Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation and distortion of the smaller airways. Bacterial colonisation of the damaged airways leads to chronic cough and sputum production, often with breathlessness and further structural damage to the airways. Long-term macrolide antibiotic therapy may suppress bacterial infection and reduce inflammation, leading to fewer exacerbations, fewer symptoms, improved lung function, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of macrolides in terms of specific bacterial eradication and the extent of antibiotic resistance. To determine the impact of macrolide antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis. We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified through multiple electronic searches and handsearches of other sources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted all searches on 18 January 2018. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' duration that compared macrolide antibiotics with placebo or no intervention for the long-term management of stable bronchiectasis in adults or children with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography, plain film chest radiograph, or high-resolution computed tomography. We excluded studies in which participants had received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before enrolment or before a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, or allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Our primary outcomes were exacerbation, hospitalisation, and serious adverse events. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 103 records. We independently screened the full text of 40 study reports and included 15 trials from 30 reports. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We included 14 parallel-group RCTs and one cross-over RCT with interventions lasting from 8 weeks to 24 months. Of 11 adult studies with 690 participants, six used azithromycin, four roxithromycin, and one erythromycin. Four studies with 190 children used either azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. We included nine adult studies in our comparison between macrolides and placebo and two in our comparison with no intervention. We included one study with children in our comparison between macrolides and placebo and one in our comparison with no intervention. In adults, macrolides reduced exacerbation frequency to a greater extent than placebo (OR 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.54; 341 participants; three studies; I² = 65%; moderate-quality evidence). This translates to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 4 (95% CI 3 to 8). Data show no differences in exacerbation frequency between use of macrolides (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.15; 43 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence) and no intervention. Macrolides were also associated with a significantly better quality of life compared with placebo (MD -8.90, 95% CI -13.13 to -4.67; 68 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a reduction in hospitalisations (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.62; 151 participants; two studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), in the number of participants with serious adverse events, including pneumonia, respiratory and non-respiratory infections, haemoptysis, and gastroenteritis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.23; 326 participants; three studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or in the number experiencing adverse events (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; 435 participants; five studies; I² = 28%) in adults with macrolides compared with placebo. In children, there were no differences in exacerbation frequency (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; 89 children; one study; low-quality evidence); hospitalisations (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.11; 89 children; one study; low-quality evidence), serious adverse events, defined within the study as exacerbations of bronchiectasis or investigations related to bronchiectasis (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.05; 89 children; one study; low-quality evidence), or adverse events (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.83; 89 children; one study), in those receiving macrolides compared to placebo. The same study reported an increase in macrolide-resistant bacteria (OR 7.13, 95% CI 2.13 to 23.79; 89 children; one study), an increase in resistance to Streptococcus pneumoniae (OR 13.20, 95% CI 1.61 to 108.19; 89 children; one study), and an increase in resistance to Staphylococcus aureus (OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 16.32; 89 children; one study) with macrolides compared with placebo. Quality of life was not reported in the studies with children. Long-term macrolide therapy may reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve quality of life, although supporting evidence is derived mainly from studies of azithromycin, rather than other macrolides, and predominantly among adults rather than children. However, macrolides should be used with caution, as limited data indicate an associated increase in microbial resistance. Macrolides are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death and other serious adverse events in other populations, and available data cannot exclude a similar risk among patients with bronchiectasis.

Bronchiectasis is a long term respiratory condition with an increasing rate of diagnosis. It is associated with persistent symptoms, repeated infective exacerbations, and reduced quality of life, imposing a burden on individuals and healthcare systems. The main aims of therapeutic management are to reduce exacerbations and improve quality of life. Self-management interventions are potentially important for empowering people with bronchiectasis to manage their condition more effectively and to seek care in a timely manner. Self-management interventions are beneficial in the management of other airways diseases such as asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and have been identified as a research priority for bronchiectasis. To assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of self-management interventions for adults and children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. We searched the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register of trials, clinical trials registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers’ websites up to 13 December 2017. We included all randomised controlled trials of any duration that included adults or children with a diagnosis of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis assessing self-management interventions delivered in any form. Self-management interventions included at least two of the following elements: patient education, airway clearance techniques, adherence to medication, exercise (including pulmonary rehabilitation) and action plans. Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were, health-related quality of life, exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the number of participants admitted to hospital on at least one occasion, lung function, symptoms, self-efficacy and economic costs. We used a random effects model for analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout. Two studies with a total of 84 participants were included: a 12-month RCT of early rehabilitation in adults of mean age 72 years conducted in two centres in England (UK) and a six-month proof-of-concept RCT of an expert patient programme (EPP) in adults of mean age 60 years in a single regional respiratory centre in Northern Ireland (UK). The EPP was delivered in group format once a week for eight weeks using standardised EPP materials plus disease-specific education including airway clearance techniques, dealing with symptoms, exacerbations, health promotion and available support. We did not find any studies that included children. Data aggregation was not possible and findings are reported narratively in the review. For the primary outcomes, both studies reported health-related quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), but there was no clear evidence of benefit. In one study, the mean SGRQ total scores were not significantly different at 6 weeks', 3 months' and 12 months' follow-up (12 months mean difference (MD) -10.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -45.15 to 24.61). In the second study there were no significant differences in SGRQ. Total scores were not significantly different between groups (six months, MD 3.20, 95% CI -6.64 to 13.04). We judged the evidence for this outcome as low or very low. Neither of the included studies reported data on exacerbations requiring antibiotics. For serious adverse events, one study reported more deaths in the intervention group compared to the control group, (intervention: 4 of 8, control: 2 of 12), though interpretation is limited by the low event rate and the small number of participants in each group. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of benefit in terms of frequency of hospital admissions or FEV1 L, based on very low-quality evidence. One study reported self-efficacy using the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy scale, which comprises 10 components. All scales showed significant benefit from the intervention but effects were only sustained to study endpoint on the Managing Depression scale. Further details are reported in the main review. Based on overall study quality, we judged this evidence as low quality. Neither study reported data on respiratory symptoms, economic costs or adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether self-management interventions benefit people with bronchiectasis. In the absence of high-quality evidence it is advisable that practitioners adhere to current international guidelines that advocate self-management for people with bronchiectasis. Future studies should aim to clearly define and justify the specific nature of self-management, measure clinically important outcomes and include children as well as adults.

Background Nurses have been at the forefront of the pandemic response, involved in extensive coordination of services, screening, vaccination and front-line work in respiratory, emergency and intensive care environments. The nature of this work is often intense and stress-provoking with an inevitable psychological impact on nurses and all healthcare workers. This study focused on nurses working in respiratory areas with the aim of identifying and characterising the self-reported issues that exacerbated or alleviated their concerns during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods An online survey was developed consisting of 90 questions using a mixture of open-ended and closed questions. Participant demographic data were also collected (age, gender, ethnicity, number of years qualified, details of long-term health conditions, geographical location, nursing background/role and home life). The online survey was disseminated via social media and professional respiratory societies (British Thoracic Society, Primary Care Respiratory Society, Association of Respiratory Nurse Specialists) over a 3-week period in May 2020 and the survey closed on 1 June 2020. Results The study highlights the experiences of nurses caring for respiratory patients during the first wave of the pandemic in early 2020. Concerns were expressed over the working environment, the supply and availability of adequate protective personal equipment, the quality of care individuals were able to deliver, and the impact on mental health to nurses and their families. A high number provided free-text comments around their worries and concerns about the impact on their household; these included bringing the virus home, the effect on family members worrying about them, mental health and the impact of changing working patterns, and managing with children. Although both formal and informal support were available, there were inconsistencies in provision, highlighting the importance of nursing leadership and management in ensuring equity of access to services. Conclusions Support for staff is essential both throughout the pandemic and afterwards, and it is important that preparation of individuals regarding building resilience is recognised. It is also clear that psychological support and services for nurses and the wider healthcare team need to be available and quickly convened in the event of similar major incidents, either global or local.

Background: Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory condition that impacts significantly on individuals and healthcare services. Self-management is recommended in clinical guidelines for bronchiectasis as an intervention to enable patients to manage their condition, yet there is little evidence to support it. Methods: Three face to face focus groups (17 adults with bronchiectasis) were conducted at three National Health Service (NHS) sites in North West England. Additionally, semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with 11 healthcare professionals (HCPs), including doctors, nurses and physiotherapists. Thematic analysis identified common themes and occurrences verified by independent audit. Findings: Four common overarching themes were identified: the meaning of self-management; benefits; barriers and influencers to self-management; subthemes varied. Both groups recognised component interventions. Patients highlighted that self-management enabled them to learn what works and moderate behaviour. Aspects of delivery and structure were important to HCPs but a ‘make do’ culture was evident. Benefits for both groups included empowering patients. Common barriers for patients were time, mood and lack of access to support which could mitigate engagement with self-management. HCPs identified barriers including patient characteristics and lack of resources. Influencers for patients were peer, carer and psychosocial support, for HCPs influencers were individual patient attributes, including ability and motivation, and HCP characteristics such as knowledge and understanding about bronchiectasis. Summary: This is the first study to explore patients’ and HCPs’ views of self-management for bronchiectasis. The need for an individual, flexible and responsive self-management programme specific to bronchiectasis was evident. Personal characteristics of patients and HCPs could affect the uptake and engagement with self-management and HCPs knowledge of the disease is a recognised precursor to effective self-management. The study identified key aspects for consideration during development, delivery and sustainability of self-management programmes and findings suggest that patients’ psychosocial and socioeconomic circumstances may affect adoption and activation of self-management behaviours.

Oxygen therapy is a common intervention in health care worldwide; yet, despite universal use, it is evident through poor practice that oxygen is often prescribed and administered injudiciously. It is proposed that possibly an influencing culture presides, whereby oxygen is often poorly understood and uncertainty regarding its use exists. It is unclear where the origins of this culture lie but exploring perceptions may enlighten the problem. A review of the literature was undertaken to establish what is already known about this elusive phenomenon. The paucity of any direct evidence regarding perceptions of oxygen directed the review to utilize a critical interpretative synthesis (CIS). The aim of this study was to explore how respiratory patients perceive oxygen therapy. A systematic search in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, British Nursing Index and PsychInfo yielded 1514 studies of which 42 were selected to consider the review question. The CIS allowed evidence from across studies to synthesize existing and new interpretations of data related to patients’ perceptions of oxygen therapy. Synthetic constructs then informed the synthesizing arguments, namely positive – feeling safe, enabler and comforter; negative – fear, oxygen versus self, restriction and embarrassment; and impartiality – mixed blessings. The findings are divergent, and at times contradictory. There appears uncertainty among patients regarding the purpose and benefits of oxygen therapy, though an underlying faith in health-care professionals is apparent. This faith seems to foster acceptance of a life-changing therapy, despite the impact, burden and incomplete understanding. There is a clear need for further research regarding these elusive perceptions in order to improve clinical practice in respect of oxygen.

Background: Despite emerging evidence and guidelines, poor prescribing and administration of oxygen therapy persists. This study aimed to explore healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ perceptions of oxygen.Design: Semi‐structured interviews with 28 patients and 34 HCPs.Findings: Three master themes uncovered: oxygen as a panacea, the burden of oxygen and antecedents to beliefs. Patients used oxygen for breathlessness and as an enabler; they were grateful to oxygen and accepted it as part of the disease. HCPs used oxygen because it helps patients; it works; and it makes HCPs feel better. But oxygen is not benign and a burden is evident with potential antecedents to beliefs revealed.Summary: The findings suggest that a set of fixed beliefs regarding oxygen exist, influenced by several impacting factors. The perception that oxygen is a universal remedy presides, but is, at times, contradictory. These findings will raise awareness of entrenched cultures, influence future educational and research strategies, and inform policy.