Charlotta Karner

Bio: Charlotta Karner is an academic researcher from St George's, University of London. The author has contributed to research in topics: COPD & Tiotropium bromide. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 13 publications receiving 633 citations.

Tiotropium versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract: Background Tiotropium is an anticholinergic agent which has gained widespread acceptance as a once daily maintenance therapy for symptoms and exacerbations of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) In the past few years there have been several systematic reviews of the efficacy of tiotropium, however, several new trials have compared tiotropium treatment with placebo, including those of a soft mist inhaler, making an update necessary Objectives To evaluate data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tiotropium and placebo in patients with COPD, upon clinically important endpoints Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR) and ClinicalTrialsgov up to February 2012 Selection criteria We included parallel group RCTs of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium against placebo for patients with COPD Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and then extracted data on study quality and the outcome results We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information, and collected information on adverse effects from all trials We analysed the data using Cochrane Review Manager 5, RevMan 52 Main results This review included 22 studies of good methodological quality that had enrolled 23,309 participants with COPD The studies used similar designs, however, the duration varied from three months to four years In 19 of the studies, 18 mcg tiotropium once daily via the Handihaler dry powder inhaler was evaluated, and in three studies, 5 or 10 mcg tiotropium once daily via the Respimat soft mist inhaler was evaluated Compared to placebo, tiotropium treatment significantly improved the mean quality of life (mean difference (MD) -289; 95% confidence interval (CI) -335 to -244), increased the number of participants with a clinically significant improvement (odds ratio (OR) 152; 95% CI 138 to 168), and reduced the number of participants with a clinically significant deterioration (OR 065; 95% CI 059 to 072) in quality of life (measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)) Tiotropium treatment significantly reduced the number of participants suffering from exacerbations (OR 078; 95% CI 070 to 087) This corresponds to a need to treat 16 patients (95% CI 10 to 36) with tiotropium for a year in order to avoid one additional patient suffering exacerbations, based on the average placebo event rate of 44% from one-year studies Tiotropium treatment led to fewer hospitalisations due to exacerbations (OR 085; 95% CI 072 to 100), but there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalisations (OR 100; 95% CI 088 to 113) or non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 103; 95% CI 097 to 110) Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the tiotropium and placebo groups (Peto OR 098; 95% CI 086 to 111) However, subgroup analysis found a significant difference between the studies using a dry powder inhaler and those with a soft mist inhaler (test for subgroup differences: P = 001) With the dry powder inhaler there were fewer deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 092; 95% CI 080 to 105) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 28%), but with the soft mist inhaler there were significantly more deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 147; 95% CI 104 to 208) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 18%) It is noted that the rates of patients discontinuing study treatment were uneven, with significantly fewer participants withdrawing from tiotropium treatment than from placebo treatment (OR 066; 95% CI 059 to 073) Participants on tiotropium had improved lung function at the end of the study compared with those on placebo (trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) MD 11892 mL; 95% CI 11307 to 12477) Authors' conclusions This review shows that tiotropium treatment was associated with a significant improvement in patients' quality of life and it reduced the risk of exacerbations, with a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 16 to prevent one exacerbation Tiotropium also reduced exacerbations leading to hospitalisation but no significant difference was found for hospitalisation of any cause or mortality Thus, tiotropium appears to be a reasonable choice for the management of patients with stable COPD, as proposed in guidelines The trials included in this review showed a difference in the risk of mortality when compared with placebo depending on the type of tiotropium delivery device used However, these results have not been confirmed in a recent trial when 25 mcg or 5 mcg of tiotropium via Respimat was used in a direct comparison to the 18 mcg Handihaler

Tiotropium versus long‐acting beta‐agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract: Tiotropium is an inhaled medication that helps open the airways (bronchodilator) and is used to manage persistent symptoms of COPD. We found seven studies including 12,223 participants that compared tiotropium with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), which are another type of bronchodilator. This systematic review found that currently there is insufficient evidence to suggest which of these treatments provides greater long-term benefit in quality of life. Furthermore, both treatments had similar effects on symptoms, lung function and death rates. Tiotropium appears better than LABAs in preventing COPD exacerbations (worsening of COPD symptoms) and reducing the number of COPD-related hospitalisations. Furthermore, there were fewer participants during the study period with serious adverse events or who withdrew early from the studies with tiotropium compared with LABA treatment. However, there was no difference in the total number of people who were hospitalised.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children.

Abstract: Background Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators often results in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity and mortality and improved quality of life. Several steroids and beta2-agonists (long- and short-acting) as well as combinations of these treatments are available in a single inhaler to be used once or twice a day, with a separate inhaler for relief of symptoms when needed (for patients in Step three or higher, according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines). Budesonide/formoterol is also licenced for use as maintenance and reliever therapy from a single inhaler (SiT; sometimes referred to as SMART therapy). SiT can be prescribed at a lower dose than other combination therapy because of the additional steroid doses being received as reliever therapy. It has been suggested that using SiT improves compliance and hence reduces symptoms and exacerbations, but it is unclear whether it increases side effects associated with the use of inhaled steroids. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (SiT) to be used for both maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma in comparison with maintenance treatment provided through combination inhalers with a higher maintenance steroid dose (either fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol), along with additional fast-acting beta2-agonists for relief of symptoms. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, online trial registries and drug company websites. The most recent search was conducted in November 2013. Selection criteria We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared single-inhaler therapy with budesonide/formoterol (SiT) versus combination inhalers at a higher maintenance dose of steroids than was given in the SiT arm (either salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol). Data collection and analysis We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring hospitalisation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events (including mortality). Main results Four studies randomly assigning 9130 people with asthma were included; two were six-month double-blind studies, and two were 12-month open-label studies. No trials included children younger than age 12. Trials included more women than men, with mean age ranging from 38 to 45, and mean baseline steroid dose (inhaled beclomethasone (BDP) equivalent) from 636 to 888 μg. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage predicted was between 70% and 73% in three of the trials, and 96% in another. All studies were funded by AstraZeneca and were generally free from methodological biases, although the two open-label studies were rated as having high risk for blinding, and some evidence of selective outcome reporting was found. These possible sources of bias did not lead us to downgrade the quality of the evidence. The quantity of inhaled steroids, including puffs taken for relief from symptoms, was consistently lower for SiT than for the comparison groups. Separate data for exacerbations leading to hospitalisations, to emergency room (ER) visits or to a course of oral steroids could not be obtained. Compared with higher fixed-dose combination inhalers, fewer people using SiT had exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or a visit to the ER (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%, P = 0.66), and fewer had exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87; I2 = 0%, P = 0.82). This translates to one less person admitted to hospital or visiting the ER (95% CI 0 to 2 fewer) and two fewer people needing oral steroids (95% CI 1 to 3 fewer) compared with fixed-dose combination treatment with a short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliever (per 100 treated over eight months). No statistical heterogeneity was observed in either outcome, and the evidence was rated of high quality. Although issues with blinding were evident in two of the studies, and one study recruited a less severe population, sensitivity analyses did not change the main results, so quality was not downgraded. We could not rule out the possibility that SiT increased rates of serious adverse events (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; I2 = 0%, P = 0.98; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded owing to imprecision). We were unable to say whether SiT improved results for several secondary outcomes (morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, symptoms scales), and in cases where results were significant, the effect sizes were not considered clinically meaningful (predose FEV1, nocturnal awakenings and quality of life). Authors' conclusions SiT reduces the number of people having asthma exacerbations requiring oral steroids and the number requiring hospitalisation or an ER visit compared with fixed-dose combination inhalers. Evidence for serious adverse events was unclear. The mean daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in SiT, including the total dose administered with reliever use, was always lower than that of the other combination groups. This suggests that the flexibility in steroid administration that is possible with SiT might be more effective than a standard fixed-dose combination by increasing the dose only when needed and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease. Data for hospitalisations alone could not be obtained, and no studies have yet addressed this question in children younger than age 12.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus current best practice (including inhaled steroid maintenance), for chronic asthma in adults and children.

Abstract: Background Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has used separate preventer and reliever therapies. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler has made possible a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy or SiT). Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma compared with maintenance with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (alone or as part of current best practice) and any reliever therapy. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in February 2013. Selection criteria Parallel, randomised controlled trials of 12 weeks or longer in adults and children with chronic asthma. Studies had to assess the combination of formoterol and budesonide as SiT, against a control group that received inhaled steroids and a separate reliever inhaler. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We included 13 trials involving 13,152 adults and one of the trials also involved 224 children (which have been separately reported). All studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the SiT inhaler. We considered the nine studies assessing SiT against best practice to be at a low risk of selection bias, but a high risk of detection bias as they were unblinded. In adults whose asthma was not well-controlled on ICS, the reduction in hospital admission with SiT did not reach statistical significance (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.44, eight trials, N = 8841, low quality evidence due to risk of detection bias in open studies and imprecision). The rates of hospital admission were low; for every 1000 people treated with current best practice six would experience a hospital admission over six months compared with between three and eight treated with SiT. The odds of experiencing exacerbations needing treatment with oral steroids were lower with SiT compared with control (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, eight trials, N = 8841, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). For every 100 adults treated with current best practice over six months, seven required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be six (95% CI 5 to 7). The small reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention was not statistically significant (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, five trials, N = 7355). Most trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of ICS with SiT (mean reduction was based on self-reported data from patient diaries and ranged from 107 to 385 µg/day). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT in comparison to current best practice (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.89 to 4.30, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). Three studies including 4209 adults compared SiT with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. The studies were considered as low risk of bias. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of LABA, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in. The reduction in the odds of hospitalisation with SiT compared with higher dose ICS did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR; 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09, moderate quality evidence due to imprecision). Fewer patients on SiT needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, high quality evidence). For every 100 adults treated with ICS over 11 months, 18 required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be 11 (95% CI 9 to 12). Withdrawals due to adverse events were less common in people treated with SiT in comparison to higher dose budesonide maintenance (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93, high quality evidence). One study included children (N = 224), in which SiT was compared with higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with SiT, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the SiT group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the SiT group, (95% CI 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm). The results for fatal serious adverse events were too rare to rule out either treatment being harmful. There was no significant difference found in non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons. Authors' conclusions Single inhaler therapy has now been demonstrated to reduce exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids against current best practice strategies and against a fixed higher dose of inhaled steroids. The strength of evidence that SiT reduces hospitalisation against these same treatments is weak. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events on SiT compared to current best practice, but no significant differences in serious adverse events. Our confidence in these conclusions is limited by the open-label design of the trials, and by the unknown adherence to treatment in the current best practice arms of the trials. Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance ICS and separate relief medication. The reduced odds of exacerbations with SiT compared with higher dose ICS should be viewed in the context of the possible impact of LABA withdrawal during study run-in. This may have made the study populations more likely to respond to SiT. Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom and there is currently very little research evidence for this approach in children or adolescents.

Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract: Background The long-acting bronchodilator tiotropium and single-inhaler combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS/LABA) are commonly used for maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than administering the individual components. Objectives To assess relative effects of the following treatments on markers of exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life and lung function in patients with COPD. • Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropium. • Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of relevant articles. Selection criteria We included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting three months or longer conducted to compare ICS and LABA combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium versus tiotropium alone or combination therapy alone. Data collection and analysis We independently assessed trials for inclusion, then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected trial information on adverse effects. Main results Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropium We included six studies (1902 participants) with low risk of bias that compared tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist combination therapy versus tiotropium alone. We found no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments (odds ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 5.91; two studies; 961 participants) as well as in the all-cause hospitalisations (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33; two studies; 961 participants). The effect on exacerbations was heterogeneous among trials and was not meta-analysed. Health-related quality of life measured by St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a statistically significant improvement in total scores with use of tiotropium + LABA/ICS compared with tiotropium alone (mean difference (MD) -3.46, 95% CI -5.05 to -1.87; four studies; 1446 participants). Lung function was significantly different in the combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) group, although average benefit with this therapy was small. None of the included studies included exercise tolerance as an outcome. A pooled estimate of these studies did not show a statistically significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.47; four studies; 1363 participants), serious adverse events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30; four studies; 1758 participants) and pneumonia (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.82; four studies; 1758 participants). Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS One of the six studies (60 participants) also compared combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS therapy alone. This study was affected by lack of power; therefore results did not allow us to draw conclusions for this comparison. Authors' conclusions This review update includes three additional studies and provides new low quality evidence supporting the finding that tiotropium + LABA/ICS-based therapy improves the disease-specific quality of life. The current evidence is insufficient to support the benefit of tiotropium + LABA/ICS-based therapy for mortality, hospital admission or exacerbations (moderate and low quality evidence). Compared with use of tiotropium alone, tiotropium + LABA/ICS-based therapy does not seem to increase undesirable effects nor serious non-fatal adverse events.

Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary.

Abstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health problem. It is the fourth leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is projected to rank fifth in 2020 in burden of disease worldwide, according to a study published by the World Bank/World Health Organization. Yet, COPD remains relatively unknown or ignored by the public as well as public health and government officials. In 1998, in an effort to bring more attention to COPD, its management, and its prevention, a committed group of scientists encouraged the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization to form the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Among the important objectives of GOLD are to increase awareness of COPD and to help the millions of people who suffer from this disease and die prematurely of it or its complications. The first step in the GOLD program was to prepare a consensus report, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, published in 2001. The present, newly revised document follows the same format as the original consensus report, but has been updated to reflect the many publications on COPD that have appeared. GOLD national leaders, a network of international experts, have initiated investigations of the causes and prevalence of COPD in their countries, and developed innovative approaches for the dissemination and implementation of COPD management guidelines. We appreciate the enormous amount of work the GOLD national leaders have done on behalf of their patients with COPD. Despite the achievements in the 5 years since the GOLD report was originally published, considerable additional work is ahead of us if we are to control this major public health problem. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, but a concerted effort by all involved in health care will be necessary.

Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2017 Report: GOLD Executive Summary

Abstract: This Executive Summary of the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD (GOLD) 2017 Report focuses primarily on the revised and novel parts of the document. The most significant changes include: 1) the assessment of COPD has been refined to separate the spirometric assessment from symptom evaluation. ABCD groups are now proposed to be derived exclusively from patient symptoms and their history of exacerbations; 2) for each of the groups A to D, escalation strategies for pharmacological treatments are proposed; 3) the concept of de-escalation of therapy is introduced in the treatment assessment scheme; 4) nonpharmacologic therapies are comprehensively presented and; 5) the importance of comorbid conditions in managing COPD is reviewed.

A summary of the new GINA strategy: a roadmap to asthma control.

Abstract: Over the past 20 years, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) has regularly published and annually updated a global strategy for asthma management and prevention that has formed the basis for many national guidelines. However, uptake of existing guidelines is poor. A major revision of the GINA report was published in 2014, and updated in 2015, reflecting an evolving understanding of heterogeneous airways disease, a broader evidence base, increasing interest in targeted treatment, and evidence about effective implementation approaches. During development of the report, the clinical utility of recommendations and strategies for their practical implementation were considered in parallel with the scientific evidence.This article provides a summary of key changes in the GINA report, and their rationale. The changes include a revised asthma definition; tools for assessing symptom control and risk factors for adverse outcomes; expanded indications for inhaled corticosteroid therapy; a framework for targeted treatment based on phenotype, modifiable risk factors, patient preference, and practical issues; optimisation of medication effectiveness by addressing inhaler technique and adherence; revised recommendations about written asthma action plans; diagnosis and initial treatment of the asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome; diagnosis in wheezing pre-school children; and updated strategies for adaptation and implementation of GINA recommendations.

Self management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract: Background Self management interventions help patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) acquire and practise the skills they need to carry out disease-specific medical regimens, guide changes in health behaviour and provide emotional support to enable patients to control their disease. Since the first update of this review in 2007, several studies have been published. The results of the second update are reported here. Objectives 1. To evaluate whether self management interventions in COPD lead to improved health outcomes. 2. To evaluate whether self management interventions in COPD lead to reduced healthcare utilisation. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (current to August 2011). Selection criteria Controlled trials (randomised and non-randomised) published after 1994, assessing the efficacy of self management interventions for individuals with COPD, were included. Interventions with fewer than two contact moments between study participants and healthcare providers were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to ask for additional information. When appropriate, study results were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes of the review were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and number of hospital admissions. Main results Twenty-nine studies were included. Twenty-three studies on 3189 participants compared self management versus usual care; six studies on 499 participants compared different components of self management on a head-to-head basis. Although we included non-randomised controlled clinical trials as well as RCTs in this review, we restricted the primary analysis to RCTs only and reported these trials in the abstract. In the 23 studies with a usual care control group, follow-up time ranged from two to 24 months. The content of the interventions was diverse. A statistically relevant effect of self management on HRQoL was found (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, mean difference (MD) -3.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.37 to -1.65, 10 studies, 1413 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Self management also led to a lower probability of respiratory-related hospitalisations (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.75, nine studies, 1749 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and all cause hospitalisations (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89, 6 studies, 1365 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Over one year of follow-up, eight (95% CI 5 to 14) participants with a high baseline risk of respiratory-related hospital admission needed to be treated to prevent one participant with at least one hospital admission, and 20 (95% CI 15 to 35) participants with a low baseline risk of hospitalisation needed to be treated to prevent one participant with at least one respiratory-related hospital admission. No statistically significant effect of self management on mortality (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.07, 8 studies, 2134 participants, very low-quality evidence) was detected. Also, dyspnoea measured by the (modified) Medical Research Council Scale ((m)MRC) was reduced in individuals who participated in self management (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.30, 3 studies, 119 participants, low-quality evidence). The difference in exercise capacity as measured by the six-minute walking test was not statistically significant (MD 33.69 m, 95% CI -9.12 to 76.50, 6 studies, 570 participants, very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses depending on the use of an exercise programme as part of the intervention revealed no statistically significant differences between studies with and without exercise programmes in our primary outcomes of HRQoL and respiratory-related hospital admissions. We were unable to pool head-to-head trials because of heterogeneity among interventions and controls; thus results are presented narratively within the review. Authors' conclusions Self management interventions in patients with COPD are associated with improved health-related quality of life as measured by the SGRQ, a reduction in respiratory-related and all cause hospital admissions, and improvement in dyspnoea as measured by the (m)MRC. No statistically significant differences were found in other outcome parameters. However, heterogeneity among interventions, study populations, follow-up time and outcome measures makes it difficult to formulate clear recommendations regarding the most effective form and content of self management in COPD.