Publications by authors named "Kristin V Carson-Chahhoud"

15 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

The modifiable biopsychosocial drivers of psychological distress for adolescents with asthma: Implications for Clinical Care.

Paediatr Respir Rev 2021 Aug 10. Epub 2021 Aug 10.

Thompson Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast, Birtinya, Queensland, Australia.

Purpose: Overwhelming distress exceeds the capacity of healthy coping strategies to feel better using healthy coping strategies alone, resulting in the use of unhealthy coping strategies. Unhealthy coping strategies may exacerbate asthma symptoms and asthma can contribute to overwhelming distress. This study aimed to review the modifiable drivers of overwhelming distress in adolescents with asthma.

Methods: The biopsychosocial drivers of psychological distress for adolescents with asthma were explored within the domains of the modifiable biopsychosocial model of health and wellbeing.

Results: Asthma in adolescents is associated with problems in the domains of environment, developmental outcomes, sense of belonging, health behaviours, coping, and treatment of illness.

Conclusions: The relationship between asthma and psychological distress highlights the need for holistic treatment of asthma. Further research is needed to establish causation between variables and to investigate whether interventions that address either asthma symptoms or biopsychosocial drivers of distress can improve both factors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2021.07.005DOI Listing
August 2021

Time to rethink tobacco dependence treatment in Australia.

Aust N Z J Public Health 2021 Sep 16. Epub 2021 Sep 16.

School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, New South Wales.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13151DOI Listing
September 2021

Identifying critical features of type two diabetes prevention interventions: A Delphi study with key stakeholders.

PLoS One 2021 5;16(8):e0255625. Epub 2021 Aug 5.

Precision Health Future Science Platform, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Adelaide, South Australia.

Aims: This study aims to identify critically important features of digital type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM) prevention interventions.

Methods: A stakeholder mapping exercise was undertaken to identify key end-user and professional stakeholders, followed by a three-round Delphi procedure to generate and evaluate evidence statements related to the critical elements of digital T2DM prevention interventions in terms of product (intervention), price (funding models/financial cost), place (distribution/delivery channels), and promotion (target audiences).

Results: End-user (n = 38) and professional (n = 38) stakeholders including patients, dietitians, credentialed diabetes educators, nurses, medical doctors, research scientists, and exercise physiologists participated in the Delphi study. Fifty-two critical intervention characteristics were identified. Future interventions should address diet, physical activity, mental health (e.g. stress, diabetes-related distress), and functional health literacy, while advancing behaviour change support. Programs should be delivered digitally or used multiple delivery modes, target a range of population subgroups including children, and be based on collaborative efforts between national and local and government and non-government funded organisations.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight strong support for digital health to address T2DM in Australia and identify future directions for T2DM prevention interventions. The study also demonstrates the feasibility and value of stakeholder-led intervention development processes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255625PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8341510PMC
August 2021

Pharmacological and surgical interventions for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux in adults and children with asthma.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021 05 17;5:CD001496. Epub 2021 May 17.

School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Background: Asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) are common medical conditions that frequently co-exist. GORD has been postulated as a trigger for asthma; however, evidence remains conflicting. Proposed mechanisms by which GORD causes asthma include direct airway irritation from micro-aspiration and vagally mediated oesophagobronchial reflux. Furthermore, asthma might precipitate GORD. Thus a temporal association between the two does not establish that GORD triggers asthma.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of GORD treatment in adults and children with asthma, in terms of its benefits for asthma.

Search Methods: The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles, and online clinical trial databases were searched. The most recent search was conducted on 23 June 2020.

Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing treatment of GORD in adults and children with a diagnosis of both asthma and GORD versus no treatment or placebo.

Data Collection And Analysis: A combination of two independent review authors extracted study data and assessed trial quality. The primary outcome of interest for this review was acute asthma exacerbation as reported by trialists.

Main Results: The systematic search yielded a total of 3354 citations; 23 studies (n = 2872 participants) were suitable for inclusion. Included studies reported data from participants in 25 different countries across Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East. Participants included in this review had moderate to severe asthma and a diagnosis of GORD and were predominantly adults presenting to a clinic for treatment. Only two studies assessed effects of intervention on children, and two assessed the impact of surgical intervention. The remainder were concerned with medical intervention using a variety of dosing protocols. There was an uncertain reduction in the number of participants experiencing one or more moderate/severe asthma exacerbations with medical treatment for GORD (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.63; 1168 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported data related to the other primary outcomes for this review: hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and unscheduled doctor visits. Medical treatment for GORD probably improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) by a small amount (mean difference (MD) 0.10 L, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15; 1333 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) as well as use of rescue medications (MD -0.71 puffs per day, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.22; 239 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the benefit of GORD treatment for morning peak expiratory flow rate was uncertain (MD 6.02 L/min, 95% CI 0.56 to 11.47; 1262 participants, 5 studies). It is important to note that these mean improvements did not reach clinical importance. The benefit of GORD treatment for outcomes synthesised narratively including benefits of treatment for asthma symptoms, quality of life, and treatment preference was likewise uncertain. Data related to adverse events with intervention were generally underreported by the included studies, and those that were available indicated similar rates regardless of allocation to treatment or placebo.

Authors' Conclusions: Effects of GORD treatment on the primary outcomes of number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations and hospital utilisation remain uncertain. Medical treatment for GORD in people with asthma may provide small benefit for a number of secondary outcomes related to asthma management. This review determined with moderate certainty that with treatment, lung function measures improved slightly, and use of rescue medications for asthma control was reduced. Further, evidence is insufficient to assess results in children, or to compare surgery versus medical therapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001496.pub2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127576PMC
May 2021

Electronic cigarettes: A position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand.

Respirology 2020 10 26;25(10):1082-1089. Epub 2020 Jul 26.

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

The TSANZ develops position statements where insufficient data exist to write formal clinical guidelines. In 2018, the TSANZ addressed the question of potential benefits and health impacts of electronic cigarettes (EC). The working party included groups focused on health impacts, smoking cessation, youth issues and priority populations. The 2018 report on the Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes from the United States NASEM was accepted as reflective of evidence to mid-2017. A search for papers subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals was conducted in August 2018. A small number of robust and important papers published until March 2019 were also identified and included. Groups identified studies that extended, modified or contradicted the NASEM report. A total of 3793 papers were identified and reviewed, with summaries and draft position statements developed and presented to TSANZ membership in April 2019. After feedback from members and external reviewers, a collection of position statements was finalized in December 2019. EC have adverse lung effects and harmful effects of long-term use are unknown. EC are unsuitable consumer products for recreational use, part-substitution for smoking or long-term exclusive use by former smokers. Smokers who require support to quit smoking should be directed towards approved medication in conjunction with behavioural support as having the strongest evidence for efficacy and safety. No specific EC product can be recommended as effective and safe for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation claims in relation to EC should be assessed by established regulators.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/resp.13904DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7540297PMC
October 2020

Two-year efficacy of varenicline tartrate and counselling for inpatient smoking cessation (STOP study): A randomized controlled clinical trial.

PLoS One 2020 29;15(4):e0231095. Epub 2020 Apr 29.

School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Introduction: Varenicline tartrate is superior for smoking cessation to other tobacco cessation therapies by 52 weeks, in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (104 week) efficacy following a standard course of inpatient-initiated varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling compared to Quitline-counselling alone.

Methods: Adult patients (n = 392, 20-75 years) admitted with a smoking-related illnesses to one of three hospitals, were randomised to receive either 12-weeks of varenicline tartrate (titrated from 0.5mg daily to 1mg twice-daily) plus Quitline-counselling, (n = 196) or Quitline-counselling alone, (n = 196), with continuous abstinence from smoking assessed at 104 weeks.

Results: A total of 1959 potential participants were screened for eligibility between August 2008 and December 2011. The proportion of participants who remained continuously abstinent (intention-to-treat) at 104 weeks were significantly greater in the varenicline tartrate plus counselling arm (29.2% n = 56) compared to counselling alone (18.8% n = 36; p = 0.02; odds ratio 1.78; 95%CI 1.10 to 2.86, p = 0.02). Twenty-two deaths occurred during the 104 week study (n = 10 for varenicline tartrate plus counselling and n = 12 for Quitline-counselling alone). All of these participants had known or developed underlying co-morbidities.

Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the efficacy and safety of varenicline tartrate over 104 weeks within any setting. Varenicline tartrate plus Quitline-counselling was found to be an effective opportunistic treatment when initiated for inpatient smokers who had been admitted with tobacco-related disease.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231095PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7190140PMC
July 2020

Oxygen therapy in the pre-hospital setting for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 01 14;1:CD005534. Epub 2020 Jan 14.

University of Tasmania, School of Medicine, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global leading cause of morbidity and mortality, characterised by acute deterioration in symptoms. During these exacerbations, people are prone to developing alveolar hypoventilation, which may be partly caused by the administration of high inspired oxygen concentrations.

Objectives: To determine the effect of different inspired oxygen concentrations ("high flow" compared to "controlled") in the pre-hospital setting (prior to casualty/emergency department) on outcomes for people with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD).

Search Methods: The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, reference lists of articles and online clinical trial databases were searched. Authors of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were also contacted for details of other relevant published and unpublished studies. The most recent search was conducted on 16 September 2019.

Selection Criteria: We included RCTs comparing oxygen therapy at different concentrations or oxygen therapy versus placebo in the pre-hospital setting for treatment of AECOPD.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was all-cause and respiratory-related mortality.

Main Results: The search identified a total of 824 citations; one study was identified for inclusion and two studies are awaiting classification. The 214 participants involved in the included study were adults with AECOPD, receiving treatment by paramedics en route to hospital. The mean age of participants was 68 years. A reduction in pre/in-hospital mortality was observed in favour of the titrated oxygen group (two deaths in the titrated oxygen group compared to 11 deaths in the high-flow control arm; risk ratio (RR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.97; 214 participants). This translates to an absolute effect of 94 per 1000 (high-flow oxygen) compared to 21 per 1000 (titrated oxygen), and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 14 (95% CI 12 to 355) with titrated oxygen therapy. Other than mortality, no other adverse events were reported in the included study. Wide confidence intervals were observed between groups for arterial blood gas (though this may be confounded by protocol infidelity in the included study for this outcome measure), treatment failure requiring invasive or non-invasive ventilation or hospital utilisation. No data were reported for quality of life, lung function or dyspnoea. Risk of bias within the included study was largely unclear, though there was high risk of bias in domains relating to performance and attrition bias. We judged the evidence to be of low certainty, according to GRADE criteria.

Authors' Conclusions: The one included study found a reduction in pre/in-hospital mortality for the titrated oxygen arm compared to the high-flow control arm. However, the paucity of evidence somewhat limits the reliability of these findings and generalisability to other settings. There is a need for robust, well-designed RCTs to further investigate the effect of oxygen therapies in the pre-hospital setting for people with AECOPD.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005534.pub3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6984654PMC
January 2020

Community pharmacy personnel interventions for smoking cessation.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019 10 31;2019(10). Epub 2019 Oct 31.

University of Aberdeen, Division of Applied Health Sciences, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK, AB25 2ZD.

Background: Community pharmacists could provide effective smoking cessation treatment because they offer easy access to members of the community. They are well placed to provide both advice on the correct use of smoking cessation products and behavioural support to aid smoking cessation.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to assist people to stop smoking, with or without concurrent use of pharmacotherapy.

Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP, for smoking cessation studies conducted in a community pharmacy setting, using the search terms pharmacist* or pharmacy or pharmacies. Date of the most recent search: January 2019.

Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel to promote smoking cessation amongst their clients who were smokers, compared with usual pharmacy support or any less intensive programme. The main outcome measure was smoking cessation rates at six months or more after the start of the intervention.

Data Collection And Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study screening, data extraction and management. We conducted a meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to generate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Main Results: We identified seven studies including 1774 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias and four to be at unclear risk. Each study provided face-to-face behavioural support delivered by pharmacy staff, and required pharmacy personnel training. Typically such programmes comprised support starting before quit day and continuing with weekly appointments for several weeks afterwards. Comparators were either minimal or less intensive behavioural support for smoking cessation, typically comprising a few minutes of one-off advice on how to quit. Participants in both intervention and control arms received equivalent smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in all but one study. All studies took place in high-income countries, and recruited participants visiting pharmacies. We pooled six studies of 1614 participants and detected a benefit of more intensive behavioural smoking cessation interventions delivered by community pharmacy personnel compared with less intensive cessation interventions at longest follow-up (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.97; I = 54%; low-certainty evidence).

Authors' Conclusions: Community pharmacists can provide effective behavioural support to people trying to stop smoking. However, this conclusion is based on low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Further research could change this conclusion.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003698.pub3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822095PMC
October 2019

Psychological therapies for the treatment of depression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019 03 6;3:CD012347. Epub 2019 Mar 6.

Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5005.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been recognised as a global health concern, and one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Projections of the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that prevalence rates of COPD continue to increase, and by 2030, it will become the world's third leading cause of death. Depression is a major comorbidity amongst patients with COPD, with an estimate prevalence of up to 80% in severe stages of COPD. Prevalence studies show that patients who have COPD are four times as likely to develop depression compared to those without COPD. Regrettably, they rarely receive appropriate treatment for COPD-related depression. Available findings from trials indicate that untreated depression is associated with worse compliance with medical treatment, poor quality of life, increased mortality rates, increased hospital admissions and readmissions, prolonged length of hospital stay, and subsequently, increased costs to the healthcare system. Given the burden and high prevalence of untreated depression, it is important to evaluate and update existing experimental evidence using rigorous methodology, and to identify effective psychological therapies for patients with COPD-related depression.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies for the treatment of depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 11), and Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO from June 2016 to 26 November 2018. Previously these databases were searched via the Cochrane Airways and Common Mental Disorders Groups' Specialised Trials Registers (all years to June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 26 November 2018 to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. Additionally, the grey literature databases and the reference lists of studies initially identified for full-text screening were also searched.

Selection Criteria: Eligible for inclusion were randomised controlled trials that compared the use of psychological therapies with either no intervention, education, or combined with a co-intervention and compared with the same co-intervention in a population of patients with COPD whose depressive symptoms were measured before or at baseline assessment.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts identified by the search to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We assessed two primary outcomes: depressive symptoms and adverse events; and the following secondary outcomes: quality of life, dyspnoea, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), exercise tolerance, hospital length of stay or readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. Potentially eligible full-text articles were also independently assessed by two review authors. A PRISMA flow diagram was prepared to demonstrate the decision process in detail. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' evaluation tool to examine the risk of bias, and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. All outcomes were continuous, therefore, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We used a random-effects model to calculate treatment effects.

Main Results: The findings are based on 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 1500 participants. In some of the included studies, the investigators did not recruit participants with clinically confirmed depression but applied screening criteria after randomisation. Hence, across the studies, baseline scores for depressive symptoms varied from no symptoms to severe depression. The severity of COPD across the studies was moderate to severe.Primary outcomesThere was a small effect showing the effectiveness of psychological therapies in improving depressive symptoms when compared to no intervention (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.33; P = 0.009; 6 studies, 764 participants), or to education (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.41; P = 0.010; 3 studies, 507 participants).Two studies compared psychological therapies plus a co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone (i.e. pulmonary rehabilitation (PR)). The results suggest that a psychological therapy combined with a PR programme can reduce depressive symptoms more than a PR programme alone (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.74; P = 0.05; 2 studies, 112 participants).We rated the quality of evidence as very low. Owing to the nature of psychological therapies, blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessment was a concern.None of the included studies measured adverse events.Secondary outcomesQuality of life was measured in four studies in the comparison with no intervention, and in three studies in the comparison with education. We found inconclusive results for improving quality of life. However, when we pooled data from two studies using the same measure, the result suggested that psychological therapy improved quality of life better than no intervention. One study measured hospital admission rates and cost-effectiveness and showed significant reductions in the intervention group compared to the education group. We rated the quality of evidence as very low for the secondary outcomes.

Authors' Conclusions: The findings from this review indicate that psychological therapies (using a CBT-based approach) may be effective for treating COPD-related depression, but the evidence is limited. Depressive symptoms improved more in the intervention groups compared to: 1) no intervention (attention placebo or standard care), 2) educational interventions, and 3) a co-intervention (pulmonary rehabilitation). However, the effect sizes were small and quality of the evidence very low due to clinical heterogeneity and risk of bias. This means that more experimental studies with larger numbers of participants are needed, to confirm the potential beneficial effects of therapies with a CBT approach for COPD-related depression.New trials should also address the gap in knowledge related to limited data on adverse effects, and the secondary outcomes of quality of life, dyspnoea, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), exercise tolerance, hospital length of stay and frequency of readmissions, and cost-effectiveness. Also, new research studies need to adhere to robust methodology to produce higher quality evidence.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012347.pub2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6400788PMC
March 2019

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 12 19;12:CD012346. Epub 2018 Dec 19.

Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5005.

Background: Studies report that up to 80% of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may struggle with symptoms of depression. However, this major comorbidity in COPD is rarely managed effectively. A number of recent studies indicate that left untreated, COPD-related depression is associated with worse quality of life, worse compliance with COPD treatment plan, increased exacerbations, hospital admissions, and healthcare costs when compared to individuals with COPD without depression. Regrettably, COPD practice guidelines do not provide conclusive treatment recommendations for the use of antidepressants in patients with COPD, and base their guidelines on findings from trials in the general population. This may be problematic, as there is an elevated risk of respiratory issues associated with antidepressant treatment and COPD. Evaluating effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions specifically for patients with COPD and depression was therefore paramount.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of depression in patients with COPD.

Search Methods: The last search was performed on 26 November 2018. We initially searched the following databases via the Specialised Trials Registers of the Cochrane Airways and Common Mental Disorders Groups (to June 2016): MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Library trials register (CENTRAL). Searches from June 2016 to November 2018 were performed directly on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 26 November 2018. We searched the grey literature databases to identify studies not indexed in major databases and the reference lists of studies initially identified for full-text screening.

Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of pharmacological interventions with no intervention, placebo or co-intervention in adults with diagnosed COPD and depression were eligible for inclusion.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed articles identified by the search for eligibility. Our primary outcomes were change in depressive symptoms and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were: change in quality of life, change in dyspnoea, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation (length of stay and readmission rates), and cost-effectiveness. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the pooled mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as appropriate. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.

Main Results: Of the 1125 records screened for eligibility, four RCTs (N = 201 participants), and one on-going study, met the inclusion criteria. Two classes of antidepressants were investigated in two separate comparisons with placebo: a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).TCA versus placeboOnly one RCT (N = 30 participants) provided results for this comparison.Primary outcomesThe TCA (nortriptyline) reduced depressive symptoms post-treatment compared to placebo (MD -10.20, 95% CI -16.75 to -3.65; P = 0.007; very low-quality evidence), as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Three participants withdrew from the trial due to adverse events related to the tested antidepressant (dry mouth, sedation, orthostatic hypotension).Secondary outcomesThe overall results post-treatment indicated that nortriptyline was not effective in improving the quality of life of individuals with COPD, as measured by the Sickness Impact Profile (MD -2.80, 95% CI -11.02 to 5.42; P = 0.50; very low-quality evidence).The results for the change in dyspnoea for the domains examined (e.g. dyspnoea scores for 'most day-to-day activities') post-treatment showed no improvement in the intervention group (MD 9.80, 95% CI -6.20 to 25.80; P = 0.23; very low-quality evidence).No data were reported for change in FEV, change in exercise tolerance, change in hospital utilisation, or cost-effectiveness. The TCA study provided short-term results, with the last follow-up data collection at 12 weeks.The quality of the evidence for all the outcomes evaluated was very low due to a small sample size, imprecision, attrition, and selection and reporting bias.SSRIs versus placeboThree RCTs (N = 171 participants) provided results for this comparison.Primary outcomesThe pooled results for two studies showed no difference for the change in depressive symptoms post-intervention (SMD 0.75, 95% CI -1.14 to 2.64; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.44; very low-quality evidence). High heterogeneity was observed (I² = 95%), limiting the reliability of these findings.While it was not possible to meta-analyse the total adverse events rates across the studies, it was possible to combine the results for two medication-specific adverse effects: nausea and dizziness. There were no significant post-treatment group differences for nausea (OR 2.32, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.12; 171 participants; 3 studies; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence) or dizziness (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.06; 143 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.61; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThe pooled analysis of two trials reporting data for the change in quality of life did not show improvement post-treatment in the intervention group compared to placebo (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.80 to 3.15; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; very low-quality evidence).There was no difference between groups in change in FEV post-treatment (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 148 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.60; low-quality evidence). However, two trials reported improvement in exercise tolerance in the SSRI group versus the placebo group (MD 13.88, 95% CI 11.73 to 16.03; 148 participants; 2 studies; P < 0.001; very low-quality evidence).The trials included in this comparison did not report data related to the change in dyspnoea, hospital utilisation rates, or cost-effectiveness.

Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to make definitive statements about the efficacy or safety of antidepressants for treating COPD-related depression. New RCTs are needed; with better methodological quality and more accurate reporting of the methods used. Moreover, longer-term follow-up data collection is needed, including outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and cost-effectiveness.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012346.pub2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6517114PMC
December 2018

Short-acting bronchodilators for the management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the hospital setting: systematic review.

Syst Rev 2018 11 29;7(1):213. Epub 2018 Nov 29.

Faculty of Health Science, Division of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Background: Currently, there is a lack of guidelines for the use of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in people admitted to hospital for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), despite routine use in practice and risk of cardiac adverse events.

Aim: To review the evidence that underpins use and optimal dose, in terms of risk versus benefit, of SABD for inpatient management of AECOPD and collate the results for future guidelines.

Methods: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched (inception to November 2017) for published and ongoing studies. Included studies were randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials investigating the effect of SABD (β2-agonist and/or ipratropium) on inpatients with a diagnosis of AECOPD. This review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a pre-defined protocol. Due to heterogeneous methodologies, meta-analysis was not possible so the results were synthesised qualitatively.

Results: Of 1378 studies identified, 10 met inclusion criteria. Narrative synthesis of 10 studies revealed no significant differences in most outcomes of interest relative to dose, delivery via inhaler or nebuliser, and type of β2-agonist used. However, some evidence demonstrated significantly increased cardiac side effects with increased dosage of β2-agonist (45% versus 24%), P<0.05).

Conclusion: This review identified a paucity of methodologically rigorous evidence evaluating use of SABD among AECOPD. The available evidence did not identify any additional benefits for participants receiving higher doses of short-acting β2-agonists compared to lower doses, or based on type of delivery method or β2-agonists used. However, there was a small increase in some adverse events for participants using higher doses of β2-agonists.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0860-0DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6264607PMC
November 2018

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine for the management of anxiety in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PAC Study).

J Multidiscip Healthc 2018 27;11:287-293. Epub 2018 Jun 27.

School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia,

Background: Despite the high prevalence of anxiety in COPD patients and its impact on quality of life, evidence to support the effectiveness of various anxiety treatment options is insufficient, leading to the need for further research in this field.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of paroxetine for the management of anxiety in COPD and the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life and rate of hospitalization.

Patients And Methods: In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, COPD patients were allocated into groups that either received paroxetine 20 mg or placebo pills daily, for four months. Differences in outcomes were assessed based on an intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed effects models. A chi-square test was used to compare the number of COPD-related admissions.

Results: Thirty-eight participants were recruited. Twenty-two of these completed the trial. A clinically and statistically significant reduction was noted in anxiety symptoms after four months of treatment compared to the placebo. Clinically important improvement was noted in depression symptoms, with no statistically significant differences in walking distance or quality-of-life measure outcomes. The intervention group had less COPD-related admissions compared to the placebo group but experienced medication-related side effects.

Conclusion: Treatment with paroxetine significantly improved anxiety levels, but this difference did not translate into improved quality of life at four months follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S166022DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027696PMC
June 2018

Nurse-led versus doctor-led care for bronchiectasis.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 Jun 20;6:CD004359. Epub 2018 Jun 20.

Respiratory Medicine Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, Australia.

Background: Specialist nursing roles to manage stable disease populations are being used to meet the needs of both patients and health services. With increasing cost pressures on health departments, alternative models such as nurse-led care are gaining momentum as a substitute for traditional doctor-led care. This review evaluates the safety, effectiveness, and health outcomes of nurses practising in autonomous roles while using advanced practice skills, within the context of bronchiectasis management in subacute, ambulatory, and/or community care.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of nurse-led care versus doctor-led care in the management of stable bronchiectasis.

Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and bibliographies of selected papers in addition to grey literature such as electronic clinical trials registries. Searches were current as of March 2018.

Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two reviewers extracted and entered data from included studies. Primary outcomes were numbers of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics, hospital admissions, and emergency department attendances.

Main Results: We included one United Kingdom (UK) study in the review. In this randomised controlled trial, a total of 80 participants, with a mean age of 58 years, were treated for 12 months by a specialist nurse or doctor, then were crossed over to the other clinician for the next 12 months. Two participants died during the study period. Six participants failed to cross over to nurse-led care because of unstable bronchiectasis. Overall, the level of study completion was high.Data show no difference in the numbers of exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics (rate ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.30, 80 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Investigators reported more hospital admissions in the nurse-led care group (rate ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.23, 80 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and did not report emergency department attendance.For secondary outcomes, participants in the nurse-led care group used more healthcare resources during the first year of the trial. Increased admissions and greater use of resources made treatment costs for nurse-led groups' higher. Total costs for both years of the study were £8,464 and £5,228 for nurse-led care compared with doctor-led care. However, by the second year, treatment costs were almost equitable between the two groups, which may reflect the nurses' learning of how to better treat people with bronchiectasis. No statistically significant changes were observed in quality of life, exercise capacity, mortality, or lung function. Wide confidence intervals led to uncertainty regarding these results. Adverse events were not an outcome for this review.

Authors' Conclusions: This update of the review shows that only one trial met review criteria. Review authors were unable to demonstrate effectiveness of nurse-led care compared with doctor-led care on the basis of findings of a single study. The included study reported no significant differences, but limited evidence means that differences in clinical outcomes between nurse-led care and usual care within the setting of a specialist clinic remain unclear. Further research is required to determine whether nurse-led care is cost-effective, if guidelines and protocols for bronchiectasis management are followed does this increases costs and how effective nurse-led management of bronchiectasis is in other clinical settings such as inpatient and outreach.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004359.pub2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6513279PMC
June 2018

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

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 09 7;9:CD004479. Epub 2017 Sep 7.

School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004479.pub3DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6483783PMC
September 2017

Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 07 13;7:CD004104. Epub 2017 Jul 13.

Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, McMahons Road, Frankston, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3199.

Background: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) is commonly used to treat patients admitted to hospital with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of NIV applied in conjunction with usual care versus usual care involving no mechanical ventilation alone in adults with AHRF due to AECOPD. The aim of this review is to update the evidence base with the goals of supporting clinical practice and providing recommendations for future evaluation and research.

Search Methods: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and PsycINFO, and through handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. This update to the original review incorporates the results of database searches up to January 2017.

Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials that compared usual care plus NIV (BiPAP) versus usual care alone in an acute hospital setting for patients with AECOPD due to AHRF were eligible for inclusion. AHRF was defined by a mean admission pH < 7.35 and mean partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO) > 45 mmHg (6 kPa). Primary review outcomes were mortality during hospital admission and need for endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, treatment intolerance, complications, changes in symptoms, and changes in arterial blood gases.

Data Collection And Analysis: Two review authors independently applied the selection criteria to determine study eligibility, performed data extraction, and determined risk of bias in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. Review authors undertook meta-analysis for data that were both clinically and statistically homogenous, and analysed data as both one overall pooled sample and according to two predefined subgroups related to exacerbation severity (admission pH between 7.35 and 7.30 vs below 7.30) and NIV treatment setting (intensive care unit-based vs ward-based). We reported results for mortality, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital length of stay in a 'Summary of findings' table and rated their quality in accordance with GRADE criteria.

Main Results: We included in the review 17 randomised controlled trials involving 1264 participants. Available data indicate that mean age at recruitment was 66.8 years (range 57.7 to 70.5 years) and that most participants (65%) were male. Most studies (12/17) were at risk of performance bias, and for most (14/17), the risk of detection bias was uncertain. These risks may have affected subjective patient-reported outcome measures (e.g. dyspnoea) and secondary review outcomes, respectively.Use of NIV decreased the risk of mortality by 46% (risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.76; N = 12 studies; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 9 to 23) and decreased the risk of needing endotracheal intubation by 65% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.46; N = 17 studies; NNTB 5, 95% CI 5 to 6). We graded both outcomes as 'moderate' quality owing to uncertainty regarding risk of bias for several studies. Inspection of the funnel plot related to need for endotracheal intubation raised the possibility of some publication bias pertaining to this outcome. NIV use was also associated with reduced length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -3.39 days, 95% CI -5.93 to -0.85; N = 10 studies), reduced incidence of complications (unrelated to NIV) (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; N = 2 studies), and improvement in pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.07; N = 8 studies) and in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO) (MD 7.47 mmHg, 95% CI 0.78 to 14.16 mmHg; N = 8 studies) at one hour. A trend towards improvement in PaCO was observed, but this finding was not statistically significant (MD -4.62 mmHg, 95% CI -11.05 to 1.80 mmHg; N = 8 studies). Post hoc analysis revealed that this lack of benefit was due to the fact that data from two studies at high risk of bias showed baseline imbalance for this outcome (worse in the NIV group than in the usual care group). Sensitivity analysis revealed that exclusion of these two studies resulted in a statistically significant positive effect of NIV on PaCO. Treatment intolerance was significantly greater in the NIV group than in the usual care group (risk difference (RD) 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17; N = 6 studies). Results of analysis showed a non-significant trend towards reduction in dyspnoea with NIV compared with usual care (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; N = 4 studies). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant between-group differences.

Authors' Conclusions: Data from good quality randomised controlled trials show that NIV is beneficial as a first-line intervention in conjunction with usual care for reducing the likelihood of mortality and endotracheal intubation in patients admitted with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The magnitude of benefit for these outcomes appears similar for patients with acidosis of a mild (pH 7.30 to 7.35) versus a more severe nature (pH < 7.30), and when NIV is applied within the intensive care unit (ICU) or ward setting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004104.pub4DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6483555PMC
July 2017
-->