Christopher J Cates

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines have provided positive recommendations for pulmonary rehabilitation after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but recent studies indicate that postexacerbation rehabilitation may not always be effective in patients with unstable COPD. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of pulmonary rehabilitation after COPD exacerbations on hospital admissions (primary outcome) and other patient-important outcomes (mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) and the Cochrane Airways Review Group Register of Trials. Searches were current as of 20 October 2015, and handsearches were run up to 5 April 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pulmonary rehabilitation of any duration after exacerbation of COPD versus conventional care. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes had to include at least physical exercise (endurance or strength exercise, or both). We did not apply a criterion for the minimum number of exercise sessions a rehabilitation programme had to offer to be included in the review. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We expected substantial heterogeneity across trials in terms of how extensive rehabilitation programmes were (i.e. in terms of number of completed exercise sessions; type, intensity and supervision of exercise training; and patient education), duration of follow-up (< 3 months vs ≥ 3 months) and risk of bias (generation of random sequence, concealment of random allocation and blinding); therefore, we performed subgroup analyses that were defined before we carried them out. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane in preparing this update, and we used GRADE for assessing the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: = 87%). Heterogeneity was driven particularly by differences between studies showing very large effects and studies showing smaller but statistically significant effects. For both health-related quality of life and exercise capacity, studies newly included in this update showed, on average, smaller effects of rehabilitation than were seen in earlier studies, but the overall results of this review have not changed to an important extent compared with results reported in the earlier version of this review.Five studies involving 278 participants explicitly recorded adverse events, four studies reported no adverse events during rehabilitation programmes and one study reported one serious event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, evidence of high quality shows moderate to large effects of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with COPD after an exacerbation. Some recent studies showed no benefit of rehabilitation on hospital readmissions and mortality and introduced heterogeneity as compared with the last update of this review. Such heterogeneity of effects on hospital readmissions and mortality may be explained to some extent by the extensiveness of rehabilitation programmes and by the methodological quality of the included studies. Future researchers must investigate how the extent of rehabilitation programmes in terms of exercise sessions, self-management education and other components affects the outcomes, and how the organisation of such programmes within specific healthcare systems determines their effects after COPD exacerbations on hospital readmissions and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea is the periodic reduction (hypopnoea) or cessation (apnoea) of breathing due to narrowing or occlusion of the upper airway during sleep. The main symptom is daytime sleepiness and it has been suggested it is linked to premature death, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and road traffic accidents. OBJECTIVES: The main treatment for sleep apnoea is with the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), which requires a flow generator and mask. These are used at night to prevent apnoea, hypoxia and sleep disturbance. The objective was to assess the effects of CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of articles. We consulted experts in the field. Searches were current to July 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing nocturnal CPAP with an inactive control or oral appliances in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea (an apnoea and hypopnoea index greater than five per hour). Trials had a minimum intervention period of two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and two review authors extracted data independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Parallel and crossover group trials were analysed separately. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six trials involving 1718 people met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed. Compared with control, CPAP showed significant improvements in certain objective and subjective sleepiness, measures of quality of life and cognitive function (parallel-group studies: Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) -3.83 units, 95% CI -4.57 to -3.09; crossover studies: ESS -1.84 units, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.11). Twenty-four hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with CPAP compared with control (parallel-group trials). Compared with oral appliances, CPAP significantly reduced the apnoea and hypopnoea index (crossover studies: -7.97 events/hr, 95% CI -9.56 to -6.38) and improved sleep efficiency (crossover studies: 2.31%, 95% CI 0.02 to 4.6) and minimum oxygen saturation (4.14%, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.03). Responders to both treatments expressed a strong preference for the oral appliance. However, participants were more likely to withdraw on OA than on CPAP therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is effective in reducing symptoms of sleepiness and improving quality of life measures in people with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is more effective than oral appliances in reducing respiratory disturbances in these people but subjective outcomes are more equivocal. Certain people tend to prefer oral appliances to CPAP where both are effective. This could be because they offer a more convenient way of controlling OSA. Short-term data indicate that CPAP leads to lower blood pressure than control. Long-term data are required for all outcomes in order to determine whether the initial benefits seen in short-term clinical trials persist.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases of the airways and lungs that have a major impact on the health of the population. The mainstay of treatment is by inhalation of medication to the site of the disease process. This can be achieved by a number of different device types, which have wide variations in costs to the health service. A number of different inhalation devices are available. The pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is the most commonly used and cheapest device, which may also be used in conjunction with a spacer device. Newer chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)-free inhaler devices using hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) have also been developed. The drug is dissolved or suspended in the propellant under pressure. When activated, a valve system releases a metered volume of drug and propellant. Other devices include breath-actuated pMDIs (BA-pMDI), such as Autohaler and Easi-Breathe. They incorporate a mechanism activated during inhalation that triggers the metered-dose inhaler. Dry powder inhalers (DPI), such as Turbohaler, Diskhaler, Accuhaler and Rotahaler, are activated by inspiration by the patient. The powdered drug is dispersed into particles by the inspiration. With nebulisers oxygen, compressed air, or ultrasonic power is used to break up solutions or suspensions of medication into droplets for inhalation. The aerosol is administered by mask or by a mouthpiece. There has been no previous systematic review of the evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these different inhaler devices. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and COPD. METHODS: The different aspects of inhaler devices were separated into the most clinically relevant comparisons. Methods involved systematic searching of electronic databases and bibliographies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted for further information. Trials that met the inclusion criteria were appraised and data extraction was under-taken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, with any discrepancies being resolved through agreement. RESULTS--IN VITRO CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS IN VIVO TESTING AND CLINICAL RESPONSE: There is evidence that when comparative testing is performed on inhaler devices using the same methods, there is some correlation between particle size measurements and clinical response. However, the measurements are dependent upon the methods used, and a single measure of a device in isolation is of limited value. Also, there is little data on comparing devices of different types. There is currently insufficient data to verify the ability of in vitro assessments to predict inhaler performance in vivo. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF CORTICOSTEROIDS IN ASTHMA: The review of three trials in children and 21 trials in adults demonstrated no evidence to suggest clinical benefits of any other inhaler device over a pMDI in corticosteroid delivery. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BETA-AGONISTS IN STABLE ASTHMA: In children, 11 studies were reviewed, of which seven compared the Turbohaler with the pMDI. One study found a significant treatment difference in peak expiratory flow rate, although there were differences in the patients' baseline characteristics. In adults, a review of 70 studies found no demonstrable difference in the clinical bronchodilator effect of short-acting b2-agonists delivered by the standard pMDI compared with that produced by any other DPI, HFA-pMDI or the Autohaler device. The finding that HFA-pMDIs may reduce treatment failure and oral steroid requirement in beta-agonist delivery needs further confirmatory research in adequately randomised clinical trials. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF NEBULISERS VERSUS METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BRONCHODILATORS IN STABLE ASTHMA: In children, three included trials compared different devices with a nebuliser and demonstrated no evidence of clinical superiority of nebulisers over inhaler devices in bronchodilator delivery. A total of 23 studies in adults found no equivalence for the main pulmonary outcomes and no evidence of difference in other outcomes. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BETA-AGONISTS IN COPD: Only two studies were included in this review. No evidence of clinical difference was found in beta-agonist delivery. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF NEBULISERS VERSUS METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BRONCHODILATORS IN COPD: Evidence from 14 trials demonstrated equivalence for the main outcomes of pulmonary function. For other outcomes there was no evidence of treatment difference in bronchodilator delivery. RESULTS--PATIENTS' ABILITY TO USE METERED-DOSE INHALERS: Differences among studies and the heterogeneity of the results make it difficult to draw conclusions about inhaler technique differences between device types. The review of technique after teaching the correct technique suggests that there is no difference in patients' ability to use DPI or pMDIs. RESULTS--ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The total number of NHS prescriptions for inhaler therapy for asthma in 1998 was over 31 million, with a net ingredient cost in excess of 392 million GB pounds. This economic assessment uses decision analysis to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices for the delivery of bronchodilator and corticosteroid inhaled therapy. Overall, there were no differences in patient outcomes among the devices. On the assumption that the devices were clinically equivalent, pMDIs were the most cost-effective devices for asthma treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review examined the evidence from clinical trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of different inhaler devices in the delivery of inhaled corticosteroids and beta2-bronchodilators for patients with asthma and COPD. The evidence from the published clinical literature demonstrates no difference in clinical effectiveness between nebulisers and alternative inhaler devices compared to standard pMDI with or without a spacer device. The cost-effectiveness evidence therefore favours pMDIs (or the cheapest inhaler device) as first-line treatment in all patients with stable asthma unless other specific reasons are identified. Patients can use pMDIs as effectively as other inhaler devices as long as the correct inhalation technique is taught. CONCLUSIONS--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further clinical trials are required to demonstrate any differences in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices and nebulisers compared with pMDIs. These should be of sufficient statistical power and methodological rigour to demonstrate any clinical benefit. Trials should be undertaken in community settings to ensure the generalisability of results. Outcome measures should be more patient-centred and report adverse effects more completely. Reporting of data from trials should be improved.

Obstructive sleep apnoea is the periodic reduction (hypopnoea) or cessation (apnoea) of breathing due to narrowing or occlusion of the upper airway during sleep. The main symptom is daytime sleepiness and it has been suggested it is linked to premature death, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and road traffic accidents.The main treatment for sleep apnoea is with the use of continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP), which requires a flow generator and mask. These are used at night to prevent apnoea, hypoxia and sleep disturbance. The objective was to assess the effects of CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults.We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of articles. We consulted experts in the field. Searches were current to July 2005.We included randomised trials comparing nocturnal CPAP with an inactive control or oral appliances in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea (an apnoea and hypopnoea index greater than five per hour). Trials had a minimum intervention period of two weeks.Trial quality was assessed and two review authors extracted data independently. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Parallel and crossover group trials were analysed separately.Thirty-six trials involving 1718 people met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was mixed. Compared with control, CPAP showed significant improvements in certain objective and subjective sleepiness, measures of quality of life and cognitive function (parallel-group studies: Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) -3.83 units, 95% CI -4.57 to -3.09; crossover studies: ESS -1.84 units, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.11). Twenty-four hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with CPAP compared with control (parallel-group trials). Compared with oral appliances, CPAP significantly reduced the apnoea and hypopnoea index (crossover studies: -7.97 events/hr, 95% CI -9.56 to -6.38) and improved sleep efficiency (crossover studies: 2.31%, 95% CI 0.02 to 4.6) and minimum oxygen saturation (4.14%, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.03). Responders to both treatments expressed a strong preference for the oral appliance. However, participants were more likely to withdraw on OA than on CPAP therapy.CPAP is effective in reducing symptoms of sleepiness and improving quality of life measures in people with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). It is more effective than oral appliances in reducing respiratory disturbances in these people but subjective outcomes are more equivocal. Certain people tend to prefer oral appliances to CPAP where both are effective. This could be because they offer a more convenient way of controlling OSA. Short-term data indicate that CPAP leads to lower blood pressure than control. Long-term data are required for all outcomes in order to determine whether the initial benefits seen in short-term clinical trials persist.