Timing of hypertonic saline inhalation for cystic fibrosis

[Evidence-based treatment of cystic fibrosis]

Mucoviscidosis (cystic fibrosis [CF]) is the most common autosomal recessive inherited multisystem disease with fatal outcome. It is caused by mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, which lead to a dysfunctional chloride channel and a defective CFTR protein. As a consequence, retention of insufficiently hydrated mucus affects multiple essential organs, mainly the lungs and airways, pancreas, liver, biliary tract and intestines. This leads to inflammation and infection, fibrosis and progressive tissue destruction. Respiratory failure is the major cause of mortality; however, in the no more than 30 years since the molecular characterization of the basic CFTR defect causing CF, tremendous success has been made with respect to the long-term prognosis of people with CF. This improvement in the prognosis was achieved by the cooperative spirit and networking of the very active and international CF research community and by establishing a multidisciplinary clinical CF team that implements the existing evidence in various aspects of standardized care together with the CF patient. This narrative review article presents the evidence in selected aspects of CF treatment, with special consideration of the most recent development of highly effective CFTR modulator treatment. This treatment will soon become available for more than 90% of the global CF patients and transform the pathophysiology as well as the course of disease towards a treatable chronic condition in internal medicine.

Airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting genetic condition in which thick mucus builds up in the lungs, leading to infections, inflammation, and eventually, deterioration in lung function. To clear their lungs of mucus, people with cystic fibrosis perform airway clearance techniques daily. There are various airway clearance techniques, which differ in terms of the need for assistance or equipment, and cost.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews on the effectiveness and safety of various airway clearance techniques in people with cystic fibrosis.

METHODS

For this overview, we included Cochrane Reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over trials) that evaluated an airway clearance technique (conventional chest physiotherapy, positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy, high-pressure PEP therapy, active cycle of breathing techniques, autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices, external high frequency chest compression devices and exercise) in people with cystic fibrosis.We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 29 November 2018.Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for eligibility. One review author extracted data from included reviews and a second author checked the data for accuracy. Two review authors independently graded the quality of reviews using the ROBIS tool. We used the GRADE approach for assessing the overall strength of the evidence for each primary outcome (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), individual preference and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six Cochrane Reviews, one of which compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy or coughing alone and the remaining five reviews included head-to-head comparisons of different airway clearance techniques. All the reviews were considered to have a low risk of bias. However, the individual trials included in the reviews often did not report sufficient information to adequately assess risk of bias. Many trials did not sufficiently report on outcome measures and had a high risk of reporting bias.We are unable to draw definitive conclusions for comparisons of airway clearance techniques in terms of FEV1, except for reporting no difference between PEP therapy and oscillating devices after six months of treatment, mean difference -1.43% predicted (95% confidence interval -5.72 to 2.87); the quality of the body of evidence was graded as moderate. The quality of the body of evidence comparing different airway clearance techniques for other outcomes was either low or very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence to support the use of one airway clearance technique over another. People with cystic fibrosis should choose the airway clearance technique that best meets their needs, after considering comfort, convenience, flexibility, practicality, cost, or some other factor. More long-term, high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing airway clearance techniques among people with cystic fibrosis are needed.

Inhalation Techniques Used in Patients with Respiratory Failure Treated with Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation

The administration of aerosolized medication is a basic therapy for patients with numerous respiratory tract diseases, including obstructive airway diseases (OADs), cystic fibrosis (CF), and infectious airway diseases. The management and care for patients requiring mechanical ventilation remains one of the greatest challenges for medical practitioners, both in intensive care units (ICUs) and pulmonology wards. Aerosol therapy is often necessary for patients receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV), which may be stopped for the time of drug delivery and administered through a metered-dose inhaler or nebulizer in the traditional way. However, in most severe cases, this may result in rapid deterioration of the patient's clinical condition. Unfortunately, only limited number of original well-planned studies addressed this problem. Due to inconsistent information coming from small studies, there is a need for more precise data coming from large prospective real life studies on inhalation techniques in patients receiving NIV.