No abstract

Analysis 1.30. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 30 TUG Test (by gender).. .. .. .. Analysis 1.31. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 31 Walking speed (by risk of bias).. .. . Analysis 1.32. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 32 Walking speed (by duration of intervention). Analysis 1.33. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 33 Walking speed (by mode of delivery).. . Analysis 1.34. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 34 Walking speed (by baseline walking speed). Analysis 1.35. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 35 Walking speed (by age).. .. .. .. Analysis 1.36. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 36 Walking speed (by gender).. .. .. . Analysis 1.37. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 37 Walking speed (by distance walked).. .. Analysis 1.38. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 38 Death (by risk of bias).. .. .. .. Analysis 1.39. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 39 Death (by duration of intervention).. .. Analysis 1.40. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 40 Death (by mode of delivery).. .. .. Analysis 1.41. Comparison 1 Rehabilitation versus control, Outcome 41 Death (by age

Background: Whether blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) are associated with important outcomes in mild asthma is unclear. Methods: This question was explored in a pre-specified analysis of a 52week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial in patients with mild asthma receiving only reliever inhalers, comparing salbutamol 200µg asneeded, maintenance budesonide 200µg twice-daily with salbutamol as needed, and budesonide/formoterol 200/6µg as-needed. Outcomes were compared between patients with blood eosinophils of <0.15, 0.15-<0.3 and ≥0.3x109/L; FeNO of <20, 20-50 and >50ppb; and a composite score based on both. Results: The proportion of patients randomised to as-needed salbutamol having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil sub-group (4.1%, 6.5% and 19.5%; p=0.014). There were no significant interactions between either biomarker and the effect of as-needed budesonide/formoterol compared with as-needed salbutamol for either exacerbations or severe exacerbations. However, there were significant interactions between blood eosinophil sub-groups and the effect of maintenance budesonide compared with as needed salbutamol for exacerbations (p<0.001) and severe exacerbations (p<0.001). Maintenance budesonide was more effective than as-needed salbutamol in patients with eosinophils ≥0.3x109/L for exacerbations (odds ratio 0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.33) and severe exacerbations (0.11; 0.03-0.45). This was not the case for eosinophils <0.15x109/L (odds ratio for exacerbations 1.15; 0.51-1.28 and severe exacerbations 5.72; 0.97-33.6). There was no consistent interaction between treatment response and FeNO or the composite score. Conclusions: In patients with mild asthma the effects of as-needed budesonide/formoterol on exacerbations are independent of biomarker profile, whereas the benefits of maintenance inhaled budesonide are greater in patients with high blood eosinophil counts.

Provision of physical rehabilitation interventions to long-term care residents is worthwhile and safe, reducing disability with few adverse events.Most trials reported improvement in physical condition. However, there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations about the best intervention, improvement sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Current evidence suggests that the precision medicine approach based on the identification and treatment of treatable traits is preferable to a 'one-size-fits-all' stepwise approach to the treatment of airways disease, although high-quality evidence to guide the practical application of this multidimensional management strategy is now required. VIDEO ABSTRACT.