Introduction: Despite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care.Methods and analysis: Using Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence.Results: We identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32–1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −0.88–−0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD −0.10, 95% CI −0.25–0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI −0.15–0.17; p=0.87).Conclusion: Home-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.

Patient safety is vital in patient care. There is a lack of studies on medical errors in primary care settings. The aim of the study is to determine the extent of diagnostic inaccuracies and management errors in public funded primary care clinics.

There is a substantial burden of chronic respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). LMICs have particular challenges in delivering cost-effective prevention, diagnosis, and management of COPD. Optimal care can be supported by effective implementation of guidelines. This American Thoracic Society workshop considered challenges to implementation of COPD guidelines in LMICs. We make 10 specific recommendations: 1) relevant organizations should provide LMIC-specific COPD management guidance; 2) patient and professional organizations must persuade policy-makers of the importance of lung function testing programs in LMICs; 3) healthcare education and training should emphasize the early-life origins of COPD; 4) urgent action is required by governments to reduce airborne exposures, including exposures to tobacco smoke and indoor and outdoor air pollution; 5) guidance for COPD in LMICs should explicitly link across Essential Medicine Lists and the World Health Organization package of essential noncommunicable disease interventions for primary health care in low-resource settings and should consider availability, affordability, sustainability, and cost-effective use of medicines; 6) the pharmaceutical industry should work to make effective COPD and tobacco-dependence medicines globally accessible and affordable; 7) implementation of locally adapted, cost-effective pulmonary rehabilitation programs should be an international priority; 8) the World Health Organization Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases should specify how improvements in respiratory health will be achieved; 9) research funders should increase the proportion of funding allocated to COPD in LMICs; and 10) the respiratory community should leverage the skills and enthusiasm of earlier-career clinicians and researchers to improve global respiratory health.

Background: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic disease with repeated exacerbations resulting in gradual debilitation. The quality of life has been shown to be poor in patients with COPD despite efforts to improve self-management. However, the evidence on the benefit of self-management in COPD is conflicting. Whether this could be due to other unmet needs of patients have not been investigated. Therefore, we aimed to explore unmet needs of patients from both patients and doctors managing COPD. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with doctors and patients in Malaysia. We used convenience sampling to recruit patients until data saturation. Eighteen patients and eighteen doctors consented and were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked by the interviewers. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. Results: The themes were similar for both the patients and doctors. Three main themes emerged: knowledge and awareness of COPD, psychosocial and physical impact of COPD and the utility of self-management. Knowledge about COPD was generally poor. Patients were not familiar with the term chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD. The word ‘asthma’ was used synonymously with COPD by both patients and doctors. Most patients experienced difficulties in their psychosocial and physical functions such as breathlessness, fear and helplessness. Most patients were not confident in self-managing their illness and prefer a more passive role with doctors directing their care. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study showed that knowledge of COPD is generally poor. There was mislabelling of COPD as asthma by both patients and physicians. This could have resulted in the lack of understanding of treatment options, outcomes, and prognosis of COPD. The misconception that cough due to COPD was contagious, and breathlessness that resulted from COPD, had important physical and psychosocial impact, and could lead to social isolation. Most patients and physicians did not favour self-management approaches, suggesting innovations based on self-management may be of limited benefit.

This is a brief report of 4 paediatric cases of COVID-19 infection in Malaysia BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a coronavirus, first detected in Wuhan, China has now spread rapidly to over 60 countries and territories around the world, infecting more than 85000 individuals. As the case count amongst children is low, there is need to report COVID-19 in children to better understand the virus and the disease. In Malaysia, until end of February 2020, there were four COVID-19 paediatric cases with ages ranging from 20 months to 11 years. All four cases were likely to have contracted the virus in China. The children had no symptoms or mild flu-like illness. The cases were managed symptomatically. None required antiviral therapy. There were 2 major issues regarding the care of infected children. Firstly, the quarantine of an infected child with a parent who tested negative was an ethical dilemma. Secondly, oropharyngeal and nasal swabs in children were at risk of false negative results. These issues have implications for infection control. Consequently, there is a need for clearer guidelines for child quarantine and testing methods in the management of COVID-19 in children.

Asthma imposes a substantial burden on individuals and societies. Patients with asthma need high-quality primary care management; however, evidence suggests the quality of this care can be highly variable. Here we identify and report factors contributing to high-quality management. Twelve primary care global asthma experts, representing nine countries, identified key factors. A literature review (past 10 years) was performed to validate or refute the expert viewpoint. Key driving factors identified were: policy, clinical guidelines, rewards for performance, practice organisation and workforce. Further analysis established the relevant factor components. Review evidence supported the validity of each driver; however, impact on patient outcomes was uncertain. Single interventions (e.g. healthcare practitioner education) showed little effect; interventions driven by national policy (e.g. incentive schemes and teamworking) were more effective. The panel’s opinion, supported by literature review, concluded that multiple primary care interventions offer greater benefit than any single intervention in asthma management.