Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction procedures for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: In the recent years, a variety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) procedures have emerged that may provide a treatment option to participants suffering from moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of BLVR on the short- and long-term health outcomes in participants with moderate to severe COPD and determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each individual technique. SEARCH METHODS: Studies were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. All searches are current until 07 December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data, if available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. Where possible, data from more than one study were combined in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software. MAIN RESULTS: AeriSealOne RCT of 95 participants found that AeriSeal compared to control led to a significant median improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (18.9%, interquartile range (IQR) -0.7% to 41.9% versus 1.3%, IQR -8.2% to 12.9%), and higher quality of life, as measured by the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (-12 units, IQR -22 units to -5 units, versus -3 units, IQR -5 units to 1 units), P = 0.043 and P = 0.0072 respectively. Although there was no significant difference in mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.90, 95% CI 0.14 to 62.15), adverse events were more common for participants treated with AeriSeal (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.34 to 10.24). The quality of evidence found in this prematurely terminated study was rated low to moderate. Airway bypass stentsTreatment with airway bypass stents compared to control did not lead to significant between-group changes in FEV1 (0.95%, 95% CI -0.16% to 2.06%) or SGRQ scores (-2.00 units, 95% CI -5.58 units to 1.58 units), as found by one study comprising 315 participants. There was no significant difference in mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.77), nor were there significant differences in adverse events (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.73) between the two groups. The quality of evidence was rated moderate to high. Endobronchial coilsThree studies comprising 461 participants showed that treatment with endobronchial coils compared to control led to a significant between-group mean difference in FEV1 (10.88%, 95% CI 5.20% to 16.55%) and SGRQ (-9.14 units, 95% CI -11.59 units to -6.70 units). There were no significant differences in mortality (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.29), but adverse events were significantly more common for participants treated with coils (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.23). The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. Endobronchial valvesFive studies comprising 703 participants found that endobronchial valves versus control led to significant improvements in FEV1 (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64) and scores on the SGRQ (-7.29 units, 95% CI -11.12 units to -3.45 units). There were no significant differences in mortality between the two groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.43) but adverse events were more common in the endobronchial valve group (OR 5.85, 95% CI 2.16 to 15.84). Participant selection plays an important role as absence of collateral ventilation was associated with superior clinically significant improvements in health outcomes. The quality of evidence ranged from low to high. Intrabronchial valvesIn the comparison of partial bilateral placement of intrabronchial valves to control, one trial favoured control in FEV1 (-2.11% versus 0.04%, P = 0.001) and one trial found no difference between the groups (0.9 L versus 0.87 L, P = 0.065). There were no significant differences in SGRQ scores (MD 2.64 units, 95% CI -0.28 units to 5.56 units) or mortality rates (OR 4.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 28.94), but adverse events were more frequent (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.48 to 7.84) in participants treated with intrabronchial valves. The lack of functional benefits may be explained by the procedural strategy used, as another study (22 participants) compared unilateral versus partial bilateral placement, finding significant improvements in FEV1 and SGRQ when using the unilateral approach. The quality of evidence ranged between moderate to high. Vapour ablationOne study of 69 participants found significant mean between-group differences in FEV1 (14.70%, 95% CI 7.98% to 21.42%) and SGRQ (-9.70 units, 95% CI -15.62 units to -3.78 units), favouring vapour ablation over control. There was no significant between-group difference in mortality (OR 2.82, 95% CI 0.13 to 61.06), but vapour ablation led to significantly more adverse events (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.00 to 14.97). The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results for selected BLVR procedures indicate they can provide significant and clinically meaningful short-term (up to one year) improvements in health outcomes, but this was at the expense of increased adverse events. The currently available evidence is not sufficient to assess the effect of BLVR procedures on mortality. These findings are limited by the lack of long-term follow-up data, limited availability of cost-effectiveness data, significant heterogeneity in results, presence of skew and high CIs, and the open-label character of a number of the studies.

Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people.

BACKGROUND: Mass media interventions can be used as a way of delivering preventive health messages. They have the potential to reach and modify the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of a large proportion of the community. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mass media interventions on preventing smoking in young people, and whether it can reduce smoking uptake among youth (under 25 years), improve smoking attitudes, intentions and knowledge, improve self-efficacy/self-esteem, and improve perceptions about smoking, including the choice to follow positive role models. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, with additional searches of MEDLINE and Embase in June 2016. This is an update of a review first published in 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, controlled trials without randomization and interrupted time-series studies that assessed the effect of mass media campaigns (defined as channels of communication such as television, radio, newspapers, social media, billboards, posters, leaflets or booklets intended to reach large numbers of people and which are not dependent on person-to-person contact) in influencing the smoking behaviour (either objective or self-reported) of young people under the age of 25 years. We define smoking behaviour as the presence or absence of tobacco smoking or other tobacco use, or both, and the frequency of tobacco use. Eligible comparators included education or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted information relating to the characteristics and the content of media interventions, participants, outcomes, methods of the study and risks of bias. We combined studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. We assessed the risks of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, alongside additional domains to account for the nature of the intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight eligible studies reporting information about mass media smoking campaigns, one of which is new for this update. Seven of the studies used a controlled trial design and one an interrupted time-series analysis. Risks of bias were high across all included studies and there was considerable heterogeneity in study design, intervention and population being assessed.Three studies (n = 17,385), one of which compared a mass media intervention to no intervention and two of which evaluated mass media interventions as adjuncts to school-based interventions, found that the mass media interventions reduced the smoking behaviour of young people. The remaining five studies (n = 72,740) did not detect a significant effect on smoking behaviour. These included three studies comparing a mass media intervention to no intervention, one study evaluating a mass media intervention as an adjunct to a school-based intervention, and one interrupted time-series study of a social media intervention. The three campaigns which found a significant effect described their theoretical basis, used formative research in designing the campaign messages, and used message broadcast of reasonable intensity over extensive periods of time. However, some of the campaigns which did not detect an effect also exhibited these characteristics. Effective campaigns tended to last longer (minimum 3 years) and were more intense (more contact time) for both school-based lessons (minimum eight lessons per grade) and media spots (minimum four weeks' duration across multiple media channels with between 167 and 350 TV and radio spots). Implementation of combined school-based components (e.g. school posters) and the use of repetitive media messages delivered by multiple channels (e.g. newspapers, radio, television) appeared to contribute to successful campaigns. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Certainty about the effects of mass media campaigns on smoking behaviour in youth is very low, due to inconsistency between studies in both design and results, and due to methodological issues amongst the included studies. It would therefore be unwise to offer firm conclusions based on the evidence in this review. Methodologically rigorous studies investigating the effect of social media and novel forms of technology as part of tobacco prevention campaigns for youth are needed.

Simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for primary spontaneous pneumothorax in adults.

BACKGROUND: For management of pneumothorax that occurs without underlying lung disease, also referred to as primary spontaneous pneumothorax, simple aspiration is technically easier to perform than intercostal tube drainage. In this systematic review, we seek to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. This review was first published in 2007 and was updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017); and Embase (1980 to January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials (January 2017). We checked the reference lists of included trials and contacted trial authors. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults 18 years of age and older with primary spontaneous pneumothorax that compared simple aspiration versus intercostal tube drainage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We combined studies using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Of 2332 publications obtained through the search strategy, seven studies met the inclusion criteria; one study was ongoing and six studies of 435 participants were eligible for inclusion in the updated review. Data show a significant difference in immediate success rates of procedures favouring tube drainage over simple aspiration for management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 435 participants, 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Duration of hospitalization however was significantly less for patients treated by simple aspiration (mean difference (MD) -1.66, 95% CI -2.28 to -1.04; 387 participants, 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). A narrative synthesis of evidence revealed that simple aspiration led to fewer adverse events (245 participants, 3 studies; low-quality evidence), but data suggest no differences between groups in terms of one-year success rate (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 318 participants, 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence), hospitalization rate (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.47; 245 participants, 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and patient satisfaction (median between-group difference of 0.5 on a scale from 1 to 10; 48 participants, 1 study; low-quality evidence). No studies provided data on cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available trials showed low to moderate-quality evidence that intercostal tube drainage produced higher rates of immediate success, while simple aspiration resulted in a shorter duration of hospitalization. Although adverse events were reported more commonly for patients treated with tube drainage, the low quality of the evidence warrants caution in interpreting these findings. Similarly, although this review observed no differences between groups when early failure rate, one-year success rate, or hospital admission rate was evaluated, this too needs to be put into the perspective of the quality of evidence, specifically, for evidence of very low and low quality for hospitalization rate and patient satisfaction, respectively. Future adequately powered research is needed to strengthen the evidence presented in this review.

Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema.

BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) performed to treat patients with severe diffuse emphysema was reintroduced in the nineties. Lung volume reduction surgery aims to resect damaged emphysematous lung tissue, thereby increasing elastic properties of the lung. This treatment is hypothesised to improve long-term daily functioning and quality of life, although it may be costly and may be associated with risks of morbidity and mortality. Ten years have passed since the last version of this review was prepared, prompting us to perform an update. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to gather all available evidence from randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) versus non-surgical standard therapy in improving health outcomes for patients with severe diffuse emphysema. Secondary objectives included determining which subgroup of patients benefit from LVRS and for which patients LVRS is contraindicated, to establish the postoperative complications of LVRS and its morbidity and mortality, to determine which surgical approaches for LVRS are most effective and to calculate the cost-effectiveness of LVRS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified RCTs by using the Cochrane Airways Group Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) register, in addition to the online clinical trials registers. Searches are current to April 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that studied the safety and efficacy of LVRS in participants with diffuse emphysema. We excluded studies that investigated giant or bullous emphysema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. When possible, we combined data from more than one study in a meta-analysis using RevMan 5 software. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two new studies (89 participants) in this updated review. A total of 11 studies (1760 participants) met the entry criteria of the review, one of which accounted for 68% of recruited participants. The quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate owing to an unclear risk of bias across many studies, lack of blinding and low participant numbers for some outcomes. Eight of the studies compared LVRS versus standard medical care, one compared two closure techniques (stapling vs laser ablation), one looked at the effect of buttressing the staple line on the effectiveness of LVRS and one compared traditional 'resectional' LVRS with a non-resectional surgical approach. Participants completed a mandatory course of pulmonary rehabilitation/physical training before the procedure commenced. Short-term mortality was higher for LVRS (odds ratio (OR) 6.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.22 to 11.79; 1489 participants; five studies; moderate-quality evidence) than for control, but long-term mortality favoured LVRS (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; 1280 participants; two studies; moderate-quality evidence). Participants identified post hoc as being at high risk of death from surgery were those with particularly impaired lung function, poor diffusing capacity and/or homogenous emphysema. Participants with upper lobe-predominant emphysema and low baseline exercise capacity showed the most favourable outcomes related to mortality, as investigators reported no significant differences in early mortality between participants treated with LVRS and those in the control group (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.29; 290 participants; one study), as well as significantly lower mortality at the end of follow-up for LVRS compared with control (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78; 290 participants; one study). Trials in this review furthermore provided evidence of low to moderate quality showing that improvements in lung function parameters other than forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), quality of life and exercise capacity were more likely with LVRS than with usual follow-up. Adverse events were more common with LVRS than with control, specifically the occurrence of (persistent) air leaks, pulmonary morbidity (e.g. pneumonia) and cardiovascular morbidity. Although LVRS leads to an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the procedure is relatively costly overall. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lung volume reduction surgery, an effective treatment for selected patients with severe emphysema, may lead to better health status and lung function outcomes, specifically for patients who have upper lobe-predominant emphysema with low exercise capacity, but the procedure is associated with risks of early mortality and adverse events.

A systematic review of technology-assisted interventions for co-morbid depression and substance use.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health interventions disseminated via, or accessed using, digital technologies are an innovative new treatment modality for managing co-morbid depression and substance use disorder. The present systematic review assessed the current state of this literature. METHODS: A search of the Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, PsycInfo and Scopus databases identified six eligible studies ( Nparticipants = 862), utilising quasi-experimental or randomised controlled designs. Reporting quality was evaluated and Hedges' g effect sizes (with 95% confidence intervals and p-values) were calculated to determine treatment effectiveness. Process outcomes (e.g. treatment satisfaction, attrition rates) were also examined. RESULTS: Quality ratings demonstrated high internal validity, although external validity was low. Effect size data revealed medium to large and short-term improvements in severity of depression and substance use symptoms in addition to global improvement in social, occupational and psychological functioning. Longer-term treatment effectiveness could not be established, due to the limited available data. Preliminary findings suggest that there was high client satisfaction, therapeutic alliance and client engagement. DISCUSSION: Mobile phone devices and the Internet can help to increase access to care for those with mental health co-morbidity. Large-scale and longitudinal research is, however, needed before digital mental healthcare becomes standard practice. This includes establishing critical therapeutic factors including optimum levels of assistance from clinicians.