Gastro-oesophageal reflux treatment for asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux are both common medical conditions and often co-exist. Studies have shown conflicting results concerning the effects of lower oesophageal acidification as a trigger of asthma. Furthermore, asthma might precipitate gastro-oesophageal reflux. Thus a temporal association between the two does not establish that gastro-oesophageal reflux triggers asthma. Randomised trials of a number of treatments for gastro-oesophageal reflux in asthma have been conducted to determine whether treatment of reflux improves asthma. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for gastro-oesophageal reflux in terms of their benefit on asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group trials register, review articles and reference lists of articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of treatment for oesophageal reflux in adults and children with a diagnosis of both asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. Authors were contacted for confirmation or more data. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included proton pump inhibitors (n=6), histamine antagonists (n=5), surgery (n=1) and conservative management (n=1). Treatment duration ranged from 1 week to 6 months. A temporal association between asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux was investigated in 4 trials and found to be present in a proportion of participants in these trials. Anti-reflux treatment did not consistently improve lung function, asthma symptoms, nocturnal asthma or the use of asthma medications. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatic subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux, (but who were not recruited specifically on the basis of reflux-associated respiratory symptoms), there was no overall improvement in asthma following treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux. Subgroups of patients may gain benefit, but it appears difficult to predict responders.

Medical treatment for reflux oesophagitis does not consistently improve asthma control: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the effect of treating reflux oesophagitis on asthma outcomes. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials of reflux oesophagitis treatment in adults or children that reported asthma health outcomes were included and assessed in accordance with the standard Cochrane systematic review process. Patients were typically adults with asthma and concurrent symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux who received interventions that included pharmacological therapy, conservative management, and surgery. The following outcome measures were assessed: lung function, peak expiratory flow, asthma symptoms, asthma medications, and nocturnal asthma. RESULTS: From 22 potentially relevant published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, 12 were included. Treatment duration ranged from 1 week to 6 months. Eight trials reported that treatment improved at least one asthma outcome, but these outcomes differed between trials. Overall, treatment of reflux oesophagitis did not consistently improve forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), peak expiratory flow rate, asthma symptoms, nocturnal asthma symptoms, or use of asthma medications in asthmatic subjects. Significant improvement in wheeze was reported in two studies. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature does not consistently support treatment of reflux oesophagitis as a means of controlling asthma. Further large randomised controlled trials in subjects with a demonstrated temporal relationship between gastro-oesophageal reflux and asthma are needed. These trials should be conducted over at least 6 months to allow adequate time to observe a treatment effect.

Lung volume reduction surgery for diffuse emphysema.

BACKGROUND: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been re-introduced for treating patients with severe diffuse emphysema. OBJECTIVES: To assemble evidence from randomised controlled trials for the effectiveness of LVRS, and identify optimal surgical techniques, those patients who benefit most and those for whom it should be avoided. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised controlled trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group COPD register using the terms: emphysema AND (emphysema surgery OR lung volume reduction surgery OR LVRS OR volume reduction surgery OR pneumectomy OR reduction pneumoplasty OR lung reduction surgery). The Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register was also searched using these terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that studied the safety and efficacy of LVRS in patients with diffuse emphysema were included. Studies were excluded if they investigated giant or bullous emphysema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomised trial of LVRS for diffuse emphysema was identified. This compared stapled unilateral thoracoscopic lung reduction coupled with bovine pericardium reinforcement with a unilateral neodymium:yttrium aluminium garnet laser contact reduction. A total of 72 patients were studied. Both arms included post-operative rehabilitation and appeared to be well matched at randomisation. Improvement in FEV1 & FVC at six months was significantly greater in the staple treated group (p < 0.01 & p < 0. 07 respectively), but absolute increases were small. Need for supplemental oxygen was reduced significantly more in the staple treated group; Peto Odds Ratio (OR) 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40, 11.71. Quality of life improved more in the staple treated group (OR 5.36; 95% CI 2.13,13.47). The rate of delayed pneumothorax in the laser treated group was significantly higher (OR 10.46; 95% CI 1.98, 55.30). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no randomised controlled trial evidence concerning the efficacy of LVRS for diffuse emphysema compared to optimal conservative medical therapy. Stapling is more effective than laser resection and has a lower complication rate. LVRS should not be applied routinely until results of large trials currently underway become available.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux treatment for asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux are both common medical conditions and often co-exist. Studies have shown conflicting results concerning the effects of lower oesophageal acidification as a trigger of asthma. Furthermore, asthma might precipitate gastro-oesophageal reflux. Thus a temporal association between the two does not establish that gastro-oesophageal reflux triggers asthma. Randomised trials of a number of treatments for gastro-oesophageal reflux in asthma have been conducted, with conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for gastro-oesophageal reflux in terms of their benefit on asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Airways Group trials register, review articles and reference lists of articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of treatment for oesophageal reflux in adults and children with a diagnosis of both asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. Authors were contacted for confirmation or more data. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included proton pump inhibitors (n=3), histamine antagonists (n=5), surgery (n=1) and conservative management (n=1). Treatment duration ranged from 1 week to 6 months. A temporal association between asthma and gastro-oesophageal reflux was investigated in 4 trials and found to be present in a proportion of participants in these trials. Anti-reflux treatment did not consistently improve lung function, asthma symptoms, nocturnal asthma or the use of asthma medications. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatic subjects with gastro-oesophageal reflux, (but who were not recruited specifically on the basis of reflux-associated respiratory symptoms), there was no overall improvement in asthma following treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux. Subgroups of patients may gain benefit, but it appears difficult to predict responders.

Impediments to bed-side teaching.

Bed-side teaching is the process of active learning in the presence of a patient. A cross-sectional study was conducted in a teaching hospital to obtain the opinions of clinical teachers about bed-side teaching including perceived hindrances to its implementation. Of 152 teachers, 78% responded to the questionnaire. Ninety-five per cent reported that bed-side teaching is an effective way to teach professional skills. Time constraints, noisy wards and patients not being available were reported as the most frequently experienced hindrances to bed-side teaching. The survey found strong support for bed-side teaching but a substantial number of barriers to its implementation. Further research is required to study methods that will improve bed-site teaching.

Student and patient perspectives on bedside teaching.

A cross-sectional study was undertaken to elicit patient and learner opinions about bedside teaching (BST). Only 48% of learners reported that they had been given enough BST during their undergraduate training, while 100% thought BST to be the most effective way of learning clinical skills. Seventy seven per cent of patients enjoyed BST and 83% said that it did not make them anxious. The preferred site for case presentations was the conference room. Further quantitative studies are needed to investigate perceived impediments to BST from the teachers' point of view.