The failure to demonstrate a beneficial effect for oxygen breathing over air breathing in cancer or cardiac failure was limited by the small volume of research studies available for inclusion, the small numbers of participants and by the methods used in the studies.
Objective: To review the literature for any promising strategies for the primary care management of mild‐to‐moderate asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults.
Methods: Using “MeSH” terms for COPD, asthma and primary health care, we conducted an extensive literature search for relevant meta‐analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, reports and individual studies. Grey literature was also included. We chose a narrative review approach because of substantial heterogeneity of study designs in the literature.
Results: 1119 articles of potential relevance were retained, of which 246 were included in our review. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether general practitioners with a special interest (GPwSI) in respiratory care improved the diagnosis and management of mild‐to‐moderate COPD. An asthma service involving GPwSI increased respiratory drug costs but reduced the costs for less specific drugs. No clear benefit has been shown for practice nurse‐run asthma clinics in primary care compared with usual care in altering asthma morbidity, quality of life, lung function or medication use. Evidence to determine the effectiveness of practice nurse‐run COPD clinics could not be found. Self‐management education, GP review and action plans may produce short‐term benefits for asthma patients, particularly those with moderate‐to‐severe disease, but the evidence for a similar approach to patients with mild‐to‐moderate COPD is equivocal. There has been poor uptake of respiratory clinical guidelines relevant to primary care — partly because most guidelines are based on moderate‐to‐severe disease. Spirometry programs in primary care are useful for differential diagnosis of asthma and COPD. Spirometry may alter the management of mild asthma, but there is a lack of evidence that it alters the management of COPD in primary care.
Conclusion: The role of primary health care in management of mild‐to‐moderate asthma and COPD requires further investigation using randomised controlled trials.
This study aimed to review the evidence for the use of long-term oxygen therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The design was a systematic Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of long-term oxygen therapy for COPD and main outcome measure was survival on home oxygen therapy. Five RCTs were identified. Data from two trials of nocturnal oxygen therapy in mild to moderate hypoxaemia were aggregated. Data from the other three trials could not be aggregated because of differences in trial design and patient selection. Treatment with continuous versus nocturnal oxygen therapy produced a significant improvement in mortality after 24 months [Peto odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.81] for the continuous therapy group. Treatment with oxygen therapy versus no oxygen therapy showed a significant improvement in mortality after five years in the group receiving oxygen therapy (Peto odds ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98). There was no difference in mortality for patients with COPD and mild to moderate daytime hypoxaemia and nocturnal desaturation receiving nocturnal oxygen therapy versus no oxygen therapy or sham treatment. Long-term oxygen therapy versus no oxygen therapy in patients with COPD and moderate hypoxaemia had no effect on survival. In conclusion, long-term oxygen therapy improved survival in a selected group of COPD patients with severe hypoxaemia but few co-morbidities. Long-term oxygen therapy did not improve survival in patients with moderate hypoxaemia or in those with mild to moderate hypoxaemia and arterial desaturation at night.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.