ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Review

What’s new in the management of adult bronchiectasis?

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2017
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous, chronic condition with many aetiologies. It poses a significant burden on patients and healthcare practitioners and services. Clinical exacerbations often result in reduced quality of life, increased rate of lung function decline, increased hospitalisation, and mortality. Recent focus in respiratory research, guidelines, and future management options has improved this clinical field in evidence-based practice, but further work and phase III clinical trials are required. This article aims to summarise and explore advances in management strategies in recent years and highlight areas of research and future focus.

Keywords

Bronchiectasis, NCFB, Non-Cystic Fibrosis bronchiectasis,

Introduction

Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) is a chronic inflammatory condition resulting from repeated insult and/or obstruction to small and medium-sized bronchi, leading to fixed dilation and architectural distortion1,2. The clinical presentation varies from a chronic, productive, daily cough and recurrent infections to haemoptysis, dyspnoea, and respiratory failure2,3.

Bronchiectasis has diverse aetiologies, including idiopathic (up to 50% of cases), post-respiratory tract infection, rare immunodeficiency disorders, genetic abnormalities, autoimmune conditions, chronic inflammation, and mechanical obstruction2,3. It is also increasingly being recognised as part of a disease entity coinciding with and complicating other pulmonary conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Prevalence rates fluctuate globally, between age groups, and between the sexes and are still largely unknown. However, a recent publication suggests that there is increasing overall incidence and prevalence4. In the UK, overall incidence increased from 21 to 35 in women and 18 to 26 in men per 100,000 patient years between 2004 and 2013. The prevalence rates in women increased from 350 to 566 per 100,000 patient years and in men increased from 301 to 485 per 100,000 patient years in the same time4. This may be, in part, due to increased diagnosis of the condition and improved computed tomography techniques. The study also illustrated the increased mortality rates in this population group and the need for hospitalisation, further strengthening the case for the increasing impact it has on our healthcare systems4.

The mainstay of management is improving symptoms and reducing exacerbations. This article will cover idiopathic and post-infective bronchiectasis in adults and will not include allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), cystic fibrosis (CF), immunodeficiency, and non-tuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) disease. It will focus on the therapeutic strategies in bronchiectasis management, particularly highlighting new evidence from between 2013 and 2016.

The patient-led approach

The first approach to management is to treat the underlying cause if one is identifiable3,5,6. British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines have a systematic method for screening patients for ABPA, immunodeficiency, CF, and environmental tuberculosis (TB) infection6.

The importance of risk stratification has been highlighted in recent years7,8. Two main scoring systems have been developed to illustrate severity and mortality – the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI) and FACED9,10. Both include FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), dyspnoea, Pseudomonas colonisation, and radiological features. They have their limitations, mainly sample size and disparity between mild and moderate phenotypes, but are deemed suitable to predict mortality9,10. Additionally, the BSI also includes predictors for hospitalisation and annual mortality risk9. These may be useful as adjuncts to decide on clinical management, but further studies are needed to see if such screening systems can be utilised in this way.

The vicious cycle hypothesis was first introduced by Cole and moulds our management interjections11. Failure of mucus clearance, persistent infection, and inflammation leading to structural damage are all key aspects. Breaking this cycle by optimising interventions via airway clearance and antibiotic therapy for acute infections has been a backbone of treatment11. Broadly categorising therapies into non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and standard and long-term agents, we will explore these aspects and highlight new evidence from the last 3 years.

Standard therapeutic strategies

Vaccination

There is an established role for the influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations in the management of chronic respiratory and medical conditions. This is based on limited and low-quality evidence12. There have been no recent studies specific to bronchiectasis.

Airway clearance techniques and pulmonary rehabilitation

Chest physiotherapy forms a core of patient-led management in bronchiectasis irrespective of severity and symptoms. These techniques are patient-centred and variable and aim to aid the removal of secretions from the lung through non-pharmacological methods13. Whether these techniques have a clear impact on quality of life or reducing exacerbations has not been adequately proven, and most studies are limited to the CF patient population13. Additionally, the use of multidisciplinary exercise interventions (pulmonary rehabilitation [PR]) is seen as an integral part of multimodal management for several chronic diseases14. However, much of the data are based on CF or other chronic respiratory conditions. Further randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are required for PR specific to NCFB. Table 1 summarises the most recent studies and their outcomes for both RCTs.

The recent Cochrane review in 2015 included a total of seven studies in children and adults and a total of 105 patients. Overall, they showed within this limited field that airway clearance techniques (ACTs) are safe in adults and improve certain quality of life measures, lung function, and symptoms15. Further studies are required to assess the short- and long-term impact on exacerbations and disease progression.

Table 1. Summary of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for airway clearance techniques (ACTs).

Non-pharmacological
therapy
StudyStudy designResults/outcome
Lung function
Comments/
adverse events
(AEs)
Quality of life
Exercise capacity
Other
ACTs and PRLee et al.38RCT
PR and ACT versus control


43 PR and ACT monitoring
42 unsupervised exercise
training but no ACT monitoring

8 weeks
No change in FEV1/FVC at study endNo data
Secondary outcome: improved
scores – LCQ
Primary endpoint: Short-term
improvement in exercise capacity
(shuttle walk – mean difference to
control 62 m, 95% CI 24 to 101 m)
No significant difference between
exacerbation rates/duration
ACTsNicolini et al.39

HFCWO versus
chest physiotherapy
(CPT) versus medical
therapy only
RCT

10 subjects in each group
(treatments up to 45 minutes for
5 days per week)


15 days
Secondary outcome: improved
lung function (p <0.001 and
p <0.006)
No AEs
Primary endpoint: symptom
questionnaires
Improvement of 2.7 in BCSS in
HFCWO group (p <0.001)
Increased sputum volume in
the HFCWO and CPT group
compared with control

BCSS, breathlessness cough and sputum scale; CI, confidence interval; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC, forced vital capacity; HFCWO, high-frequency chest wall oscillation; LCQ, Leicester Cough questionnaire; PR, pulmonary rehabilitation.

Short-term therapy

Antimicrobial therapy

Fourteen days of antibiotic therapy is recommended for an acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis. The BTS guidelines identify an exacerbation as deterioration in local symptoms (cough, increased sputum volume or change of viscosity, increased sputum purulence with or without increasing wheeze, dyspnoea, and haemoptysis) and or systemic upset3.

Intravenous (IV) antibiotics are required when there has been a failure of oral therapy or there is need for hospital admission or in vitro resistant pathogens that necessitate IV treatment. There were no studies addressing this. More evidence-based practice for choice and duration of antimicrobial therapy is required. The optimal management of exacerbations remains a vast area of untapped research for robust RCTs and future focus.

Eradication therapy

Patients with known Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) have a reported severe phenotype with increased rates of exacerbation and an independent 3-fold mortality risk16. This may be a result of the pathogenicity of the organism and its ability to form biofilms, rendering standard antimicrobial therapies less effective. Therefore, attempted eradication for first isolation is considered reasonable3. Further studies are needed to assess 1) if eradication is needed and 2) the optimal management regime.

Long-term therapies

Muco-active therapies

Muco-active therapies can be used for both exacerbations and chronic management. Available as oral, inhaled, or nebulised agents, they reduce sputum viscosity and aid expectoration, thereby theoretically shortening exacerbation length or frequency and improving symptoms17.

Although CF and previous studies have shown the potential benefit of hypertonic over 0.9% saline, more recently the evidence indicates equal efficacy in NCFB18. Further studies are required to show whether saline (0.9% or hypertonic) is recommended in practice. Bilton et al. studied the effects of inhaled mannitol in a 12-month double-blinded RCT19. There was no statistically significant reduction in exacerbation rates; however, there was an improvement in time to first exacerbation and quality of life indicators19. The results are summarised in Table 2. Oral agents such as carbocisteine are commonly prescribed in the UK as part of bronchiectasis therapy; however, there are no RCTs to date. Dornase alfa therapy shows an increase in exacerbation rate in NCFB and is not recommended20.

Anti-inflammatory agents

This broad heading covers many drugs, including corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and others. All have different mechanisms of action and vary as either long- or short-term therapy.

NSAIDs. There is some evidence to suggest the use of ibuprofen or other NSAIDs in patients with mild CF21. There are no studies that support their routine use in non-CF bronchiectasis.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists. There are no studies to date for this subset of therapy specific to bronchiectasis.

Inhaled corticosteroids +/- long acting beta 2 agonists. The Cochrane review of the long-acting beta2 agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) combination demonstrated a lack of quality evidence22. Only one RCT (2012) was highlighted in the 2014 review evaluating a bronchiectasis adult population without asthma who received inhaled budesonide and formoterol (640µg and 18µg) or high-dose budesonide (1,600µg). The authors found that there was an improvement in dyspnoea symptoms between the combination group and the ICS group23. Study size was small and it lacked statistically significant differences in outcomes23.

Predominant complications with long-term inhaled therapy are possible pneumonia risk, adrenal suppression, thin skin, and haemoptysis. This risk-benefit profile needs further investigation before management is accepted as routine in the bronchiectasis patient.

Bronchodilator therapy

Beta 2 adrenoreceptor agonists (short- and long-acting beta agonists). These agents have been illustrated in clinical trials for asthma and COPD; however, there have been none to date in bronchiectasis. Furthermore, there are no RCTs evaluating the use of inhaled anticholinergics. The role of bronchodilator therapy in bronchiectasis is unproven but often used in clinical practice with the breathless patient. If there is subjective improvement, it is sensible to continue such treatment.

Other long-term therapies

Mandal et al. reported the use of atorvastatin versus placebo with the primary endpoint of reducing cough24. Over a 6-month study period, the use of atorvastatin was shown to improve cough on quality of life questionnaire24; the results are discussed in Table 2.

Table 2. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) on anti-inflammatory and muco-active agents.

Pharmacological
therapy
Study and
authors
Study design and interventionResults
Lung function
Quality of life
Exacerbations
Others
Adverse events (AEs) or
comments
Anti-inflammatory
agents
Mandal et al.24

Atorvastatin
versus placebo
RCT
Placebo-controlled

30 subjects atorvastatin 80 mg OD
30 subjects placebo OD

6 months
Spirometry: no changeTreatment group reported
more headaches and
gastrointestinal AEs
Primary endpoint: improvement
in cough – LCQ (mean difference
2.2, 95% CI 0.5–3.9; p=0.01)
Trend to reduced number of
exacerbations
Reduced CRP
Trend to improved incremental
walk test
Muco-active
agents
Bilton et al.19

Inhaled mannitol
RCT
Placebo-controlled

233 subjects mannitol 400 mg BD
228 control low-dose mannitol

12 months
No endpoint data on lung function
AEs similar between
groups
Secondary endpoint: quality of life
SGRQ improved in treatment arm
Primary endpoint: annual
exacerbation rates
No significant reduction 1.69
(95% CI 1.48–1.94) and 1.84
(95% CI 1.61–2.10), p=0.32.
Secondary endpoint: time to
first exacerbation – improved in
mannitol group (165 days versus
124 days [p=0.022])
Duration of exacerbations:
no change

6MWT, 6-minute walk test; BD, bis in die (twice daily); CI, confidence interval; CRP, C-reactive protein; LCQ, Leicester Cough questionnaire; OD, omni die (every day); SGRQ, St George’s respiratory questionnaire.

Neutrophil elastase (NE) is a protease involved in inflammatory processes that has the ability to cause lung damage. It shows an increased activity in bronchiectasis. AZD9668 is an orally available NE inhibitor studied in a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase II study by Stockley et al.25. A total of 16 patients were randomised to placebo and 22 to treatment for 28 days25. There was no statistical significance in sputum neutrophil count or weight. Secondary endpoint of quality of life questionnaire showed a clinical difference suggestive of benefit, but the results did not meet significance25. Further studies on similar novel agents are encouraged in order to broaden our scope for long-term anti-inflammatory treatments.

Macrolides

The use of chronic macrolide therapy has been described for many respiratory conditions. The mechanism of action has been the point of research topics and includes anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and antimicrobial actions. Their chronic use has been noted within the diffuse panbronchiolitis and CF populations26. This has spurred clinical trials in the bronchiectasis group.

Three major studies in 2012 and 2013 from Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands compared azithromycin daily, azithromycin three times weekly, and low-dose erythromycin and have led the way in establishing macrolide use in long-term bronchiectasis therapy2729. Despite the publication date, all three studies (BLESS, BAT, and EMBRACE) have been included in this report because of their significance in current bronchiectasis management. The three trials reported their primary outcome as exacerbation frequency, and they have illustrated significant reduction in exacerbation rates2729. There was some benefit in quality of life measures but a clinically insignificant improvement in lung function; Table 3 summarises the results.

Table 3. Summary of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for long-term oral, inhaled, and nebulised antimicrobial therapies.

Pharmacological
therapy
Study and authorsStudy design and interventionResults
Lung function
Quality of life
Exacerbations
Adverse events (AEs) or comments
Long-term
macrolide therapy
BAT (bronchiectasis
and long-term
azithromycin treatment)

Altenburgh et al.27

Azithromycin versus
placebo
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

43 azithromycin 250 mg OD
40 matching placebo

12 months
Secondary endpoint: FEV1 3-monthly
Increased by 1.03% in treatment group and decreased by 0.10%
in placebo group (p=0.47)
GI AEs: 40% in treatment group and
5% in placebo group

Macrolide resistance to
oropharyngeal flora: 88% in treatment
group and 26% in placebo group
oropharyngeal flora
Secondary endpoint: SGRQ
Improved by 6 units per 6 months in treatment group and 2 units in
placebo group (p=0.046)
Primary endpoint: median number of exacerbations in 12 months
Azithromycin group 0, placebo group 2 (p <0.001)
BLESS
(bronchiectasis
and low-dose
erythromycin study)

Serisier et al.28

Erythromycin versus
placebo
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

59 subjects 400 mg BD erythromycin
58 subjects matching placebo

12 months
Secondary outcome: reduction in rate of decline of FEV1
No statistically significant difference
Statistically significant increase in
macrolide resistance (oropharyngeal
flora) in treatment vs. placebo group
(secondary endpoint)
Secondary endpoint: SGRQ
–1.3 units in placebo group and –3.9 units in treatment group; no
statistically significant difference
Primary endpoint: annualised mean rate of exacerbations
Statistically significant reduction: mean 1.29 [95% CI 0.93–1.65]
versus 1.97 [95% CI 1.45–2.48] erythromycin versus placebo
EMBRACE
(azithromycin for
the prevention of
exacerbations)

Wong et al.29

Azithromycin versus placebo
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

71 subjects azithromycin 500 mg
M/W/F
70 subjects placebo equivalent

6 months
Co-primary endpoint: FEV1 before bronchodilator
There was no statistically significant difference
More frequent GI side effects in
treatment group
No routine macrolide resistance
testing
Co-primary endpoint: SGRQ
No statistically significant difference between groups at
12-month follow up
Primary endpoint: exacerbation rate
42 event-based exacerbations in treatment group versus 102 in
placebo group. Rate was 0.59 in treatment group versus 1.57
in placebo group (rate ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.26–0.54; p<0.0001).
Inhaled and
nebulised
antimicrobial therapy
ORBIT II (once-daily
respiratory
bronchiectasis
inhalation treatment)

Serisier et al.35

Inhaled ciprofloxacin
versus placebo
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

20 subjects dual release
ciprofloxacin for inhalation via
nebuliser 3 cycles versus placebo
22 OD 3 cycles

28 days
No difference in FEV1No difference in AEs
No difference in quality of life (SGRQ)
Secondary endpoint: increased time to first exacerbation
Median 134 versus 58 days, p=0.057 (nITT) but 0.046 (per protocol)
Primary endpoint: Mean (SD) 4.2 (3.7) log10 CFU/g reduction in
PA bacterial density at day 28 (versus −0.08 [3.8] with placebo)
p=0.002
ORBIT III and IV
(NCT01515007 and
NCT02104245)

O’Donnell et al.37

Dual-release inhaled
pulmaquin
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

584 subjects randomised
6 cycles of 28 days on and off
over 48 weeks
Secondary endpoint: quality of life
Primary endpoint: time to first exacerbation – results to be
published
Secondary endpoints: number of exacerbations/severe
exacerbations
RESPIRE I

De Soyza et al.34

Inhaled ciprofloxacin
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

Ciprofloxacin DPI 32.5 mg versus
placebo

416 patients randomised
2 regimens: 14 days on/off or 28 days on/off for 48 weeks
No significant difference in adverse
drug reactions between both groups
reported in abstract
Primary endpoint: time to first exacerbation
Significant prolongation in treatment versus placebo group
(p=0.0005). Reduced frequency of exacerbations (p=0.0061).
AIR-BX1
AIR-BX2

Barker et al.31

Inhaled aztreonam
versus placebo
RCT x 2
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

1) 134 AZLI 75 mg TDS for 4 weeks
with 4 week off periods, 132
placebo
2) 136 AZLI and 138 placebo
75 mg TDS for 4 weeks >with 4 week
off periods
2 cycles
More AEs (increased cough, sputum,
and dyspnoea) reported in treatment
versus placebo
Primary endpoint: reduction in bronchiectasis symptoms (QOL-B-RSS)
No difference in AIR-BX1. Difference in AIR-BX2: 4.6 (1.1 to 8.2),
p=0.011.
Wilson et al.40

Inhaled ciprofloxacin
DPI versus placebo
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

60 subjects ciprofloxacin DPI 32.5
mg BD
64 subjects BD placebo

28 days
Secondary endpoint: Treatment FEV1 improves by 0.06 ± 8.36%
Placebo FEV1 decreased by –0.40 ± 10.36%
No statistically significant difference
50 versus 54 in placebo of any
reported AEs
Secondary endpoints: improvement in SGRQ
Adjusted mean difference between treatment and placebo was
–3.56 (95% CI –7.3–0.1, p=0.059)
22 treatment subjects versus 25 placebo reported ≥1 exacerbation
Primary endpoint: reducing bacterial load
Significant reduction in CFU (–3.62 log10 CFU/g, range –9.78–5.02
log10 CFU/g) versus placebo (–0.27 log10 CFU/g, range –7.96–5.25
log10 CFU/g; p <0.001)
RESPIRE 1 and 2
(NCT01764841)

Inhaled ciprofloxacin
versus placebo
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

Ciprofloxacin inhaler BD 14 days
and 28 days versus placebo (on
and off period)

12 months
Results to be publishedResults to be published
Secondary endpoints: FEV1, quality of
life (SGRQ), number of
exacerbations, eradicated and new pathogens
Primary endpoint: time to first exacerbation
Haworth et al.32

Nebulised colistin
versus nebulised
saline
RCT
Double-blinded
Placebo-controlled

73 colistin 1 million IU BD
71 placebo (0.45% saline) BD

6 months
FEV1 mean differences at 4, 12, and 26 weeks: –0.05, –0.11, and
–0.10L
Treatment differences: no statistical significance
95% CI –0.17 to 0.07, –0.17 to 0.07, and –0.22 to 0.02
Total 143 AEs in treatment versus
108 in placebo. Five colistin
patients withdrew because of
bronchoconstriction
SGRQ at baseline, week 12, and week 26
Mean difference at 12 weeks’ colistin: –2.8 Units and placebo –2.2
Units
Week 26 colistin: –10.4 and placebo –0.4 Reached statistical
significance at week 26 (p=0.006)
Primary endpoint: time to first exacerbation
Median time 168 days with colistin versus 103 days with placebo
(p=0.038) in adherent patients
Importance of adherence emphasised
Secondary endpoints: severity of exacerbations, adherence,
sputum weight, and CFUs of PA
Significant reduction in PA density in treatment group versus
placebo group

AZLI, aztreonam for inhalation solution; BD, bis in die (twice daily); CFU, colony-forming units; CI, confidence interval; DPI, dry powder for inhalation; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; GI, gastrointestinal; IU, international unit; OD, omni die (every day); PA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa; QOL-B-RSS, quality of life-bronchiectasis respiratory symptoms score; SGRQ, St George’s respiratory questionnaire; TDS, ter die sumendum (three times a day).

Although long-term antibiotics are still not recommended on a routine basis, in a selected group based on frequent exacerbations (three or more per annum) or fewer exacerbations but increasing morbidity, this intervention should be considered. However, we must balance this with the possible emergence of antibiotic resistance and possible cardiovascular, audiologic, and gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). A practical but prudent issue is the necessity to screen these patients for NTM infection prior to embarking upon long-term macrolide therapy, as this would have potential consequence on NTM management30.

The prospect of non-antimicrobial therapies and novel anti-inflammatories exposes an exciting area for future phase II and III clinical trials.

Inhaled or aerosolised antibiotic or other therapies

With the burden of antimicrobial resistance increasingly real and a global political agenda for stewardship, the need for enhancing techniques and the delivery of antimicrobials responsibly with reduced adverse effects is paramount. Aerosolised and inhaled delivery within the lung has been of interest, as high concentrations of drug can be administered within the airways with reduced systemic side effects. The basis for inhaled antibiotics in bronchiectasis has not yet been established in clinical trials; however, recent work is exposing an exciting field. Currently, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics licensed for use by UK, European, or USA drug agencies for bronchiectasis.

Barker et al. studied the effects of inhaled aztreonam in bronchiectasis patients in two double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trials31 (Table 3). Their primary endpoint of quality of life did not reach statistical significance, and they also reported more treatment-related AEs31.

Table 3 illustrates several RCTs analysing the safety and effect of inhaled or nebulised agents in long-term therapy. Haworth et al. studied the effectiveness of inhaled colistin for up to 6 months within 21 days of an exacerbation32. Although they did show a difference in the median time to first exacerbation, it did not reach statistical significance. However, improvements in secondary endpoints of bacterial density and quality of life did. This study also illustrated the importance of adherence, and, when taking more than 80% of therapy, it did improve the time to first exacerbation significantly32.

There are two phase III trials of inhaled ciprofloxacin, RESPIRE-1 and -2, that have now been completed with the results awaited. They have two regimens comparing 28 days on and off for 1 year versus 14 days on and off for 1 year. A competitor study has utilised liposomes to allow slow release of ciprofloxacin and molecular stability in nebulisation and to improve delivery to macrophages33,34. Successful phase II studies of liposomal ciprofloxacin (pulmaquin) have shown a significant reduction in PA colony-forming units (CFUs) in sputum compared with placebo35. Subsequent to this, two identical international studies have completed enrolment to a phase III study (ORBIT-3 and -4)36,37. The primary endpoint will be evaluation of time to first exacerbation, and secondary endpoints include quality of life measures37. Overall, the initial results are encouraging, prove tolerability, and promise a potential inhaled therapy for bronchiectasis (Table 3). The full reported results of ongoing phase III studies in inhaled ciprofloxacin and nebulised ciprofloxacin with liposomal technology are eagerly awaited.

Summary

There has been increased research activity in the field of bronchiectasis owing to its growing burden on healthcare systems secondary to reported increased prevalence. However, the quality of evidence in the field remains limited owing to the lack of RCTs. Long-term RCTs are greatly needed to further this field and improve patient outcome.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2017
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Koser U and Hill A. What’s new in the management of adult bronchiectasis? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):527 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10613.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2017
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 20 Apr 2017
Diana Bilton, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK 
Michael Loebinger, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospital Foundation Trust and Imperial College London, London, UK 
Approved
VIEWS 0
We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Bilton D and Loebinger M. Reviewer Report For: What’s new in the management of adult bronchiectasis? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):527 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11437.r21861)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 20 Apr 2017
Miguel Ángel Martinez-García, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, Valencia, Spain 
Approved
VIEWS 0
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Martinez-García MÁ. Reviewer Report For: What’s new in the management of adult bronchiectasis? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):527 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.11437.r22046)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Apr 2017
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.