Airway clearance techniques compared to no airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited progressive life-limiting disease characterised by the build-up of abnormally thick, sticky mucus affecting mostly the lungs, pancreas, and digestive system. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs), traditionally referred to as chest physiotherapy, are recommended as part of a complex treatment programme for people with CF. The aim of an ACTs is to enhance mucociliary clearance and remove viscous secretions from the airways within the lung to prevent distal airway obstruction. This reduces the infective burden and associated inflammatory effects on the airway epithelia.  There are a number of recognised ACTs, none of which have shown superiority in improving short-term outcomes related to mucus transport. This systematic review, which has been updated regularly since it was first published in 2000, considers the efficacy of ACTs compared to not performing any ACT in adults and children with CF. It is important to continue to review this evidence, particularly the long-term outcomes, given the recent introduction of highly effective modulator therapies and the improved health outcomes and potential changes to CF management associated with these drugs.

To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of airway clearance techniques compared to no airway clearance techniques or cough alone in people with cystic fibrosis.

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings, to 17 October 2022. We searched ongoing trials registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 7 November 2022.

We included randomised or quasi-randomised studies that compared airway clearance techniques (chest physiotherapy) with no airway clearance techniques or spontaneous cough alone in people with CF.

Both review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.

We included 11 cross-over studies (153 participants) and one parallel study (41 participants). There were differences between studies in how the interventions were delivered, with several intervention groups combining more than one ACT. One study used autogenic drainage; five used conventional chest physiotherapy; nine used positive expiratory pressure (PEP), with one study varying the water pressure between arms; three studies used oscillating PEP; two used exercise; and two used high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). Of the 12 included studies, 10 were single-treatment studies, and two delivered the intervention over two consecutive days (once daily in one study, twice daily in the second). This substantial heterogeneity in the treatment interventions precluded pooling of data for meta-analysis. Blinding of participants, caregivers, and clinicians is impossible in airway clearance studies; we therefore judged all studies at unclear risk of performance bias. Lack of information in eight studies made assessment of risk of bias unclear for most other domains.  We rated the certainty of evidence as low or very low due to the short-term cross-over trial design, small numbers of participants, and uncertain risk of bias across most or all domains. Six studies (84 participants) reported no effect on pulmonary function variables following intervention; but one study (14 participants) reported an improvement in pulmonary function following the intervention in some of the treatment groups. Two studies reported lung clearance index: one (41 participants) found a variable response to treatment with HFCWO, whilst another (15 participants) found no effect on lung clearance index with PEP therapy (low-certainty evidence). Five studies (55 participants) reported that ACTs, including coughing, increased radioactive tracer clearance compared to control, while a further study (eight participants) reported no improvement in radioactive tracer clearance when comparing PEP to control, although coughing was discouraged during the PEP intervention. We rated the certainty of evidence on the effect of ACTs on radioactive tracer clearance as very low. Four studies (46 participants) investigated the weight of mucus cleared from the lungs and reported greater secretions during chest physiotherapy compared to a control. One study (18 participants) reported no differences in sputum weight (very low-certainty evidence).

The evidence from this review shows that ACTs may have short-term effects on increasing mucus transport in people with CF. All included studies had short-term follow-up; consequently, we were unable to draw any conclusions on the long-term effects of ACTs compared to no ACTs in people with CF. The evidence in this review represents the use of airway clearance techniques in a CF population before widespread use of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of airway clearance in those treated with highly effective CFTR modulators.