Pulmonary exacerbation in adults with bronchiectasis: a consensus definition for clinical research

Oral versus inhaled antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.

RESPIRE 1: a phase III placebo-controlled randomised trial of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation (DPI) in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, two or more exacerbations in the previous year and pre-defined bacteria in sputum.

In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients were randomised 2:1 to twice-daily ciprofloxacin DPI 32.5 mg or placebo in two treatment regimens consisting of on/off treatment cycles of 14 or 28 days for 48 weeks. The primary end-points were time to first exacerbation and frequency of exacerbations.

A total of 416 patients were randomised to the 14-day on/off regimen (ciprofloxacin DPI (n=137) and placebo (n=68)) or the 28-day on/off regimen (ciprofloxacin DPI (n=141) and placebo (n=70)). Ciprofloxacin DPI 14 days on/off significantly prolonged time to first exacerbationversuspooled placebo (median time >336versus186 days; hazard ratio 0.53, 97.5% CI 0.36–0.80; p=0.0005) and reduced the frequency of exacerbations compared with matching placebo by 39% (mean number of exacerbations 0.6versus1.0; incidence rate ratio 0.61, 97.5% CI 0.40–0.91; p=0.0061). Outcomes for ciprofloxacin DPI 28 days on/off were not statistically significantly different from placebo. The safety profile of ciprofloxacin DPI was favourable.

Ciprofloxacin DPI was well tolerated and has the potential to be an effective treatment option in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.

RESPIRE 2: a phase III placebo-controlled randomised trial of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation (DPI) in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, two or more exacerbations in the previous year and predefined sputum bacteria.

Patients were randomised 2:1 to twice-daily ciprofloxacin DPI 32.5 mg or placebo in 14- or 28-day on/off treatment cycles for 48 weeks. Primary end-points were time to first exacerbation and frequency of exacerbations. Enrolling countries and α level split (0.049 and 0.001 for 14- and 28-day cycles, respectively) differed from RESPIRE 1.

Patients were randomised to ciprofloxacin DPI (14 days on/off (n=176) or 28 days on/off (n=171)) or placebo (14 days on/off (n=88) or 28 days on/off (n=86)). The exacerbation rate was low across treatment arms (mean±sd 0.6±0.9). Active treatment showed trends to prolonged time to first exacerbation (ciprofloxacin DPI 14 days on/off: hazard ratio 0.87, 95.1% CI 0.62–1.21; p=0.3965; ciprofloxacin DPI 28 days on/off: hazard ratio 0.71, 99.9% CI 0.39–1.27; p=0.0511) and reduced frequency of exacerbations (ciprofloxacin DPI 14 days on/off: incidence rate ratio 0.83, 95.1% CI 0.59–1.17; p=0.2862; ciprofloxacin DPI 28 days on/off: incidence rate ratio 0.55, 99.9% CI 0.30–1.02; p=0.0014), although neither achieved statistical significance. Ciprofloxacin DPI was well tolerated.

Trends towards clinical benefit were seen with ciprofloxacin DPI, but primary end-points were not met.

The pharmacological treatment of bronchiectasis

INTRODUCTION

Until recently considered as a minor health problem, the role of bronchiectasis is now increasingly recognized. New specific drugs are being approved for treatment of bronchiectasis. Possibly they will offer better perspectives to bronchiectatic subjects with evolving course. Areas covered: We provide an overview of aetiopathogenesis, clinics and non-pharmacological management, extending the topic of pharmacological treatment. Present therapies were extrapolated from other chronic lung diseases, but newer promising specific drugs are being awaited. Therapy aims at improving mobilisation of bronchial secretions and, if any, reversing airflow obstruction. Antibiotics are indicated to treat exacerbations, eradicate or reduce sputum bacterial load. Expert commentary: Over the last years evidence is mounted that bronchiectatic subjects with accelerated course of disease should be referred to secondary and tertiary centres. This requires increased awareness on the role and the frequency of bronchiectasis in primary care. Long-term continuous or cyclical use of antibiotics is recommended to stabilize or improve the course of evolving disease. Macrolides are a currently preferred option. Inhaled antibiotics are gaining importance and are the object of ongoing research interest. Practical challenges of inhaled antibiotic treatment remain the need of defining the best therapeutic regimen and optimizing true adherence.

Factors associated with hospitalization in bronchiectasis exacerbations: a one-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis (BE) is a chronic structural lung disease with frequent exacerbations, some of which require hospital admission though no clear associated factors have been identified. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with hospitalization due to exacerbations during a 1-year follow-up period.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed in patients recruited from specialized BE clinics. We considered all exacerbations diagnosed and treated with antibiotics during a follow-up period of 1 year. The protocol recorded baseline variables, usual treatments, Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI) and FACED scores, comorbid conditions and prior hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Two hundred and 65 patients were recruited, of whom 162 required hospital admission during the follow-up period. Independent risk factors for hospital admission were age, previous hospitalization due to BE, use of proton pump inhibitors, heart failure, FACED and BSI, whereas pneumococcal vaccination was a protective factor. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.799 for BSI model was 0.799, and 0.813 for FACED model.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous hospitalization, use of proton pump inhibitors, heart failure along with BSI or FACED scores is associated factors for developing exacerbations that require hospitalization. Pneumococcal vaccination was protective. This information may be useful for the design of preventive strategies and more intensive follow-up plans.

The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC): experiences from a successful ERS Clinical Research Collaboration

In contrast to airway diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, and rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis, there has been little research and few clinical trials in bronchiectasis. Guidelines are primarily based on expert opinion and treatment is challenging because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease. In an effort to address decades of underinvestment in bronchiectasis research, education and clinical care, the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) was established in 2012 as a collaborative pan-European network to bring together bronchiectasis researchers. The European Respiratory Society officially funded EMBARC in 2013 as a Clinical Research Collaboration, providing support and infrastructure to allow the project to grow. EMBARC has now established an international bronchiectasis registry that is active in more than 30 countries both within and outside Europe. Beyond the registry, the network participates in designing and facilitating clinical trials, has set international research priorities, promotes education and has participated in producing the first international bronchiectasis guidelines. This manuscript article the development, structure and achievements of EMBARC from 2012 to 2017.

EDUCATIONAL AIMS

To understand the role of Clinical Research Collaborations as the major way in which the European Respiratory Society can stimulate clinical research in different disease areasTo understand some of the key features of successful disease registriesTo review key epidemiological, clinical and translational studies of bronchiectasis contributed by the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) project in the past 5 yearsTo understand the key research priorities identified by EMBARC for the next 5 years.