Indwelling Pleural Catheter versus Pleurodesis for Malignant Pleural Effusions. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

RATIONALE: Several randomized trials have compared the efficacy of an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) versus the more traditional chemical pleurodesis in the management of malignant pleural effusion (MPE). OBJECTIVES: As part of the American Thoracic Society's guidelines for management of MPE, we performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to compare patient-centered outcomes with the use of a tunneled pleural catheter versus chemical pleurodesis for the first-line treatment of malignant pleural effusions. METHODS: We performed literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials comparing IPC and pleurodesis in adult patients with symptomatic MPE. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Methods Bias Group. The meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager software, using a random effects model. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as the effect measure for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: We identified five randomized trials, involving 545 patients, that compared IPC and pleurodesis. Lack of blinding and the inevitable attrition of patients due to death resulted in an overall high risk of bias among the studies. No differences in survival or measures of dyspnea were observed in any of the studies. Total hospital length of stay was shorter, and repeat pleural interventions were less common in the IPC group (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.55). However, the risk of cellulitis was higher with IPC (RR, 5.83; 95% CI, 1.56-21.8). No differences were noted in other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with chemical pleurodesis, IPC results in shorter hospital length of stay and fewer repeat pleural procedures but carries a higher risk of cellulitis. Careful assessment of individual patient preferences and costs should be considered when choosing between IPC and pleurodesis.

Management of Malignant Pleural Effusions. An Official ATS/STS/STR Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: This Guideline, a collaborative effort from the American Thoracic Society, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society of Thoracic Radiology, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations to guide contemporary management of patients with a malignant pleural effusion (MPE). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel developed seven questions using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes) format. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework was applied to each question. Recommendations were formulated, discussed, and approved by the entire panel. RESULTS: The panel made weak recommendations in favor of: 1) using ultrasound to guide pleural interventions; 2) not performing pleural interventions in asymptomatic patients with MPE; 3) using either an indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) or chemical pleurodesis in symptomatic patients with MPE and suspected expandable lung; 4) performing large-volume thoracentesis to assess symptomatic response and lung expansion; 5) using either talc poudrage or talc slurry for chemical pleurodesis; 6) using IPC instead of chemical pleurodesis in patients with nonexpandable lung or failed pleurodesis; and 7) treating IPC-associated infections with antibiotics and not removing the catheter. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide management of patients with MPE and improve patient outcomes.

Making the GRADE: CHEST Updates Its Methodology.

The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) has been at the forefront of evidence-based clinical practice guideline development for more than 2 decades. In 2006, CHEST adopted a modified system of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to support their rigorous guideline development methodology. The evolution of CHEST's Living Guidelines Model, as well as their collaborative efforts with other organizations, has necessitated improvements in their guideline development methodology. CHEST has made the decision to transition to the standard GRADE method for rating the certainty of evidence and grading recommendations in their evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, a deviation from the modified approach that was adopted in 2006. The standard GRADE approach will be used to grade recommendations in all CHEST guidelines, including updates to previously published guidelines. CHEST's adoption of a standard GRADE approach will ensure that its guideline development methodology is more consistent with that used by other organizations, will better align evidence synthesis methods, and will result in more explicit and easy to understand recommendations.

Evaluation of Occupational and Environmental Factors in the Assessment of Chronic Cough in Adults: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Several recent cough guidelines have advised consideration of occupational or environmental causes for chronic cough, but it is unclear how frequently this recommendation has been routinely applied. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review to address this aspect. METHODS: Cough guidelines and protocols were reviewed to identify recommendations for assessment of occupational and environmental aspects of chronic cough. The systematic search previously used to identify intervention fidelity to the use of protocols for diagnosis and management of chronic cough in adults was used for this review after extension to June 2015. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched using the same search terms and inclusion criteria as previously. Papers that met our criteria were then reviewed to identify methods used to assess occupational and environmental aspects of chronic cough and the outcomes of these assessments. RESULTS: Among the 10 general chronic cough guidelines and protocols identified, only the three published since 2006 included details advising detailed occupational and environmental assessments. One additional cough statement focused entirely on occupational cough. Of the 28 cohort studies of patients with chronic cough that specifically noted that they followed guidelines or protocols, none provided details of occupational and environmental assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Despite published recommendations, it is not apparent that occupational and environmental causes for chronic cough are addressed in detail during assessments of patients with chronic cough. This leaves open to speculation whether lack of recognition of an occupational cause may delay important preventive measures, put additional workers at risk, and/or be the reason why a chronic cough may remain unexplained.

Somatic Cough Syndrome (Previously Referred to as Psychogenic Cough) and Tic Cough (Previously Referred to as Habit Cough) in Adults and Children: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review on the management of psychogenic cough, habit cough, and tic cough to update the recommendations and suggestions of the 2006 guideline on this topic. METHODS: We followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on data from the systematic review, patients' values and preferences, and the clinical context. Final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review revealed only low-quality evidence to support how to define or diagnose psychogenic or habit cough with no validated diagnostic criteria. With respect to treatment, low-quality evidence allowed the committee to only suggest therapy for children believed to have psychogenic cough. Such therapy might consist of nonpharmacologic trials of hypnosis or suggestion therapy, or combinations of reassurance, counseling, and referral to a psychologist, psychotherapy, and appropriate psychotropic medications. Based on multiple resources and contemporary psychologic, psychiatric, and neurologic criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and tic disorder guidelines), the committee suggests that the terms psychogenic and habit cough are out of date and inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the major change in suggestions is that the terms psychogenic and habit cough be abandoned in favor of somatic cough syndrome and tic cough, respectively, even though the evidence to do so at this time is of low quality.

Assessment of Intervention Fidelity and Recommendations for Researchers Conducting Studies on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Cough in the Adult: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Successful management of chronic cough has varied in the primary research studies in the reported literature. One of the potential reasons relates to a lack of intervention fidelity to the core elements of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic interventions that were meant to be used by the investigators. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence supporting intervention fidelity as an important methodologic consideration in assessing the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines used for the diagnosis and management of chronic cough. We developed and used a tool to assess for five areas of intervention fidelity. Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1998 to May 2014. Guideline recommendations and suggestions for those conducting research using guidelines or protocols to diagnose and manage chronic cough in the adult were developed and voted upon using CHEST Organization methodology. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies (17 uncontrolled prospective observational, two randomized controlled, and four retrospective observational) met our inclusion criteria. These articles included 3,636 patients. Data could not be pooled for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. Findings related to the five areas of intervention fidelity included three areas primarily related to the provider and two primarily related to the patients. In the area of study design, 11 of 23 studies appeared to be underpinned by a single guideline/protocol; for training of providers, two of 23 studies reported training, and zero of 23 reported the use of an intervention manual; and for the area of delivery of treatment, when assessing the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, three of 23 studies appeared consistent with the most recent guideline/protocol referenced by the authors. For receipt of treatment, zero of 23 studies mentioned measuring concordance of patient-interventionist understanding of the treatment recommended, and zero of 23 mentioned measuring enactment of treatment, with three of 23 measuring side effects and two of 23 measuring adherence. The overall average intervention fidelity score for all 23 studies was poor (20.74 out of 48). CONCLUSIONS: Only low-quality evidence supports that intervention fidelity strategies were used when conducting primary research in diagnosing and managing chronic cough in adults. This supports the contention that some of the variability in the reporting of patients with unexplained or unresolved chronic cough may be due to lack of intervention fidelity. By following the recommendations and suggestions in this article, researchers will likely be better able to incorporate strategies to address intervention fidelity, thereby strengthening the validity and generalizability of their results that provide the basis for the development of trustworthy guidelines.

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations. METHODS: In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion. RESULTS: The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Tools for assessing outcomes in studies of chronic cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings. METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel. RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Methodologies for the development of the management of cough: CHEST guideline and expert panel report.

BACKGROUND: This series of guidance documents on cough, which will be published over time, is a hybrid of two processes: (1) evidence-based guidelines and (2) trustworthy consensus statements based on a robust and transparent process. METHODS: The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee selected a nonconflicted Panel Chair and jointly assembled an international panel of experts in each clinical area with few, if any, conflicts of interest. PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)-based key questions and parameters of eligibility were developed for each clinical topic to inform the comprehensive literature search. Existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies were assessed for relevance and quality. Data elements were extracted into evidence tables and synthesized to provide summary statistics. These, in turn, are presented to support the evidence-based graded recommendations. A highly structured consensus-based Delphi approach was used to provide expert advice on all guidance statements. Transparency of process was documented. RESULTS: Evidence-based guideline recommendations and consensus-based suggestions were carefully crafted to provide direction to health-care providers and investigators who treat and/or study patients with cough. Manuscripts and tables summarize the evidence in each clinical area supporting the recommendations and suggestions. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting guidance statements are based on a rigorous methodology and transparency of process. Unless otherwise stated, the recommendations and suggestions meet the guidelines for trustworthiness developed by the Institute of Medicine and can be applied with confidence by physicians, nurses, other health-care providers, investigators, and patients.

Overview of the management of cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

This overview will demonstrate that cough is a common and potentially expensive health-care problem. Improvement in the quality of care of those with cough has been the focus of study for a variety of disciplines in medicine. The purpose of the Cough Guideline and Expert Panel is to synthesize current knowledge in a form that will aid clinical decision-making for the diagnosis and management of cough across disciplines and also identify gaps in knowledge and treatment options.

Clinical validation of the AHRQ postoperative venous thromboembolism patient safety indicator.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) patient safety indicators (PSIs) screen for potentially preventable complications in hospitalized patients using hospital administrative data. The PSI for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) relies on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) in secondary diagnoses fields. In a clinical validation study of the PSI for postoperative VTE, natural language processing (NLP), supplemented by pharmacy and billing data, was used to identify VTE events missed by medical records coders. METHODS: In a retrospective review of postsurgical discharges, charts were processed using the AHRQ PSI software. Cases were identified as possible false negatives by flagging charts for possible VTEs using pharmacy and billing data to identify all patients who were therapeutically anticoagulated or had placement of an inferior vena caval filter. All charts were reviewed by a physician blinded to screening results. Physician interpretation was considered the gold standard for VTE classification. RESULTS: The AHRQ PSI had a positive predictive value (PPV) of .545 (95% confidence interval [CI], .453-.634) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of .997 (95% CI, .995-.999). Sensitivity was .87 and specificity was .98. Secondary coding review suggested that all 9 false-negative results were miscoded; if they had been properly coded, the sensitivity would increase to 1.00. Most false-positive cases resulted from superficial venous clots identified by the PSI due to coding ambiguity. DISCUSSION: The VTE PSI performed well as a screening tool but generated a significant number of false-positive cases, a problem that could be substantially reduced with improved coding methods.