainty evidence). Roflumilast in particular was associated with weight loss during the trial period and with an increase in insomnia and depressive mood symptoms. Participants treated with PDE4 inhibitors were more likely to withdraw from trial participation; on average, 14% in the treatment groups withdrew compared with 8% in the control groups. Mortality No effect on mortality was found (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 19,786; studies = 27; moderate-certainty evidence), although mortality was a rare event during these trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For this current update, five new studies from the 2020 search contributed to existing findings but made little impact on outcomes described in earlier versions of this review. PDE4 inhibitors offered a small benefit over placebo in improving lung function and reducing the likelihood of exacerbations in people with COPD; however, they had little impact on quality of life or on symptoms. Gastrointestinal adverse effects and weight loss were common, and the likelihood of psychiatric symptoms was higher, with roflumilast 500 µg. The findings of this review provide cautious support for the use of PDE4 inhibitors in COPD. In accordance with GOLD 2020 guidelines, they may have a place as add-on therapy for a subgroup of people with persistent symptoms or exacerbations despite optimal COPD management (e.g. people whose condition is not controlled by fixed-dose long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations). More longer-term trials are needed to determine whether or not PDE4 inhibitors modify FEV1 decline, hospitalisation, or mortality in COPD.

Prevalence and clinical implications of respiratory viruses in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Both stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute exacerbations represent leading causes of death, disability and healthcare expenditure. They are complex, heterogeneous and their mechanisms are poorly understood. The role of respiratory viruses has been studied extensively but is still not adequately addressed clinically. Through a rigorous evidence update, we aim to define the prevalence and clinical burden of the different respiratory viruses in stable COPD and exacerbations, and to investigate whether viral load of usual respiratory viruses could be used for diagnosis of exacerbations triggered by viruses, which are currently not diagnosed or treated aetiologically. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Based on a prospectively registered protocol, we will systematically review the literature using standard methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. We will search Medline/PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), the Cochrane Library, the WHO's Clinical Trials Registry and the proceedings of relevant international conferences on 2 March 2020. We will evaluate: (A) the prevalence of respiratory viruses in stable COPD and exacerbations, (B) differences in the viral loads of respiratory viruses in stable COPD vs exacerbations, to explore whether the viral load of prevalent respiratory viruses could be used as a diagnostic biomarker for exacerbations triggered by viruses and (C) the association between the presence of respiratory viruses and clinical outcomes in stable COPD and in exacerbations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required since no primary data will be collected. Our findings will be presented in national and international scientific conferences and will be published in peer reviewed journals. Respiratory viruses currently represent a lost opportunity to improve the outcomes of both stable COPD and exacerbations. Our work aspires to 'demystify' the prevalence and clinical burden of viruses in stable COPD and exacerbations and to promote clinical and translational research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019147658.

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

BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer recurrent exacerbations with an increase in volume or purulence of sputum, or both. Personal and healthcare costs associated with exacerbations indicate that therapies that reduce the occurrence of exacerbations are likely to be useful. Mucolytics are oral medicines that are believed to increase expectoration of sputum by reducing its viscosity, thus making it easier to cough it up. Improved expectoration of sputum may lead to a reduction in exacerbations of COPD. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective• To determine whether treatment with mucolytics reduces exacerbations and/or days of disability in patients with chronic bronchitis or COPDSecondary objectives• To assess whether mucolytics lead to improvement in lung function or quality of life• To determine frequency of adverse effects associated with use of mucolytics SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles on 12 separate occasions, most recently on 23 April 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised studies that compared oral mucolytic therapy versus placebo for at least two months in adults with chronic bronchitis or COPD. We excluded studies of people with asthma and cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This review analysed summary data only, most derived from published studies. For earlier versions, one review author extracted data, which were rechecked in subsequent updates. In later versions, review authors double-checked extracted data and then entered data into RevMan 5.3 for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We added four studies for the 2019 update. The review now includes 38 trials, recruiting a total of 10,377 participants. Studies lasted between two months and three years and investigated a range of mucolytics, including N-acetylcysteine, carbocysteine, erdosteine, and ambroxol, given at least once daily. Many studies did not clearly describe allocation concealment, and we had concerns about blinding and high levels of attrition in some studies. The primary outcomes were exacerbations and number of days of disability.Results of 28 studies including 6723 participants show that receiving mucolytics may be more likely to be exacerbation-free during the study period compared to those given placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 1.91; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more recent studies show less benefit of treatment than was reported in earlier studies in this review. The overall number needed to treat with mucolytics for an average of nine months to keep an additional participant free from exacerbations was eight (NNTB 8, 95% CI 7 to 10). High heterogeneity was noted for this outcome (I² = 62%), so results need to be interpreted with caution. The type or dose of mucolytic did not seem to alter the effect size, nor did the severity of COPD, including exacerbation history. Longer studies showed smaller effects of mucolytics than were reported in shorter studies.Mucolytic use was associated with a reduction of 0.43 days of disability per participant per month compared with use of placebo (95% CI -0.56 to -0.30; studies = 9; I² = 61%; moderate-certainty evidence). With mucolytics, the number of people with one or more hospitalisations was reduced, but study results were not consistent (Peto OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; participants = 1788; studies = 4; I² = 58%; moderate-certainty evidence). Investigators reported improved quality of life with mucolytics (mean difference (MD) -1.37, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.11; participants = 2721; studies = 7; I² = 64%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the mean difference did not reach the minimal clinically important difference of -4 units, and the confidence interval includes no difference. Mucolytic treatment was associated with a possible reduction in adverse events (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; participants = 7264; studies = 24; I² = 46%; moderate-certainty evidence), but the pooled effect includes no difference if a random-effects model is used. Several studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported high numbers of adverse events, up to a mean of five events per person during follow-up. There was no clear difference between mucolytics and placebo for mortality, but the confidence interval is too wide to confirm that treatment has no effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.87; participants = 3527; studies = 11; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In participants with chronic bronchitis or COPD, we are moderately confident that treatment with mucolytics leads to a small reduction in the likelihood of having an acute exacerbation, in days of disability per month and possibly hospitalisations, but is not associated with an increase in adverse events. There appears to be limited impact on lung function or health-related quality of life. Results are too imprecise to be certain whether or not there is an effect on mortality. Our confidence in the results is reduced by high levels of heterogeneity in many of the outcomes and the fact that effects on exacerbations shown in early trials were larger than those reported by more recent studies. This may be a result of greater risk of selection or publication bias in earlier trials, thus benefits of treatment may not be as great as was suggested by previous evidence.

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

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; including chronic bronchitis and emphysema) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by shortness of breath, cough and recurrent exacerbations. Long-term antibiotic use may reduce both bacterial load and inflammation in the airways. Studies have shown a reduction of exacerbations with antibiotics in comparison to placebo in people with COPD, but there are concerns about antibiotic resistance and safety. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of different classes of antibiotics (continuous, intermittent or pulsed) for prophylaxis of exacerbations in patients with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant studies. The latest literature search was conducted on 6 February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were selected that compared one prophylactic antibiotic with another in patients with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved by involving a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs, both published in 2015 involving a total of 391 participants with treatment duration of 12 to 13 weeks. One RCT compared a quinolone (moxifloxacin pulsed, for 5 days every 4 weeks), with a tetracycline (doxycycline continuous) or a macrolide (azithromycin intermittent).The second RCT compared a tetracycline (doxycycline continuous) plus a macrolide (roxithromycin continuous), with roxithromycin (continuous) alone.The trials recruited participants with a mean age of 68 years, with moderate-severity COPD. Both trials included participants who had between two and five exacerbations in the previous one to two years. In one trial, 17% of patients had previously been using inhaled corticosteroids. In the other study, all patients were positive for Chlamydophila pneumoniae (C pneumoniae).Overall, we judged the evidence presented to be of very low-certainty, mainly due to imprecision, but we also had concerns about indirectness and methodological quality of the included studies. The primary outcome measures for this review included exacerbations, quality of life, drug resistance and serious adverse events.Macrolide + tetracycline versus macrolide There was no clear difference between treatments in improvement in quality of life as assessed by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ). The CRQ scale ranges from 0 to 10 and higher scores on the scale indicate better quality of life. CRQ sub-scales for dyspnoea (mean difference (MD) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 2.00; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence), fatigue (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.12; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence), emotional function (MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.74 to 1.00; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or mastery (MD -0.79, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.28; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at 12 weeks. For serious adverse events, it was uncertain if there was a difference between combined roxithromycin and doxycycline versus roxithromycin alone at 48 weeks follow-up after active treatment of 12 weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.93; 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were five deaths reported in the combined treatment arm, versus three in the single treatment arm at 48 weeks follow-up after active treatment of 12 weeks (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 7.02; 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Quinolone versus tetracycline There was no clear difference between moxifloxacin and doxycycline for the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.38; 50 participants, very low-certainty evidence) at 13 weeks. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported in either treatment groups. We did not identify any evidence for our other primary outcomes.Quinolone versus macrolide There was no clear difference between moxifloxacin and azithromycin for the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at 13 weeks. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported in either treatment groups. We did not identify any evidence for our other primary outcomes.Marcolide versus tetracycline There was no clear difference between azithromycin and doxycycline for the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.38; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at 13 weeks. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported in either treatment groups. We did not identify any evidence for our other primary outcomes.We did not find head-to-head evidence for impact of antibiotics on drug resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear from the evidence included in this review whether there is a difference in efficacy or safety between different classes or regimens of prophylactic antibiotic, given for 12 to 13 weeks to people with COPD. Whilst no head-to-head comparisons of antibiotic resistance were identified, concerns about this continue. The sample size in this review is small and both included studies are of short duration. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty in effects observed and the effects of different prophylactic antibiotics requires further research.