An integrative review of systematic reviews related to the management of breathlessness in respiratory illnesses

Background: breathlessness is a debilitating and distressing symptom in a wide variety of diseases and still a difficult symptom to manage. An integrative review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in non-malignant disease was undertaken to identify the current state of clinical understanding of the management of breathlessness and highlight promising interventions that merit further investigation.Methods: systematic reviews were identified via electronic databases between July 2007 and September 2009. Reviews were included within the study if they reported research on adult participants using either a measure of breathlessness or some other measure of respiratory symptoms.Results: in total 219 systematic reviews were identified and 153 included within the final review, of these 59 addressed non-pharmacological interventions and 94 addressed pharmacological interventions. The reviews covered in excess of 2000 trials. The majority of systematic reviews were conducted on interventions for asthma and COPD, and mainly focussed upon a small number of pharmacological interventions such as corticosteroids and bronchodilators, including beta-agonists. In contrast, other conditions involving breathlessness have received little or no attention and studies continue to focus upon pharmacological approaches. Moreover, although there are a number of non-pharmacological studies that have shown some promise, particularly for COPD, their conclusions are limited by a lack of good quality evidence from RCTs, small sample sizes and limited replication.Conclusions: more research should focus in the future on the management of breathlessness in respiratory diseases other than asthma and COPD. In addition, pharmacological treatments do not completely manage breathlessness and have an added burden of side effects. It is therefore important to focus more research on promising non-pharmacological intervention

Prostacyclin for pulmonary hypertension

No description availabl

Prostacyclin for pulmonary hypertension in adults

BACKGROUND: Primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH) is progressive, resulting in right ventricular failure. Pulmonary hypertension can be idiopathic or associated with other conditions. Prostacyclin is a potent vasodilator and inhibitor of platelet aggregation, and can be given orally, subcutaneously, intravenously or inhaled via a nebuliser. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of prostacyclin or one of its analogues in idiopathic primary pulmonary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches were carried out with pre-specified terms. Searches were current as of July 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two reviewers selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with pulmonary hypertension for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study quality was assessed and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Outcomes were analysed as continuous and dichotomous outcomes. We sub-grouped data where possible by aetiology of PH (PPH, PH secondary to connective tissue disorder or mixed populations). MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs of mixed duration (3 days-52 weeks), recruiting 1175 participants were included (NYHA functional classes II-IV). Intravenous prostacyclin versus usual care (four studies): There were significant improvements in exercise capacity of around 90 metres, cardiopulmonary haemodynamics and NYHA functional class over 3 days-12 weeks. Effects were consistent in primary and secondary pulmonary hypertension. Oral prostacyclin versus placebo (two studies): Short-term data (3-6 months) indicated that there was a significant improvement in exercise capacity, but data from one study of 52 weeks reported no significant difference at 12 months. No significant differences were observed for any other outcome. Subcutaneous treprostinil versus placebo (two studies, 8-12 weeks):One large study reported a significant median improvement in exercise capacity of around 16 metres. Cardiopulmonary haemodynamics and symptom scores favoured treprostinil. Infusion site pain and withdrawals due to adverse events were more frequent with treprostinil. Inhaled prostacyclin versus placebo (one study, 12 weeks):There was a significant increase in exercise capacity of approximately 36 metres. Treatment led to better symptom scores and functional class status than with placebo. Subgroup analyses reported by individual studies showed a better exercise capacity in participants with PPH, than those participants with PH secondary to other diseases. Side effects and adverse events were common in the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that intravenous prostacyclin in addition to conventional therapy at tolerable doses optimised by titration, can confer some short-term benefits (up to 12 weeks of treatment) in exercise capacity, NYHA functional class and cardiopulmonary haemodynamics. There is also some evidence that patients with more severe disease based upon NYHA functional class showed a greater response to treatment

Prostacyclin for pulmonary hypertension

No description availabl