Pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A protocol for an overview of Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an indispensable component in the nonpharmacological management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with significant improvements in quality of life and exercise capacity. It is strongly supported by systematic reviews (SR) as part of the treatment of these patients. However, it is not known which PR components are essential, such as duration, ideal locations, type and intensity of training, degree of supervision, adherence, cost-effectiveness challenge, and how long the program effects last. This overview aims to evaluate and describe different pulmonary rehabilitation interventions for individuals with COPD. METHODS: Only systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be included. The following results were analyzed: health-related quality of life, functional capacity, mortality, dyspnea, cost-effectiveness, and adverse events. The risk of bias will be assessed by the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). The methodological quality will be analyzed through the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). We will use the evaluations of the Classification of Recommendations, Evaluation, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) of the authors of the included systematic reviews. The screening of systematic reviews, eligibility evaluation, data extraction, methodological quality, and quality of evidence will be performed in pairs by independent reviewers. The results that have been reported in the included reviews will be summarized in an "Overview of Reviews" table. The main conclusions about the effects of the interventions studied in the included reviews will be summarized and organized in clinically meaningful categories. RESULTS: The article in this overview will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will also be included in a doctoral thesis and disclosed in medical conferences. CONCLUSIONS: We expect to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD in an accessible and useful document. REGISTRATION NUMBER PROSPERO: CRD42019111564.

Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster, also known as 'shingles', is a neurocutaneous disease characterised by the reactivation of the latent varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox when immunity to VZV declines. It is an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and it can significantly compromise the quality of life of affected individuals. The natural process of aging is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity and this predisposes older people to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of VZV activates specific T cell production avoiding viral reactivation. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a herpes zoster vaccine with an attenuated active virus for clinical use among older adults, which has been tested in large populations. A new adjuvanted recombinant VZV subunit zoster vaccine has also been tested. It consists of recombinant VZV glycoprotein E and a liposome-based AS01B adjuvant system. This new vaccine is not yet available for clinical use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2015 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1948 to the 3rd week of October 2015), EMBASE (2010 to October 2015), CINAHL (1981 to October 2015) and LILACS (1982 to October 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine with placebo or no vaccine, to prevent herpes zoster in older adults (mean age > 60 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently collected and analysed data using a data extraction form. They also performed 'Risk of bias' assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 13 studies involving 69,916 participants. The largest study included 38,546 participants. All studies were conducted in high-income countries and included only healthy Caucasian individuals ≥ 60 years of age without immunosuppressive comorbidities. Ten studies used live attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccines. Three studies tested a new type of vaccine not yet available for clinical use. We judged five of the included studies to be at low risk of bias.The incidence of herpes zoster, at up to three years of follow-up, was lower in participants who received the vaccine than in those who received a placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56, risk difference (RD) 2%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of mild to moderate intensity adverse events. These date came from one large study that included 38,546 people aged 60 years or older.A study including 8122 participants compared the new vaccine (not yet available) to the placebo; the group that received the new vaccine had a lower incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years of follow-up: RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, RD 3%, NNTB 33; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of adverse events but most them were of mild to moderate intensity.All studies received funding from the pharmaceutical industry. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster disease and this protection can last three years. In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity.There are studies of a new vaccine (with a VZV glycoproteic fraction plus adjuvant), which is currently not yet available for clinical use.

Early versus late tracheostomy for critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Long-term mechanical ventilation is the most common situation for which tracheostomy is indicated for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). 'Early' and 'late' tracheostomies are two categories of the timing of tracheostomy. Evidence on the advantages attributed to early versus late tracheostomy is somewhat conflicting but includes shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of early (≤ 10 days after tracheal intubation) versus late tracheostomy (> 10 days after tracheal intubation) in critically ill adults predicted to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation with different clinical conditions. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a review last published in 2012 (Issue 3, The Cochrane Library) with previous searches run in December 2010. In this version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to August 2013); EMBASE (via Ovid) (1974 to August 2013); LILACS (1986 to August 2013); PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) at www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au (1999 to August 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to August 2013). We reran the search in October 2014 and will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or QRCTs) comparing early tracheostomy (two to 10 days after intubation) against late tracheostomy (> 10 days after intubation) for critically ill adult patients expected to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and conducted a quality assessment. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for mortality, time spent on mechanical ventilation and time spent in the ICU. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 1977 participants). At the longest follow-up time available in these studies, evidence of moderate quality from seven RCTs (n = 1903) showed lower mortality rates in the early as compared with the late tracheostomy group (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98; P value 0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) ≅ 11). Divergent results were reported on the time spent on mechanical ventilation and no differences were noted for pneumonia, but the probability of discharge from the ICU was higher at day 28 in the early tracheostomy group (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; P value 0.006; NNTB ≅ 8). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The whole findings of this systematic review are no more than suggestive of the superiority of early over late tracheostomy because no information of high quality is available for specific subgroups with particular characteristics.

Water-based exercise for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common condition characterised by airway inflammation and airway narrowing, which can result in intermittent symptoms of wheezing, coughing and chest tightness, possibly limiting activities of daily life. Water-based exercise is believed to offer benefits for people with asthma through pollen-free air, humidity and effects of exercise on physical function. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), 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), PsycINFO, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) and Google Scholar on 13 May 2014. We handsearched ongoing clinical trial registers and meeting abstracts of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the British Thoracic Society (BTS). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with asthma comparing a water-based exercise group versus one or more of the following groups: usual care, land-based exercise, non-exercise. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (AJG, VS) independently extracted data from the primary studies using a standard form developed for this purpose, which includes methods, participants, interventions and outcomes. We contacted trial authors to request additional data. Data were input by one review author and were double-checked by a second review author. MAIN RESULTS: In this systematic review, we provide a narrative synthesis of available evidence from three small studies including 136 adult participants. The studies were at high risk of bias. No meta-analysis was possible because of methodological and interventional heterogeneity between included studies. The primary outcomes of quality of life and exacerbations leading to use of steroids were not reported by these studies. For exacerbations leading to health centre/hospital visits, uncertainty was wide because a very small number of events was reported (in a single study). Secondary outcomes symptoms, lung function, changes in medication and adverse effects, where available, described for each included study. The overall quality of the studies was very low, and no clear differences were noted between water-based exercise and comparator treatments. Therefore, we remain very uncertain about the effects of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small number of participants in the three included studies, the clinical and methodological heterogeneity observed and the high risk of bias assessed mean that we are unable to assess the place of water-based exercise in asthma. Randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. For future research, we suggest greater methodological rigour (participant selection, blinding of outcome assessors, reporting of all outcomes analysed and registering of the study protocol).

Pressure support versus T-tube for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is important in caring for patients with critical illness. Clinical complications, increased mortality, and high costs of health care are associated with prolonged ventilatory support or premature discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Weaning refers to the process of gradually or abruptly withdrawing mechanical ventilation. The weaning process begins after partial or complete resolution of the underlying pathophysiology precipitating respiratory failure and ends with weaning success (successful extubation in intubated patients or permanent withdrawal of ventilatory support in tracheostomized patients). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two strategies, a T-tube and pressure support ventilation, for weaning adult patients with respiratory failure that required invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours, measuring weaning success and other clinically important outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to June 2012); EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012); LILACS (1986 to June 2012); CINAHL (1982 to June 2012); SciELO (from 1997 to August 2012); thesis repository of CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) (http://capesdw.capes.gov.br/capesdw/) (August 2012); and Current Controlled Trials (August 2012).We reran the search in December 2013. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a T-tube with pressure support (PS) for the conduct of spontaneous breathing trials and as methods of gradual weaning of adult patients with respiratory failure of various aetiologies who received invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Meta-analyses using the random-effects model were conducted for nine outcomes. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were used to estimate the treatment effect, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 1208 patients; 622 patients were randomized to a PS spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and 586 to a T-tube SBT. The studies were classified into three categories of weaning: simple, difficult, and prolonged. Four studies placed patients in two categories of weaning. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) and a T-tube were used directly as SBTs in four studies (844 patients, 69.9% of the sample). In 186 patients (15.4%) both interventions were used along with gradual weaning from mechanical ventilation; the PS was gradually decreased, twice a day, until it was minimal and periods with a T-tube were gradually increased to two and eight hours for patients with difficult and prolonged weaning. In two studies (14.7% of patients) the PS was lowered to 2 to 4 cm H2O and 3 to 5 cm H2O based on ventilatory parameters until the minimal PS levels were reached. PS was then compared to the trial with the T-tube (TT).We identified 33 different reported outcomes in the included studies; we took 14 of them into consideration and performed meta-analyses on nine. With regard to the sequence of allocation generation, allocation concealment, selective reporting and attrition bias, no study presented a high risk of bias. We found no clear evidence of a difference between PS and TT for weaning success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, 9 studies, low quality of evidence), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23, 5 studies, low quality of evidence), reintubation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26, 7 studies, low quality evidence), ICU and long-term weaning unit (LWU) length of stay (MD -7.08 days, 95% CI -16.26 to 2.1, 2 studies, low quality of evidence) and pneumonia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence). PS was significantly superior to the TT for successful SBTs (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, 4 studies, moderate quality of evidence). Four studies reported on weaning duration, however we were unable to combined the study data because of differences in how the studies presented their data. One study was at high risk of other bias and four studies were at high risk for detection bias. Three studies reported that the weaning duration was shorter with PS, and in one study the duration was shorter in patients with a TT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, we have found evidence of generally low quality from studies comparing pressure support ventilation (PSV) and with a T-tube. The effects on weaning success, ICU mortality, reintubation, ICU and LWU length of stay, and pneumonia were imprecise. However, PSV was more effective than a T-tube for successful spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) among patients with simple weaning. Based on the findings of single trials, three studies presented a shorter weaning duration in the group undergoing PS SBT, however a fourth study found a shorter weaning duration with a T-tube.