Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Macrolides, mucoactive drugs and adherence for the management of bronchiectasis

James D. Chalmers, Eva Polverino on behalf of the European Respiratory Society Bronchiectasis Guidelines Task Force
European Respiratory Journal 2018 51: 1702033; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02033-2017
James D. Chalmers
1Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jchalmers@dundee.ac.uk
Eva Polverino
2Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Only evidence-based recommendations were included in the @ERStalk bronchiectasis guidelines http://ow.ly/Vecb30g1gJy

From the authors:

We thank W-J. Guan and colleagues for their comments on the European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines for bronchiectasis [1]. We agree these are an important landmark for the field, and hope that clinicians, health professionals, patients and researchers will use the guidelines to improve the quality of care for bronchiectasis patients and to use the gaps identified to stimulate further research [1, 2].

We did not address the optimal duration of therapy with macrolides because there are no data to determine for how long patients should be treated [3–5]. Since the majority of high-quality evidence derived from studies of 6–12 months, a pragmatic approach is to undertake a trial of treatment for 6–12 months, discontinuing if it is ineffective [3–6]. Statements such as these cannot be included as formal recommendations within ERS guidelines presently because of the rigour of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. A PICO (patient, problem or population; intervention; comparison, control or comparator; and outcome) question, a systematic review and meta-analysis, and a grading of evidence are required to support specific statements in ERS guidelines. Until more evidence is available, there are insufficient data to make an evidence-based recommendation on macrolide duration [1].

Some of W-J. Guan and colleagues' statements are inaccurate. Macrolides were associated in one study with a change in microbiota composition using 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) PCR and sequencing, but this is not the same as indicating “an increased risk of harbouring macrolide-tolerant Pseudomonas aeruginosa”. Relative abundance by 16S rRNA sequencing is not the same as bacterial load and none of the individuals with an increase in relative abundance of P. aeruginosa in this study became culture positive for P. aeruginosa [7]. The significance of changes in the microbiome are currently unknown and results from small experimental studies need to be interpreted with care [7].

The statement that macrolides do not reduce exacerbation frequency in patients not infected with P. aeruginosa is also incorrect. This conclusion is based on a subgroup analysis of 41 participants in the BLESS trial, which did not achieve statistical significance [4]. In making our recommendation that macrolides should be used as first-line prophylactic antibiotic therapy for patients without P. aeruginosa infection, we considered the totality of evidence supporting macrolide use [1, 3–5]. Macrolides significantly reduced exacerbation frequency in both the EMBRACE and BAT trials in populations that had relatively few patients with P. aeruginosa [3, 5]. Our conclusions that macrolides reduce exacerbations in patients without P. aeruginosa infection and a history of exacerbations are based firmly on the available evidence [1].

We caution against extrapolating the results of the PEACE trial and similar studies in COPD to bronchiectasis. The extrapolation of results from studies in COPD and cystic fibrosis is problematic, as treatments such as recombinant human DNase and mannitol in cystic fibrosis and inhaled corticosteroids in COPD have not shown clear efficacy in bronchiectasis studies [1]. Mucolytics such as cysteine derivatives are widely used but we are unable to recommend them in an evidence-based guideline in the absence of trial data. W-J. Guan and colleagues suggest that these drugs may be used in patients not practicing airway clearance techniques. We disagree, and stand by our original evidence-based recommendation to use mucoactive drugs in patients practicing chest physiotherapy-based airway clearance [1]. While there is no evidence to support the use of cysteine derivatives, we found a number of small trials supporting the effectiveness of airway clearance [8, 9]. While further research in this area is needed, as a nonpharmacological intervention, the panel concluded that airway clearance should be the first-line intervention in bronchiectasis.

Finally, we agree that it is important to optimise adherence to all therapies in bronchiectasis. Patients with bronchiectasis often have multiple comorbidities and have to take large numbers of medications [10]. We agree that patients are more likely to adhere to therapies that are effective and so we would advocate following the evidence-based recommendations put forward in the ERS guidelines for management of adult bronchiectasis. Minimising medication burden in mild disease reduces the likelihood of nonadherence and, hence, we advocate prophylactic antibiotic therapies only for patients with frequent exacerbations (three or more per year) and only advocate the introduction of mucoactive drugs where simple measures have failed to control symptoms. Such a stepwise approach is consistent with the principals of optimising adherence ,and should be accompanied by patient education regarding the goals of therapy and the importance of treatment adherence.

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

J.D. Chalmers ERJ-02033-2017_Chalmers

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received October 4, 2017.
  • Accepted October 5, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2018

References

  1. ↵
    1. Polverino E,
    2. Goeminne PC,
    3. McDonnell MJ
    , et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700629.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Aliberti S,
    2. Masefield S,
    3. Polverino E
    , et al. Research priorities in bronchiectasis: a consensus statement from the EMBARC Clinical Research Collaboration. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 632–647.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Wong C,
    2. Jayaram L,
    3. Karalus N
    , et al. Azithromycin for prevention of exacerbations in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (EMBRACE): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 380: 660–667.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Serisier DJ,
    2. Bilton D,
    3. De Soyza A
    , et al. Inhaled, dual release liposomal ciprofloxacin in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (ORBIT-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Thorax 2013; 68: 812–817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Altenburg J
    . Effect of azithromycin maintenance treatment on infectious exacerbations among patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. JAMA 2013; 309: 1251–1259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Chalmers JD,
    2. Aliberti S,
    3. Blasi F
    . Management of bronchiectasis in adults. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1446–1462.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Rogers GB,
    2. Bruce KD,
    3. Martin ML
    , et al. The effect of long-term macrolide treatment on respiratory microbiota composition in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: an analysis from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled BLESS trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 988–996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Patterson JE,
    2. Bradley JM,
    3. Hewitt O
    , et al. Airway clearance in bronchiectasis: a randomized crossover trial of active cycle of breathing techniques versus Acapella. Respiration 2005; 72: 239–242.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Murray MP,
    2. Pentland JL,
    3. Hill AT
    . A randomised crossover trial of chest physiotherapy in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2009; 34: 1086–1092.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. McDonnell MJ,
    2. Aliberti S,
    3. Goeminne PC
    , et al. Comorbidities and the risk of mortality in patients with bronchiectasis: an international multicentre cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: 969–979.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 51 Issue 1 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 51 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Macrolides, mucoactive drugs and adherence for the management of bronchiectasis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Macrolides, mucoactive drugs and adherence for the management of bronchiectasis
James D. Chalmers, Eva Polverino
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1702033; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02033-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Macrolides, mucoactive drugs and adherence for the management of bronchiectasis
James D. Chalmers, Eva Polverino
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1702033; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02033-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • CF and non-CF bronchiectasis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Refined risk stratification in PAH and timing of lung transplantation
  • Outcomes of cirrhotic patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension
  • Diagnosis for cystic fibrosis with new generation sweat test
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Refined risk stratification in PAH and timing of lung transplantation
  • COVID-19 drug research and the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design
  • COVID-19 drug research and the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society