The effects of various respiratory physiotherapies after lung resection:a systematic review

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to investigate the effect of respiratory physiotherapy after lung resection on mortality, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC), length of stay, lung volumes, and adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials were searched in CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Cinahl, PEDro, and hand searching of related studies. Various respiratory physiotherapy interventions were compared to standard care, sham treatment, or no treatment. Two reviewers assessed eligibility and quality of studies using Cochrane guidelines. Meta-analyses were undertaken on subgroups of intervention. RESULTS: Various types of positive pressure breathing, deep breathing exercises, and strength and aerobic exercises as a supplement to standard care did not show any significant effect over standard care in preventing mortality or PPC, reducing length of stay, or improving lung volumes. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic continuous positive airway pressure does not seem to affect rate of mortality and PPC, when compared with standard care embodying respiratory physiotherapy such as airway clearance techniques and assistance with early ambulation. However, further research is still needed to make a final conclusion. The effect of standard respiratory physiotherapy as a package is still unknown, and may or may not be effective in preventing PPC among patients undergoing lung resection

Patient-Reported Outcomes in First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy: Results From NEAT001/ANRS143 Trial Comparing Darunavir/Ritonavir in Combination With Tenofovir/Emtricitabine or Raltegravir

Background: There are few data comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized trials of initial antiretroviral therapy. We present results from a substudy of the NEAT001/ ANRS143 trial. Methods: The randomized trial compared first-line DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily plus RAL 400 mg twice daily and DRV/r plus TDF/ FTC 245/200 mg once daily. Changes in PROs were assessed with 3 questionnaires: EuroQoL 5 domains (EQ-5D), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, and HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Major depressive disorder (MDD) was defined as CES-D $16. General estimating equations were used to model change over 96 weeks in PROs from baseline. Results: Of the 805 participants, 797 (99substudy. Baseline PRO data were similar for the 2 randomized groups. Health status improved over time with a mean increase in EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) of 8.0 by W96 [95to 9.4; P, 0.001], and no statistically significant differences between groups (difference of 0.3 on VAS score (95global P value$ 0.05 for all domains over follow-up). There was no significant difference between groups on CES-D [difference of 20.1 (95% CI: 21.3 to 1.1); P = 0.9], or MDD during follow-up, adjusted for baseline MDD (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.18; P = 0.9). RAL + DRV/r group had lower level of convenience (P = 0.03) and fitted less well into patients’ lifestyle (P = 0.007) than the TDF/FTC + DRV/r regimen, and was associated with lower treatment satisfaction [median score: 53 RAL + DRV/r vs 55 TDF/FTC + DRV/r (P = 0.001)]. Conclusion: PROs improved after starting antiretroviral therapy, with no statistically significant difference between groups. The lower satisfaction with RAL + DRV/r may be explained by twicedaily administration