Using fractional exhaled nitric oxide to guide step-down treatment decisions in patients with asthma: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F ENO) levels are associated with greater risk of asthma exacerbation. However, it is not clear how F ENO can be used to guide safe reductions in inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) doses in asthma patients. This study assesses the ability of F ENO to guide ICS reductions. METHODS: Systematic searching of electronic databases identified prospective observational studies and randomised controlled trials which recruited participants with mild-to-moderate asthma aged ≥12 years and measured F ENO before reducing ICS. We performed multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression in relation to acute exacerbations and estimated each participant's exacerbation risk using our logistic regression model. RESULTS: We included data from seven out of eight eligible studies, representing 384 participants. ICS doses were halved in four studies and withdrawn in three studies. A baseline F ENO measurement of ≥50 ppb was associated with increased risk of exacerbations (crude OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.41-7.00, p=0.005; adjusted OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.36-6.98, p=0.007) and corresponded to an estimated exacerbation risk cut-off of 15%. Reducing ICS when estimated exacerbation risk was <15% versus <10% would result in fewer patients remaining on the same ICS dose (40 (10.4%) out of 384 versus 141 (36.7%) out of 384), but similar proportions of patients avoiding exacerbations (222 (91.4%) out of 243, 95% CI 87.1-94.6% versus 311 (90.4%) out of 344, 95% CI 86.8-93.3%). CONCLUSION: In patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, gradual ICS reduction when F ENO is <50 ppb may help decrease ICS use without increasing exacerbations. Future research should aim to validate these findings in larger populations.

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay. AIM: To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively. RESULTS: The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high. CONCLUSION: GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.