
==== Front
Eur Respir Rev
Eur Respir Rev
ERR
errev
European Respiratory Review
0905-9180
1600-0617
European Respiratory Society

10.1183/16000617.0049-2024
ERR-0049-2024
Version of Record
Reviews
3
A systematic literature review of the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis
The clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis
Chalmers James D. 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4057-2199
Mall Marcus A. 234
McShane Pamela J. 5
Nielsen Kim G. 678
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0432-3398
Shteinberg Michal 910
Sullivan Sean D. 11
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0417-7607
Chotirmall Sanjay H. 1213
1 University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
2 Department of Pediatric Respiratory Medicine, Immunology and Critical Care Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3 German Center for Lung Research (DZL), associated partner site, Berlin, Germany
4 Berlin Institute of Health at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
5 University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA
6 Paediatric Pulmonary Service, Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark
7 Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
8 European Reference Network on rare respiratory diseases (ERN-LUNG)
9 Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
10 Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, The B. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel
11 CHOICE Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
12 Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
13 Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore
Corresponding author: James D. Chalmers (j.chalmers@dundee.ac.uk)
7 2024
04 9 2024
33 173 24004908 3 2024
04 6 2024
Copyright ©The authors 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.
Background

The overall burden of bronchiectasis on patients and healthcare systems has not been comprehensively described. Here, we present the findings of a systematic literature review that assessed the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis with subanalyses by aetiology (PROSPERO registration: CRD42023404162).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications relating to bronchiectasis disease burden (December 2017–December 2022). Journal articles and congress abstracts reporting on observational studies, randomised controlled trials and registry studies were included. Editorials, narrative reviews and systematic literature reviews were included to identify primary studies. PRISMA guidelines were followed.

Results

1585 unique publications were identified, of which 587 full texts were screened and 149 were included. A further 189 citations were included from reference lists of editorials and reviews, resulting in 338 total publications. Commonly reported symptoms and complications included dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production, haemoptysis and exacerbations. Disease severity across several indices and increased mortality compared with the general population was reported. Bronchiectasis impacted quality of life across several patient-reported outcomes, with patients experiencing fatigue, anxiety and depression. Healthcare resource utilisation was considerable and substantial medical costs related to hospitalisations, treatments and emergency department and outpatient visits were accrued. Indirect costs included sick pay and lost income.

Conclusions

Bronchiectasis causes significant clinical and socioeconomic burden. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce both healthcare resource utilisation and overall costs are needed. Further systematic analyses of specific aetiologies and paediatric disease may provide more insight into unmet therapeutic needs.

Shareable abstract

Bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients, their families and employers, and on healthcare systems. Therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce resource use and overall costs are needed. https://bit.ly/4bPCHlp

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Bronchiectasis is a heterogeneous chronic respiratory disease clinically characterised by chronic cough, excessive sputum production and recurrent pulmonary exacerbations [1], and radiologically characterised by the abnormal widening of the bronchi [2]. Bronchiectasis is associated with several genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders [3]. Regardless of the underlying cause, the defining features of bronchiectasis are chronic airway inflammation and infection, regionally impaired mucociliary clearance, mucus hypersecretion and mucus obstruction, as well as progressive structural lung damage [4, 5]. These features perpetuate one another in a “vicious vortex” leading to a decline in lung function, pulmonary exacerbations and associated morbidity, mortality and worsened quality of life [4, 5]. Bronchiectasis can be further categorised into several infective and inflammatory endotypes and is associated with multiple comorbidities and underlying aetiologies [6].

Bronchiectasis has been described as an emerging global epidemic [7], with prevalence and incidence rates increasing worldwide [8–12]. The prevalence of bronchiectasis, as well as of the individual aetiologies, varies widely across geographic regions [13]. In Europe, the reported prevalence ranges from 39.1 (females) and 33.3 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Spain and 68 (females) and 65 (males) cases per 100 000 inhabitants in Germany, to as high as 566 cases (females) and 486 cases (males) per 100 000 inhabitants in the UK [10–12]. In the US, the average overall prevalence was reported to be 139 cases per 100 000 [14], in Israel, the prevalence was reported to be 234 cases per 100 000 [15], and in China the prevalence was reported to be 174 per 100 000 [8]. Studies show that bronchiectasis prevalence increases with age [14]. This may increase the socioeconomic impact of bronchiectasis on countries with disproportionately higher number of older citizens. Large registry studies in patients with bronchiectasis have been published from the US (Bronchiectasis Research Registry) [16], Europe and Israel (European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC)); the largest and most comprehensive report available to date) [17], India (EMBARC-India) [18, 19], Korea (Korean Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration) [20] and Australia (Australian Bronchiectasis Registry) [21].

Although there are currently no approved disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis [4], comprehensive clinical care recommendations for the management of patients with bronchiectasis have been published [22, 23]. However, the burden that bronchiectasis imposes on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, payers and employers, remains poorly understood. No review to date has used a systematic method to evaluate the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. This is the first systematic literature review aimed at investigating and synthesising the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis. A better understanding of the overarching burden of bronchiectasis, both overall and by individual aetiologies and associated diseases, will highlight the need for new therapies and assist healthcare systems in planning care and required resources.

Methods

The protocol of this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (reference number: CRD42023404162).

Search strategy

This systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [24]. Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies related to the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis (noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) and cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (CFBE)) using the search terms available in supplementary table S1. Articles written in English and published over a 5-year period (December 2017–December 2022) were included.

Selection criteria

The following article types reporting on prospective and retrospective observational studies, registry studies and randomised controlled trials (only baseline data extracted) were included: journal articles, preprints, research letters, conference proceedings, conference papers, conference abstracts, meeting abstracts and meeting posters. Reviews, literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as editorials, commentaries, letters and letters to the editor, were included for the purpose of identifying primary studies. A manual search of references cited in selected articles was performed and references were only included if they were published within the 5 years prior to the primary article being published.

Screening and data extraction

A reviewer screened all titles and abstracts to identify publications for full-text review. These publications then underwent full-text screening by the same reviewer for potential inclusion. A second reviewer independently verified the results of both the title/abstract screen and the full-text screen. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data relating to aetiology, symptoms, disease severity, exacerbations, lung function, infection, comorbidities, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), exercise capacity, mortality, impact on family and caregivers, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), treatment burden, medical costs, and indirect impacts and costs, as well as data relating to the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, were extracted from the final set of publications into a standardised Excel spreadsheet by one reviewer. Studies were grouped based on the burden measure, and aggregate data (range of reported values) were summarised in table or figure format. For the economic burden section, costs extracted from studies reporting in currencies other than the euros were converted to euros based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.

Data from patients with specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and in children (age limits varied from study to study and included upper age limits of 15, 18, 19 and 20 years) were reported separately, where available. As literature relating to NCFBE and CFBE is generally distinct, any data related to CFBE are reported separately in the tables and text. We conducted subanalyses of key disease burden indicators, in which we extracted data from multicentre studies or those with a sample size >1000 subjects, to try to identify estimates from the most representative datasets. These data from larger and multicentre studies are reported in square brackets in tables 1–3 and supplementary tables S2–S7, where available.

TABLE 1 Prevalence and severity of bronchiectasis symptoms overall, in children, during exacerbations and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Symptom	Prevalence overall (range of %)	Prevalence in children (range of %)	Prevalence during exacerbationa or in frequent exacerbators (range of %)	Prevalence by aetiology (% or range of %)	Number of studies	
Dyspnoea prevalence b	7.1–78.1 (26.1–33.5)	19.7–81.3	83.9–87.2c
30.0–32.4d	–	13	
Dyspnoea severity	
 MRC scoree (mean or median)	1.8–3.0f
0.0–3.0g	–	0.0–2.0h	Post-TB (2.8), idiopathic (2.4), other aetiologies (2.3)i	20	
  MRC score: 0	9.0	–	–	CF (58.3)j	2	
  MRC score: 1	22.4–37.5	–	–	CF (30.3)j	3	
  MRC score: 2	19.9–43.3	–	–	CF (8.3)j	3	
  MRC score: 3	20.4–22.4	–	–	CF (3.0)j	3	
  MRC score: 4	3.0–14.3	–	–	–	4	
  MRC score: 5	5.0–7.9		–	–	2	
 mMRC scorek
(mean or median)	1.1–2.3f
1.0–2.0g	–	1.8l–2.2m	Post-TB (2.0), post-infectious (2.0), asthma (2.0), COPD (2.0), other aetiologies (2.0), idiopathic (1.0), ABPA (1.0)n	28	
Idiopathic or post-infectious (2.4)o	
  mMRC score: 0	7.7–65.7	–	–	–	6	
  mMRC score: 1	18.2–51.6	–	–	–	6	
  mMRC score: 2	3.6–34.2	–	–	–	6	
  mMRC score: 3	2.1–34.2	–	–	–	6	
  mMRC score: 4	0.7–9.1	–	–	–	5	
Cough	24.0–98.5 (25.8–95.0)	41.9–98.3	78.7–84.9c
94.5–95.0d	PCD (91.0)p, idiopathic (81.3), AATD (72.4), CVID (64.7)	32	
Wheezing	15.0–65.3 (15.0–16.0)	1.5–52.5	–	PCD (70.5)q, idiopathic (29.1), AATD (25.9), CVID (33.3)	15	
Wheezing in previous 12 months	–	30.9–47.7	–	–	3	
Sputum production	22.0–92.7 (41.4–92.7)	6.1–77.9	85.1r
43.2–62.5d	COPD (65.2)s, other aetiologies (50.8)	26	
Mucoid sputum	9.1–46.4 (24.2–46.4)	–	–	CF (12.9)j	13	
Mucopurulent sputum	17.7–80.1 (17.7–44.8)	–	–	CF (37.1)j	14	
Purulent sputum	5.9–84.5 (5.9–84.5)	–	–	CF (40.9)j	14	
24-hour sputum volume (mL, mean or median)	11.4–91.2f
5.0–21.0g	–	–	COPD (20.0), post-TB (10.0), post-infectious (10.0), asthma (10.0), other aetiologies (10.0), idiopathic (5.0), ABPA (5.0)n	14	
CF (25.8)j	
24-hour sputum weight (g, mean or median)	10.8–41.8f
15.4–21.1g	–	–	Idiopathic or post-infectious (15.5–37.1)o	8	
Haemoptysis	2.4–63.5
(13.2–40.5)	6.7–16.3	8.0u
8.5–13.9c
17.6v	Post-TB (30.4)t, other aetiologies (11.8)	33	
Idiopathic (28.6), post-TB (25.4), ABPA (14.3), PCD (14.3), COPD (11.1), post-pneumonia (10.5)w	
All data are percentages except where mean or median are indicated. Parentheses in the “Prevalence overall” column indicate data from larger or multicentre studies only. All data from individual studies are available in the supplemental Excel file. a: A study reported increased dyspnoea during an exacerbation in 77.5% of patients, increased cough during exacerbation in 85.0% of patients and increased sputum purulence and sputum volume in 83.4% and 72.2% of patients, respectively [25]. b: Dyspnoea, only when active or exercising, was reported in two studies and ranged from 11.0 to 54.0% [16, 26]. c: Single study in adults with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) during a pneumonic or nonpneumonic exacerbation. No significant difference in the prevalence of dyspnoea (p=0.599), cough (p=0.356) or haemoptysis (p=0.422) was reported between pneumonic and nonpneumonic exacerbations [27]. d: Single study in children with NCFBE during a virus-positive or virus-negative exacerbation. No significant difference in the prevalence of dyspnoea (p=0.81) or wet cough (p=0.93) was reported between virus-positive and -negative exacerbations; however, virus-negative exacerbations were significantly associated with sputum production (p=0.09) [28]. e: The Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale assesses the impact of breathlessness on an individual. MRC scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe dyspnoea [29]. The grading is as follows: 1=not troubled by breathlessness except on strenuous exercise; 2=short of breath when hurrying on a level or when walking up a slight hill; 3=walks slower than most people on the level, stops after a mile or so, or stops after 15 min walking at own pace; 4=stops for breath after walking 100 yards, or after a few minutes on level ground; 5=too breathless to leave the house, or breathless when dressing/undressing. f: Studies reporting mean. g: Studies reporting median. h: Median MRC dyspnoea score reported in a single study of patients admitted to hospital for an exacerbation [30]. In another study, patients hospitalised for an exacerbation during the 1-year follow-up period had significantly higher MRC dyspnoea scores compared with those who were not hospitalised for an exacerbation during the same follow-up period (p=0.004) [31]. i: Patients with post-tuberculosis (TB) bronchiectasis had significantly higher MRC scores compared with idiopathic bronchiectasis and other aetiologies (not post-TB or idiopathic) (p<0.05 for all comparisons) [32]. j: Study reporting in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF)-related bronchiectasis; no comparison with other aetiologies [33]. k: The modified MRC (mMRC) dyspnoea scale is a slightly modified version of the MRC dyspnoea scale. mMRC scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dyspnoea [34]. Grading is as follows: 0=I only get breathless with strenuous exercise; 1=I get short of breath when hurrying on level ground or walking up a slight hill; 2=on level ground, I walk slower than people of the same age because of breathlessness, or have to stop for breath when walking at my own pace; 3=I stop for breath after walking about 100 yards or after a few minutes on level ground; 4=I am too breathless to leave the house or I am breathless when dressing. l: In a single study, the mean mMRC dyspnoea score was significantly higher in frequent exacerbators (≥2 exacerbations per year) compared with nonfrequent exacerbators (p<0.001) [35]. m: In a single study, the mean mMRC dyspnoea score was significantly higher in frequent exacerbators (≥2 exacerbations⋅year−1 or ≥1 hospitalisation⋅year−1) compared with nonfrequent exacerbators (p<0.0001) [36]. n: No statistical analyses performed [19]. “Other” includes rheumatoid arthritis, primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and nontuberculous mycobacteria infection. o: Studies reporting in patients with idiopathic or post-infectious bronchiectasis; no comparison with other aetiologies [37, 38]. p: Patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis had a significantly higher prevalence of cough compared with patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD)- and common variable immunodeficiency (CVID)-related bronchiectasis (p=0.012), but not idiopathic bronchiectasis [39]. q: Patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis had a significantly higher prevalence of wheezing compared with idiopathic, AATD-associated and CVID-associated bronchiectasis (p<0.0001) [39]. r: Single study in adults with NCFBE hospitalised for an exacerbation [40]. s: A significantly greater proportion of patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis had daily expectoration compared with other aetiologies (p=0.001) [41]. t: In patients admitted to hospital for an exacerbation, significantly more patients with post-TB bronchiectasis had haemoptysis compared with other aetiologies (p=0.006) [30]. u: Single study in adults with NCFBE (PCD and primary immunodeficiency excluded) during an exacerbation [25]. v: Single study in adults hospitalised for an exacerbation [30]. w: In patients admitted to a tertiary care centre; no statistical analyses performed [42]. –: Symptoms for which data were not reported in children, during an exacerbation or in individual aetiologies; ABPA: allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis.

TABLE 2 Patient-reported outcome scores in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

Patient-reported outcome	Score description	Score overall	Score by aetiology	Number of studies	
SGRQ	Total score	Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more limitations	26.5–66.3a
(31.6–53.0)a
29.0–59.0b
(29.0–59.0)b	Idiopathic or post-infectious (39.7–43.2)c	35	
NCFBE (27.4), CF (25.4)d	
IBD (54.3), RA (46.8), ABPA (45.8), idiopathic or post-infectious (42.0), post-TB (41.8), other aetiologies (49.6)e	
Symptoms score	32.3–64.0a
(56.8–61.0)a	Idiopathic or post-infectious (61.0)b	17	
NCFBE (46.3), CF (40.1)d	
Activities score	25.9–59.7a	NCFBE (24.9), CF (27.0)d	14	
Impacts score	18.2–63.0a	NCFBE (22.6), CF (19.9)d	14	
QoL-B	Respiratory symptoms score	QoL-B comprises eight domains; scores for each domain can range between 0 and 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms or better functioning and HRQoL	23.2–91.4a
(54.0–57.8)a
65.0–68.6b	IBD (54)f, other aetiologies (58)	21	
Immunodeficiency (63.5)g	
Idiopathic or post-infectious (51.2)c	
AATD (58.7)h	
Post-TB (66.7), ABPA (66.7), post-infectious (63.0), asthma (63.0), idiopathic (59.3), COPD (57.5), other aetiologies (51.9)i	
Physical functioning score	23.9–67.5a
(42.5–55.7)a
53.5–83.0b	–	10	
Vitality score	22.8–63.8a
(48.7–53.1)a
44.0–56.0b	–	9	
Role functioning score	33.3–82.3a
(59.2–64.7)a
66.7–73.3b	–	11	
Emotional functioning score	31.3–87.9a
(76.9–87.9)a
79–83.3b	–	10	
Social functioning score	30.8–72.4a
(51.3–65.0)a
50.0–75.0b	–	11	
Treatment burden score	32.2–76.0a
(63.2–66.8)a
56.0–78.0b	–	11	
Health perception score	35.5–68.8a
(42.4–47.3)a
33.0–60.0b	–	11	
LCQ	Total score	Each domain is scored from 1 to 7 and domain scores are added together to obtain a total score that can range from 3 to 21. Higher scores indicate a better quality of life	10.0–17.5a
(13.4–15.3)a
11.0–16.6b
(11.0–14.0)b	CF (16.6)j	24	
Physical score	4.5–5.7a
(5.0)a	CF (5.3)j	8	
Psychological score	4.8–5.9a
(5.0)a	CF (5.3)j	8	
Social score	4.6–6.1a
(5.3)a	CF (5.7)j	8	
CAT	CAT score	Scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores denoting more severe impacts	14.3–21.2a
(14.8)a	Idiopathic or post-infectious (19.1–26.0)c	7	
BHQ	BHQ score	Scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better health status	39.0–61.9a
(61.9)a
53.5b	–	5	
HRQoL in children	
 PC-QoLk	PC-QoL score	Scores range from 1 (low quality of life) to 7 (high quality of life)	4.4–6.5b
(4.4–6.5)b	–	5	
 CC-QoLk	CC-QoL score	Scores range from 1 (low quality of life) to 7 (high quality of life)	6.5b
(6.5)b	–	1	
 PedsQL	Child-specific PedsQL score	Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life	Significantly lower in children with bronchiectasis compared with age-matched controlsl	–	1	
Parent-proxy PedsQL score	
Anxiety and depression	
 HADS	HADS-A score	Each subscore ranges from 0 to 21, with a higher score indicating more severe anxiety or depressionm	4.4–7.0a,n,o
(4.4–4.9)a	NCFBE (7.0), CF (5.5)d	8	
HADS-D score	2.9–5.6a,n,o
(3.1–5.6)a	NCFBE (4.4), CF (3.6)d	8	
 PHQ-9	PHQ-9 score	Scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depressionp	4.8–11.1q	–	1	
Fatigue	
 FSS	FSS score	Comprises nine categories (each are scored from 0 to 7); total score ranges from 9 to 63r	20.0–39.7s
4.7–5.0t	–	3	
Parentheses in the “Score by aetiology” column indicate data from larger or multicentre studies only. All data from individual studies are available in the supplemental Excel file. aS: Studies reporting mean. b: Studies reporting median. c: Studies reporting in patients with idiopathic or post-infectious bronchiectasis; no comparison with other aetiologies [37, 44–47]. d: No significant difference between patients with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFBE) and cystic fibrosis (CF)-related bronchiectasis (no p-value reported) [48]. e: No significant difference between aetiologies (p=0.1) [49]. “Other” includes none of the aforementioned aetiologies. f: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-related bronchiectasis had significantly worse Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis (QoL-B) respiratory symptom domain scores compared with patients with other aetiologies (p=0.02). The difference was greater when IBD-related bronchiectasis was compared with idiopathic bronchiectasis alone (mean difference: 5.6 points; p=0.001) [50]. g: Patients with immunodeficiency-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly lower respiratory symptoms score according to QoL-B when compared with other aetiologies (mean difference: 3.5 points; p<0.0001) [51]. h: tudy reporting in patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD)-related bronchiectasis; no comparison with other aetiologies [52]. i: No statistical analyses were performed in this study [19]. “Other” includes rheumatoid arthritis (RA), primary ciliary dyskinesia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and nontuberculosis (TB) mycobacteria infection. j: Study reported in patients with CF-related bronchiectasis; no comparison with other aetiologies [33]. k: The parent cough-specific quality of life (PC-QoL) and the chronic cough-specific quality of life (CC-QoL) are instruments for assessing the impact of a child's chronic cough on quality of life; however, the PC-QoL is completed by the parent or caregiver of the child, whereas the CC-QoL is completed by the child themselves. l: Single study comparing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children with bronchiectasis with age-matched controls with no diagnosis of a respiratory condition [53]. m: Scores of ≥8 generally reflect the presence of anxiety or depression, with scores between 8–10, 11–14 and 15–21 reflecting mild, moderate and severe anxiety or depression, respectively. n: In a study in which the presence of anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale–Depression (HADS)-A ≥8) or depression (HADS-D ≥8) was an inclusion criterion, the median HADS-A score was 10 (indicating mild anxiety) and the median HADS-D score was 11 (indicating moderate depression) [54]. o: In one study, mean HADS-A and HADS-D scores were found to be significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis (HADS-A: 7.0; HADS-D: 5.3) compared with matched healthy controls (HADS-A: 4.1; HADS-D: 3.5), indicating more severe anxiety and depression in patients with bronchiectasis (p<0.001 for both comparisons) [55]. p: Scores of 0–4, 5–9, 10–14, 15–19 and 20–27 indicate minimal/no, mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, respectively. q: Mean Nine-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores were reported in a single study and ranged from 4.8 (minimal/no depression) in patients with mild bronchiectasis to 11.1 (moderate depression) in patients with severe bronchiectasis [56]. r: Scores ≥36 indicate that a patient may be suffering from fatigue, with fatigue severity increasing with increasing score. s: In a study in which the total score was reported, the maximum mean Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) score presented was reported in bronchiectasis patients with depression (PHQ-9 ≥10); this was significantly higher than the mean FSS score in patients without depression (20.0) (p<0.001) [56]. t: In studies in which the average score was reported (total score divided by 9) [57, 58]. –: Patient-reported outcomes for which data were not reported in individual aetiologies. ABPA: allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis; BHQ: Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire; CAT: COPD Assessment Test; LCQ: Leicester Cough Questionnaire; PedsQL: Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory; SGRQ: St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire.

TABLE 3 Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) in patients with bronchiectasis overall and in individual bronchiectasis aetiologies

	HCRU overall	HCRU by aetiology	Number of studies	
Hospitalisations in the previous year (range of means or medians)	0.2–1.8a
(0.4–1.2)a
0.0b	Post-infectious (0.8), other aetiologies (0.5), COPD (0.4), PCD (0.4), idiopathic (0.3)c	11	
Post-TB (1.4), ABPA (1.3), idiopathic (1.2), post-pneumonia (1.2), immunodeficiency (1.2), rheumatic disease (0.7)d	
 ≥1 hospitalisation (range of %)	12.0–77.5
(12.0–61.0)		17	
 >1 hospitalisation (range of %)	7.0–59.9
(38.8)	COPD (54.3), other aetiologies (47.2), idiopathic (45.4), post-TB (42.9), asthma (38.9), post-infectious (34.8), ABPA (29.1)e	3	
Hospitalisations in the previous 2 years (range of means or medians)	0.5–0.7a
0.0–2.0b	–	4	
 ≥1 hospitalisation (range of %)	10.0–39.0
(34.0–38.0)	PCD (48.3), CVID (44.4), AATD (19.3), idiopathic (18.2)f	5	
Hospitalisations per year (range of means)	0.03–1.3a
(0.3–1.1)a	COPD (1.0–1.5)g	6	
 ≥1 hospitalisation (range of %)	15.0–40.0
(32.0)	–	2	
Hospitalisations in first year of follow-up		–		
 ≥1 hospitalisation (range of %)	0.0–42.0
(14.0–42.0)	–	4	
ED visits in the previous year (range of means)	0.4–2.1a
(0.4)a	–	2	
ED visits per year (range of means)	0.4–1.3a
(0.4–1.3)a	–	2	
Outpatient visits per year (range of means)	6.8–21.0a
(6.8–21.0)a	–	2	
Length of stay (days) (range of means or medians)	6.9–17.4a
(6.9–11.0)a
4.0–47b,h
(4.0–12.0)b	–	18	
Parentheses in the “HCRU overall” column indicate data from larger or multicentre studies only. All data from individual studies are available in the supplemental Excel file. a: Studies reporting mean. b: Studies reporting median. c: No significant difference between aetiologies (no p-value given) [59]. d: No significant difference between aetiologies (p=0.134) [60]. Rheumatic disease includes rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren's syndrome, vasculitis and ankylosing spondylitis. e: No statistical analyses performed [19]. “Other” includes RA, primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and non-tuberculosis (TB) mycobacteria infection. f: A significantly higher proportion of patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis were hospitalised in the previous 2 years compared with patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD)-related and idiopathic bronchiectasis; additionally, significantly more patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID)-related bronchiectasis were hospitalised compared with idiopathic bronchiectasis (p<0.0001 for both comparisons) [39]. g: Study reported in patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis of different severities; no comparison with other aetiologies [61]. h: Maximum value reported in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with severe bronchiectasis [62]. –: Measures of HCRU for which data were not reported in individual aetiologies; ABPA: allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis; ED: emergency department.

Given the nature of the data included in this systematic literature review (that is, a broad range of patient clinical and socioeconomic characteristics rather than the outcome(s) of an intervention), in addition to the broad range of study types included, meta-analyses to statistically combine data of similar studies were not deemed appropriate and therefore not performed.

Results

Summary of included studies

A total of 1834 citations were retrieved from the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases, of which 1585 unique citations were identified. Abstract/title screening led to the inclusion of 587 citations for full-text screening. Following full-text screening, 149 primary citations and 110 literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as editorials and letters to the editor remained. From the reference lists of these 110 citations, a further 189 primary citations were identified. These articles were only included if 1) the primary articles contained data relating to the burden of bronchiectasis and 2) the primary articles were published within the 5 years prior to the original article's publication date. In total, 338 publications were considered eligible and included in this review (supplementary figure S1). This included 279 journal articles, 46 congress abstracts and 13 letters to the editor or scientific/research letters. The results are summarised in the sections below. For the results from individual studies, including a description of the patient population, study design, sample size and country/countries of origin, please see the supplemental Excel file.

Aetiology

The most frequently reported aetiologies included post-infectious, genetic (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) and cystic fibrosis (CF)), airway diseases (COPD and asthma), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), aspiration and reflux-related, immunodeficiency and autoimmune aetiologies (supplementary figure S2). However, in up to 80.7% of adult cases and 53.3% of paediatric cases, the aetiology was not determined (referred to as “idiopathic bronchiectasis”) (supplementary figure S2). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the frequency of idiopathic bronchiectasis ranged from 11.5 to 66.0% in adults and from 16.5 to 29.4% in children. Further details and additional aetiologies can be seen in the supplemental Excel file.

Clinical burden

Symptom burden and severity

Commonly reported symptoms in patients with bronchiectasis included cough, sputum production, dyspnoea, wheezing and haemoptysis, with these symptoms more prevalent in adults compared with children (table 1). Other reported symptoms included chest discomfort, pain or tightness (both generally and during an exacerbation), fever and weight loss in both adults and children, and fatigue, tiredness or asthenia, appetite loss, and sweating in adults. In children, respiratory distress, hypoxia during an exacerbation, sneezing, nasal and ear discharge, thriving poorly including poor growth and weight loss, exercise intolerance, malaise, night sweats, abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, and diarrhoea were reported (supplemental Excel file). Classic bronchiectasis symptoms such as sputum production (range of patients reporting sputum production across all studies: 22.0–92.7%) and cough (range of patients reporting cough across all studies: 24.0–98.5%) were not universally reported (table 1).

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (excluding CFBE) in different age groups (younger adults (18–65 years), older adults (66–75 years) and elderly adults (≥76 years) [63]), no significant differences across age groups were reported for the presence of cough (younger adults: 73.9%; older adults: 72.8%; elderly adults: 72.9%; p=0.90), sputum production (younger adults: 57.8%; older adults: 63.8%; elderly adults: 6.0%; p=0.16) or haemoptysis (younger adults: 16.5%; older adults: 19.3%; elderly adults: 16.3%; p=0.47).

Disease severity

Disease severity was reported according to several measures including the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI), the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), Age, Chronic Colonisation, Extension, Dyspnoea (FACED) score and the Exacerbations-FACED (E-FACED) score, all of which are known to be associated with future exacerbations, hospitalisations and mortality (supplementary table S2 and the supplemental Excel file). Up to 78.7, 41.8 and 40.8% of patients with bronchiectasis reported severe disease according to the BSI, FACED score and E-FACED score, respectively (supplementary table S2). In most studies, severity scores were greater among people with bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or post-tuberculosis (TB) than idiopathic bronchiectasis (supplementary table S2). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically.

Exacerbations

The number of exacerbations experienced by patients with bronchiectasis in the previous year, per year and during follow-up are presented in figure 1. For further details, please see the supplemental Excel file. Two studies reported exacerbation length in patients with bronchiectasis; this ranged from 11 to 16 days (both small studies; sample sizes of 191 and 32, respectively) [25, 64]. A study in children with NCFBE reported a median of one exacerbation in the previous year. Additionally, the same study reported that 31.1% of children with bronchiectasis experienced ≥3 exacerbations per year [65].

FIGURE 1 Range of bronchiectasis exacerbations in the previous year, per year and in the first and second years of follow-up. #: Two studies reported significant differences in the number of exacerbations experienced in the previous year across individual aetiologies. Study 1 [90]: Patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis had significantly fewer exacerbations in the previous year compared with other aetiologies (primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD), COPD and post-infectious) (p<0.021). Study 2 [33]: significant difference between post-tuberculosis (TB) bronchiectasis (mean: 2.8) and other aetiologies excluding idiopathic bronchiectasis (mean: 1.7) (p<0.05).

Lung function

Reduced lung function was reported across several different measures in adults and children with bronchiectasis overall, including FEV1 (absolute values and % predicted), forced vital capacity (FVC; absolute values and % pred) and lung clearance index (adults only) (supplementary table S3 and the supplemental Excel file). In most studies, lung function was lowest among people with post-TB bronchiectasis and bronchiectasis secondary to COPD or PCD (supplementary table S2). Additional measures of lung function are detailed in the supplemental Excel file. Lung clearance index, considered more sensitive than spirometry to early airway damage, was elevated in two studies in adults with bronchiectasis, with a range of 9.0–12.8 (normal: 6–7 or less) [66, 67].

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, elderly adults (≥76 years) had significantly lower FEV1 % pred (median: 67) compared with both younger (18–65 years; median: 78) and older adults (66–75 years; median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [63]. FVC % pred was found to be significantly lower in elderly adults (mean: 65) compared with both younger adults (median: 78) and older adults (median: 75) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [63].

Infections

Chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 22.3–79.6% of patients with bronchiectasis, although each study defined chronic infection differently (number of studies: 20). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, chronic infection with at least one pathogen was reported in 10.7–54.5% of patients with bronchiectasis (number of studies: 12). In two studies in NCFBE, significant differences in the proportion of patients chronically infected with at least one pathogen were reported across aetiologies (p<0.001 for both studies) [68, 69]. Patients with post-infectious (other than TB) bronchiectasis (34.9%) [68] and patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis (68.3%) [69] had the highest prevalence of chronic infection.

The most commonly reported bacterial and fungal pathogens are shown in supplementary table S4. The two most common bacterial pathogens were Pseudomonas (P.) aeruginosa and Haemophilus (H.) influenzae. In several studies, more patients with PCD, TB and COPD as the aetiology of their bronchiectasis reported infection with P. aeruginosa. Additionally, in one study, significantly more children with CFBE had P. aeruginosa infection compared with children with NCFBE [70]. Further details and additional pathogens are reported in the supplemental Excel file.

Diversity of the sputum microbiome was assessed in two studies. In the first study in people with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), reduced microbiome alpha diversity (defined as the relative abundance of microbial species within a sample), particularly associated with Pseudomonas or Proteobacteria dominance, was associated with greater disease severity, increased frequency and severity of exacerbations, and a higher risk of mortality [71]. In the second study (unknown whether people with CFBE were excluded), a lower Shannon–Wiener diversity index (a measure of species diversity, with lower scores indicating lower diversity) score was associated with multiple markers of disease severity, including a higher BSI score (p=0.0003) and more frequent exacerbations (p=0.008) [72].

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years) [63], chronic infection with H. influenzae was reported in 18.3% of younger adults, 12.8% of older adults and 8.8% of elderly adults, and chronic infection with Streptococcus (Str.) pneumoniae was reported in 5.3% of younger adults, 2.8% of older adults and 1.3% of elderly adults. For both of the above, the prevalence was significantly higher in younger adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017 for both comparisons). However, no significant differences across age groups were reported for P. aeruginosa, Moraxella catarrhalis or Staphylococcus (Sta.) aureus chronic infection.

P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with reduced FEV1 [73], more severe disease [74], more frequent exacerbations [35, 49, 75, 76], increased hospital admissions, reduced quality of life based on St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and increased and 4-year mortality [49, 76]. Additionally, in a study reporting healthcare use and costs in the US between 2007–2013, healthcare costs and hospitalisation costs were found to be increased in patients infected with P. aeruginosa ($56 499 and $41 972 more than patients not infected with P. aeruginosa, respectively) [77]. In the same study, HCRU was also higher in patients infected with P. aeruginosa (fivefold increase in the number of hospitalisations and 84% more emergency department (ED) visits compared with patients not infected with P. aeruginosa) [77].

Comorbidities

The most frequently reported comorbidities included cardiovascular (including heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and hypertension), respiratory (including asthma, COPD and sinusitis), metabolic (including diabetes and dyslipidaemia), malignancy (including haematological and solid malignancies), bone and joint-related (including osteoporosis and rheumatological disease), neurological (including anxiety and depression), renal, hepatic, and gastrointestinal comorbidities (supplementary table S5). No data relating to comorbidities were reported for CFBE specifically. For further details and additional comorbidities, please see the supplemental Excel file.

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), younger adults had a significantly lower prevalence of diabetes compared with older adults, a significantly lower prevalence of stroke compared with elderly adults and a significantly lower prevalence of heart failure, solid tumours and renal failure compared with both older and elderly adults (p<0.0017 for all comparisons). Additionally, the prevalence of COPD was significantly lower in both younger and older adults compared with elderly adults (p<0.017) [63]. In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, the prevalence of comorbid asthma ranged from 22.2 to 25.8% [65, 78] and the prevalence of sinusitis was reported to be 12.7% in a single study [79].

Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)

CCI scores can range from 0 to 37, with higher scores indicating a decreased estimate of 10-year survival. In this review, CCI scores ranged from 0.7 to 6.6 in studies reporting means (number of studies: 7). In one study, adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) who experienced ≥2 exacerbations per year were found to have significantly higher CCI scores (3.3) compared with patients who experienced less than two exacerbations per year (2.2) (p=0.001) [35]. In another study in adults with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded), CCI scores increased significantly with increasing disease severity, with patients with mild (FACED score of 0–2), moderate (FACED score of 3–4) and severe (FACED score of 5–7) bronchiectasis reporting mean CCI scores of 3.9, 5.7 and 6.3, respectively [80]. No CCI scores were reported for CFBE specifically.

Prevalence of comorbidities in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

Several studies reported a higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities. such as heart failure [81], stroke [82, 83] and hypertension [82–84] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with a matched general population or healthy controls. Conversely, several additional studies reported no significant differences [81, 85, 86]. Two large studies reported an increased prevalence of diabetes in patients with bronchiectasis compared with nonbronchiectasis control groups [83, 84]; however, three additional smaller studies reported no significant differences [81, 82, 86]. The prevalence of gastro–oesophageal reflux disease was found to be significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls in one study [87], but no significant difference was reported in a second study [85]. Both anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched healthy controls in one study [55]. Lastly, two large studies reported an increased prevalence of asthma [84, 87] and five studies reported a significantly higher prevalence of COPD [81, 82, 84, 85, 87] in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched nonbronchiectasis controls or the general population. A smaller study reported conflicting evidence whereby no significant difference in the prevalence of asthma in patients with bronchiectasis compared with matched controls was reported [85].

Socioeconomic burden

Patient-reported outcomes

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue, anxiety and depression were reported across several PRO measures and domains. The most frequently reported PROs are discussed in further detail in the sections below (table 2). Further details and additional PROs can be seen in the supplemental Excel file.

In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups (younger adults: 18–65 years; older adults: 66–75 years; elderly adults: ≥76 years), the median SGRQ total score was significantly higher in elderly adults (50.8) compared with younger adults (36.1), indicating a higher degree of limitation (p=0.017) [63].

In a study that reported Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) scores in men and women with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) separately, women had significantly lower LCQ total scores (14.9) when compared with men (17.5) (p=0.006), indicating worse quality of life [88]. Additionally, women had significantly lower scores across all three LCQ domains (p=0.014, p=0.005 and p=0.011 for physical, psychological and social domains, respectively) [88].

Exercise capacity

Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis was reported using walking tests namely the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) (supplementary table S6). The 6MWT data from patients with bronchiectasis generally fell within the normal range for healthy people; however, the ISWT data was below the normal range for healthy people (supplementary table S6). Studies also reported on daily physical activity, daily sedentary time and number of steps per day in patients with bronchiectasis, and in children specifically (supplementary table S6). No data relating to disease severity were reported for CFBE specifically. Further details can be seen in the supplemental Excel file.

Exercise capacity in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

In one study, the ISWT distance was reported to be significantly lower in patients with NCFBE compared with healthy controls (592.6 m versus 882.9 m; difference of ∼290 m; p<0.001) [89]. Additionally, patients with bronchiectasis spent significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity compared with healthy controls (p=0.030 and 0.044, respectively) [89]. Lastly, a study reported that patients with NCFBE had a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls (p<0.001) [89].

Mortality

Mortality rate during study period

Mortality ranged from 0.24 to 67.6%; however, it should be noted that the study duration differed across studies. When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the mortality rate ranged from 0.24 to 28.1%. One study reported more deaths in patients with NCFBE (9.1%; 5.9-year mean follow-up period) compared with patients without bronchiectasis (0.8%; 5.4-year mean follow-up period) [84]. In one study, significantly more patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis died (37.5%) compared with other aetiologies (19.0%) (3.4-year mean follow-up period; p<0.001). After adjusting for several factors, multivariate analysis showed that the diagnosis of COPD as the primary cause of bronchiectasis increased the risk of death by 1.77 compared with the patients with other aetiologies [41]. Similarly, in another study, COPD-associated bronchiectasis was associated with higher mortality (55%) in multivariate analysis as compared with other aetiologies (rheumatic disease: 20%; post-infectious: 16%; idiopathic: 14%; ABPA: 13%; immunodeficiency: 11%) (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% CI 1.04–4.30; p=0.038; 5.2-year median follow-up period) [90].

Mortality rates by year

The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year mortality rates in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) ranged from 0.0 to 12.3%, 0.0 to 13.0%, 0.0 to 21.0%, 5.5 to 39.1% and 12.4 to 53.0%, respectively (number of studies: 9, 4, 7, 1 and 4, respectively). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, the 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates ranges were 0.4–7.9%, 3.9–13.0%, 3.7–21.0% and 12.4–53.0% (no 4-year mortality data from larger or multicentre studies). No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.

Two studies reported mortality rate by bronchiectasis aetiology (people with CFBE excluded). In the first study, no significant difference in the 4-year mortality rate was reported across aetiologies (p=0.7; inflammatory bowel disease: 14.3%; post-TB: 13.4%; rheumatoid arthritis: 11.4%; idiopathic or post-infectious: 10.1%; ABPA: 6.1%; other aetiologies: 6.1%) [49]. In the second study, patients with post-TB bronchiectasis had a significantly higher 5-year mortality rate (30.0%) compared with patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis (18.0%) and other aetiologies (10.0%) (p<0.05 for both comparisons) [32].

In-hospital and intensive care unit mortality

In-hospital mortality ranged from 2.9 to 59.3% in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded, unless unspecified) hospitalised for an exacerbation or for other reasons (number of studies: 7). When limited to larger or multicentre studies, in-hospital mortality rate was reported in only one study (33.0%). One study reported mortality in bronchiectasis patients admitted to a tertiary care centre according to aetiology; in-hospital mortality was highest in patients with post-pneumonia bronchiectasis (15.8%), followed by patients with idiopathic (7.1%) and post-TB (2.6%) bronchiectasis. No deaths were reported in patients with COPD, ABPA or PCD aetiologies [42]. Intensive care unit mortality was reported in two studies and ranged from 24.6 to 36.1% [62, 91]. No data relating to mortality rates were reported for CFBE specifically.

Impact on family and caregivers

Only two studies discussed the impact that having a child with bronchiectasis has on parents/caregivers. In the first study, parents of children with bronchiectasis (not specified whether children with CFBE were excluded) were more anxious and more depressed according to both the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Centre of Epidemiological Studies depression scale, compared with parents of children without any respiratory conditions (both p<0.001; sample size of 29 participants) [53]. In the second study, parents or carers of children with bronchiectasis (multicentre study with a sample size of 141 participants; children with CFBE excluded) were asked to vote for their top five greatest concerns or worries; the most common worries or concerns that were voted for by over 15% of parents were “impact on his/her adult life in the future, long-term effects, normal life” (29.8%), “ongoing declining health” (25.5%), “the cough” (24.8%), “impact on his/her life now as a child (play, development)” (24.1%), “lack of sleep/being tired” (24.1%), “concerns over aspects of antibiotic use” (22.7%), “missing school or daycare” (17.7%) and “breathing difficulties/shortness of breath” (16.3%) [92].

HCRU

HCRU in terms of hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits and length of stay overall and by bronchiectasis aetiology are reported in table 3. No data relating to HCRU were reported for CFBE specifically.

In a study in children with bronchiectasis (children with CFBE excluded), 30.0% of children were hospitalised at least once in the previous year [65]. The median number of hospitalisations per year was 0 (interquartile range: 0–1) [65]. In another study, the mean length of hospital stay for children with bronchiectasis was 6.7 days (standard deviation: 4.8 days) [93]. In a study comparing bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) in different age groups, significantly more elderly adults (≥76 years; 26.0%) were hospitalised at least once during the first year of follow-up compared with younger adults (18–65 years; 17.0%) and older adults (66–75 years; 17.0%) (p<0.017 for both comparisons) [63]. Additionally, length of stay was found to be significantly longer in male patients (mean: 17.6 days) compared with female patients (mean: 12.5 days) (p=0.03) [94].

HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis compared with control individuals

Length of stay was found to be 38% higher in patients with bronchiectasis (mean: 15.4 days; people with CFBE excluded) compared with patients with any other respiratory illness (mean: 9.6 days) (p<0.001) [94]. In a study reporting on HCRU in patients with bronchiectasis (people with CFBE excluded) over a 3-year period (Germany; 2012–2015) [85], a mean of 24.7 outpatient appointments per patient were reported; there was no significant difference in the number of outpatient appointments between patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (patients without bronchiectasis matched by age, sex and distribution, and level of comorbidities) (mean: 23.4) (p=0.12). When assessing specific outpatient appointments over the 3-year period, patients with bronchiectasis attended a mean of 9.2 general practitioner appointments, 2.9 radiology appointments, 2.5 chest physician appointments and 0.8 cardiologist appointments. Patients with bronchiectasis had significantly fewer general practitioner appointments compared with matched controls (mean: 9.8) (p=0.002); however, they had significantly more radiology appointments (mean for matched controls: 2.3) and chest physician appointments (mean for matched controls: 1.4) compared with matched controls (p<0.001 for both comparisons).

Hospital admission rates

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the crude hospital admission rate in 2013 was 88.4 (95% CI 74.0–105.6) per 100 000 person-years [91]. In New Zealand (2008–2013), the crude and adjusted hospital admission rates were 25.7 and 20.4 per 100 000 population, respectively [95]. Lastly, in Australia and New Zealand (2004–2008) the hospital admission rate ranged from 0.7 to 2.9 per person-year [96]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded.

Treatment burden

In two studies, the percentage of patients with bronchiectasis receiving any respiratory medication at baseline ranged from 60.8 to 85.7% [97, 98]. Additionally, in a study comparing healthcare costs in patients with bronchiectasis before and after confirmation of P. aeruginosa infection, mean pharmacy visits in the year preceding diagnosis were reported to be 23.2; this increased significantly by 56.5% to 36.2 in the year post-diagnosis (p<0.0001) [99]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis were prescribed a mean of 12 medications for bronchiectasis and other comorbidities [100]. In all of the abovementioned studies, people with CFBE were excluded. The most frequently reported respiratory treatments can be seen in supplementary table S7. These included antibiotics (including macrolides), corticosteroids, bronchodilators, mucolytics and oxygen. No treatment data were reported for CFBE specifically. Other respiratory treatments included saline, anticholinergics and leukotriene receptor antagonists (supplemental Excel file).

In studies reporting in children with bronchiectasis, 23.9% of children were receiving any bronchodilator at baseline [101], 9.0–21.7% of children were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at baseline [101, 102], 4.3% of children were receiving oral corticosteroids at baseline [101] and 12.1% of children were receiving long-term oxygen therapy [103].

Medical and nonmedical indirect impacts and costs

Medical costs for bronchiectasis included overall costs, hospitalisation costs, ED visits and outpatient visit costs and costs of treatment; indirect impacts and costs included sick leave and sick pay, missed work and income loss for caregivers, and missed school or childcare for children (table 4 and the supplemental Excel file). People with CFBE were excluded from all of the studies in table 4 below. In studies reporting in currencies other than the €, costs were converted to € based on the average exchange rate for the year in which the study was conducted.

TABLE 4 Bronchiectasis-related medical costs and indirect impacts and costs (individual studies)

Metric	Cost	Country	Year	Comparison with matched controls	Reference	
Direct medical costs	
Overall costs	
 Mean healthcare cost per patient per year  (adults)	Overall: €218
With the following comorbidities:
Malignancy: €4190
Myocardial infarction: €2142
Cerebrovascular disease: €1515
TB: €1055	South Korea	2012–2017	–	[104]	
 Mean total direct medical expenditure per patient  over a 3-year period	€18 635
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€6212 per year)	Germany	2012–2015	Significantly higher total direct expenditure compared with matched controlsa (€14 237) (p<0.001)	[85]	
 Mean healthcare cost (maintenance treatment,  exacerbations, ED visits and hospital  admissions) per patient over a 1-year period  (adults)	Overall: €4672
COPD-related bronchiectasis: €7449
>2 exacerbations in study year: €7521
P. aeruginosa infectionb: €8654
Severe bronchiectasisc: €9999
≥2 hospitalisations in study year: €16 743	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
 Mean cost of exacerbations (ED visits, hospital  admissions and antibiotics) per patient over  a 1-year period (adults)	Overall: €1491
COPD-related bronchiectasis: €3026
>2 exacerbations in study year: €3397
Severe bronchiectasisc: €4306	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
 Mean all-cause healthcare cost per patient in the  year pre- and post-P. aeruginosa diagnosis  (adults and children)	Pre-diagnosis: €27 272
Post-diagnosis: €51 033
(Significant increase in cost; p<0.0001)	USA	2007–2013	–	[99]	
Hospitalisation costs: total	
 Total cost of hospitalisations for adults  with bronchiectasis	2004–2015: €448 948 829
2015 only: €48 606 911	Spain	2004–2015	–	[105]	
 Mean hospitalisation cost per patient over  a 1-year period (adults)	€4666	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
Overall: €1215
COPD-related bronchiectasis: €2725
>2 exacerbations in study year: €3011
Severe bronchiectasisc: €3784	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
€1874	USA	2013	–	[106]	
 Mean cost of hospitalisation per patient over  a 3-year period	€6504
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€2168 per year)	Germany	2012–2015	Significantly higher cost of hospitalisation compared with matched controlsa (€4184) (p<0.001)	[85]	
 Mean hospitalisation cost per patient in the year  pre- and post-P. aeruginosa diagnosis  (adults and children)	Pre-diagnosis: €15 379
Post-diagnosis: €27 612
(Significant increase in cost; p=0.0004)	USA	2007–2013	–	[99]	
Hospitalisation costs: per hospitalisation	
 Cost per hospitalisation (adults)	€2941	New Zealand	2015	–	[95]	
€1070	China	2020	–	[107]	
 Cost per hospitalisation (children)	€18 242	Australia	2020	–	[108]	
 Daily cost of hospitalisation (children)	€1508	Australia	2020	–	[108]	
Hospitalisation costs: in-hospital treatments	
 Mean total cost of treatments administered in  the hospital ward per patient over a 1-year  period (adults)	Overall: €432
Intravenous antibiotics: €234
Inhalersd: €59	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
ED visit costs: overall	
 Mean ED visit cost per patient over a 1-year  period (adults)	€432	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
Overall: €73
COPD-related bronchiectasis: €125
>2 exacerbations in study year: €165
Severe bronchiectasisc: €188	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
 Mean ED visit cost per patient in the year  pre- and post-P. aeruginosa diagnosis  (adults and children)	Pre-diagnosis: €214
Post-diagnosis: €310
(Significant increase in cost; p<0.001)	USA	2007–2013	–	[99]	
ED visit costs: treatments administered in the ED	
 Mean total cost of treatments administered in the  ED per patient over a 1-year period (adults)	Overall: €41
Intravenous antibiotics: €17
Inhalers: €11	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
Outpatient visit costs	
 Mean cost of outpatient care per patient over  1-year period (adults)	€1965	USA	2013	–	[106]	
 Mean outpatient diagnostic and visiting costs per  patient over a 3-year period	€2984
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€995 per year)	Germany	2012–2015	No significant difference compared with matched controlsa (€2793) (p=0.27)	[80]	
 Mean physician office visit cost per patient in the  year pre- and post-P. aeruginosa diagnosis  (adults and children)	Pre-diagnosis: €1717
Post-diagnosis: €3076
(Significant increase in cost; p<0.001)	USA	2007–2013	–	[99]	
HITH costs	
 Mean HITH cost per patient over a 1-year  period (adults)	€2576	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
Cost of prescribed treatments	
 Mean cost of outpatient prescribed drugs per  patient over a 3-year period	Overall: €7695
Anti-obstructive drugs: €1595
Antibiotics: €414
Mucoactive agents: €70
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€2565, €532, €138 and €23 per year, respectively)	Germany	2012–2015	No significant difference in overall cost compared with matched controlsa (€6605) (p=0.67)
Significantly higher cost of anti-obstructive drugs (p<0.001), antibiotics (p<0.001) and mucoactive agents (p=0.001) compared with matched controlsa	[85]	
 Mean cost of treatments per patient over a 1-year  period (adults)	Inhaled antibiotics: €2042
Inhalers (LABA, ICS, anticholinergics): €759
Oral antibiotics: €151
Home oxygen therapy: €111	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
Prescription medication (outpatient): €382	USA	2013	–	[106]	
 Mean cost of prescribing antibiotics per patient  per year (adults)	€117	South Korea	2012–2017	–	[104]	
 Mean pharmacy cost per patient in the year  pre- and post-P. aeruginosa diagnosis  (adults and children)	Pre-diagnosis: €3276
Post-diagnosis: €6616
(Significant increase in cost; p<0.001)	USA	2007–2013	–	[99]	
Other medical costs	
Mean physiotherapy cost per patient over a 1-year period (adults)	Overall: €41
>2 exacerbations in study year: €56
COPD-related bronchiectasis: €59
Severe bronchiectasisc: €100	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
Mean cost of outpatient remedies (e.g. physiotherapy and breathing/drainage  techniques) per patient over a 3-year period	Overall: €389
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€130 per year)	Germany	2012–2015	Significantly higher cost of outpatient remedies compared with matched controlsa (€240) (p=0.02)a	[85]	
Mean cost of outpatient medication aids (e.g. nebulisers and respiration therapy equipment) per patient over a 3-year period	Overall: €1086
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€362 per year)	Germany	2012–2015	Significantly higher cost of outpatient medical aids compared with matched controlsa (€394) (p<0.001)a	[85]	
Mean convalescence costs (admission to convalescence centre) per patient over a 1-year period (adults)	Overall: €52
COPD-related bronchiectasis: €126
>2 exacerbations in study year: €127
Severe bronchiectasisc: €261	Spain	2013	–	[80]	
Indirect impacts and costs	
Sick leave, sick pay and income lost due to absenteeism	
 Mean days of sick leave and mean cost of sick  pay per patient over a 1-year period (adults)	Sick leave days: 13.4
Sick leave pay: €778	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
 Mean days of sick leave and mean cost of sick  pay per patient over a 3-year period	Sick leave days: 40.5
Sick leave paye: €22
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼13.5 days and ∼€7 per year, respectively)	Germany	2012–2015	No significant difference in sick leave days or sick leave pay compared with matched controlsa (45.7 days; €22) (p=0.18; p=0.8)a	[85]	
 Mean cost of absenteeism per patient over a  3-year period	€4230
(For comparison purposes, this equates to ∼€1410 per year)	Germany	2012–2015	–	[85]	
Missed work and lost wages for caregivers of patients with bronchiectasis	
 Median number of carers who missed work  (carers of children)	Primary carers: 11.6 per 100 child-monthsf
Secondary carers: 3.5 per 100 child-monthsf	Australia and New Zealand	2012–2016	–	[93]	
 Median number of workdays missed by carers  (carers of children)	Primary carers: 3.5 days per child-yearf
Secondary carers: 0.5 days per child-yearf	Australia and New Zealand	2012–2016	–	[93]	
 Mean days of sick leave and mean cost of sick  pay per carer over a 1-year period (carers of  adults)	Sick leave days: 6.2
Sick leave pay: €357	Spain	2014–2015	–	[40]	
 Lost wages or opportunity costs for parents who  stayed in hospital with their child per  admission	€1614	Australia	2020	–	[108]	
Missed school or childcare	
 Median number of children who missed school  or childcare	24.9 per 100 child-monthsf	Australia and New Zealand	2012–2016	–	[93]	
 Median number of days that children missed  school or childcare	12 days per child-yearf	Australia and New Zealand	2012–2016	–	[93]	
 Percentage of children absent from school due to  respiratory symptoms in the previous year	46.9%	Australia, Alaska and New Zealand	2015–2018	–	[109]	
Blank cells indicate costs for which there was no comparison with matched controls. a: Matched for age, sex and comorbidities. b: Defined as current or previous chronic bronchial infection with P. aeruginosa. c: Defined as a FACED (Forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Age, Chronic Colonisation, Extension, Dyspnoea) score of 5–7. d: Including bronchodilators and ICS. e: Sick pay is paid out in the statutory company health insurance as a substitute wage from Day 43 of the sick leave according to Section 44 of the 5th German Social Code (this does not include the initial 6 weeks full employers pay) [85]. f: Child-years and child-months take into account the number of children in the study as well as the amount of time each child was followed up for. ED: emergency department; HITH: hospital in the home; ICS: inhaled corticosteroids; LABA: long-acting beta agonists; P.: Pseudomonas; TB: tuberculosis.

Discussion

No review to date has systematically evaluated the overall disease burden of bronchiectasis. Here, we present the first systematic literature review that comprehensively describes the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis overall and across individual aetiologies and associated diseases. A total of 338 publications were included in the final analysis. Together, the results indicate that the burden of clinically significant bronchiectasis on patients and their families, as well as on healthcare systems, is substantial, highlighting the urgent need for new disease-modifying therapies for bronchiectasis.

Bronchiectasis is associated with genetic, autoimmune, airway and infectious disorders. However, in many patients with bronchiectasis, an underlying aetiology cannot be identified (idiopathic bronchiectasis) [1, 3, 4]. This is supported by the results of this systematic literature review, in which up to 80.7% of patients were reported to have idiopathic bronchiectasis. The results are in line with those reported in a systematic literature review of bronchiectasis aetiology conducted by Gao et al. [13] (studies from Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa and Oceania included) in which an idiopathic aetiology was reported in approximately 45% of patients with bronchiectasis, with a range of 5–82%. The maximum of 80.7% of patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis identified by this systematic literature review is much higher than in the recent report on the disease characteristics of the EMBARC where idiopathic bronchiectasis was the most common aetiology and reported in only ∼38% of patients with bronchiectasis [17]. This highlights the importance of sample size and geographic variation (80.7% reported from a single-country study with a small sample size versus ∼38% reported from a continent-wide study with a large sample size). Nevertheless, identifying the underlying aetiology is a recommendation of bronchiectasis guidelines as this can considerably alter the clinical management and prognosis [23, 110]. Specific therapeutic interventions may be required for specific aetiologies, such as ICS for people with asthma-related bronchiectasis, antifungal treatment for those with ABPA-associated bronchiectasis and immunoglobulin replacement therapy for those with common variable immunodeficiency-related bronchiectasis [23, 111]. Indeed, an observational study has shown that identification of the underlying aetiology affected management in 37% of people with bronchiectasis [112]. Future studies to determine the impact of identifying the underlying aetiology on management and prognosis are needed to fully understand its importance.

Patients with bronchiectasis experienced a significant symptom burden, with dyspnoea, cough, wheezing, sputum production and haemoptysis reported most commonly. These symptoms were also reported in children with bronchiectasis at slightly lower frequencies. Dealing with bronchiectasis symptoms are some of the greatest concerns from a patient's perspective. In a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to deal with, sputum, dyspnoea and cough were the first, fifth and sixth most common answers, respectively [113]. Some aetiologies were reported to have a higher prevalence of certain symptoms. For example, in single studies, patients with PCD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of cough and wheezing [39], patients with COPD-related bronchiectasis were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of sputum production [41], and patients with post-TB bronchiectasis were found to have a higher prevalence of haemoptysis [30] compared with other aetiologies. Together, these results highlight the need for novel treatments that reduce the symptom burden of bronchiectasis. They also highlight the importance of teaching patients to perform and adhere to regular nonpharmacological interventions, such as airway clearance using physiotherapy techniques, which have been shown to improve cough-related health status and chronic sputum production [110]. Future studies assessing when airway clearance techniques should be started, and which ones are the most effective, are a research priority [113].

The burden of exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis was high, with patients experiencing three or more exacerbations in the previous year (up to 73.6%), per year (up to 55.6%) or in the first year of follow-up (up to 32.4%). Few studies reported significant differences between aetiologies. Importantly, exacerbations are the second-most concerning aspect of bronchiectasis from the patient's perspective [113]. Patients with frequent exacerbations have more frequent hospitalisations and increased 5-year mortality [114] and exacerbations are also associated with poorer quality of life [114, 115]. Therefore, prevention of exacerbations is of great importance in the management of bronchiectasis [116]. The exact cause of exacerbations in bronchiectasis (believed to be multifactorial) is not fully understood due a lack of mechanistic studies [116]. Future studies into the causes and risk factors for exacerbations [113] may lead to improvements in their prevention.

Many patients with bronchiectasis, including children, experienced chronic infections with bacterial pathogens such as P. aeruginosa, H. influenzae, Sta. aureus and Str. pneumoniae as well as non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Importantly, P. aeruginosa infection was significantly associated with more severe disease, reduced lung function and quality of life, and increased exacerbations, hospital admission, morality, HCRU and healthcare costs. Due to the clear and consistent association between P. aeruginosa and poor outcomes, patients with chronic P. aeruginosa colonisation should be considered to be at a higher risk of bronchiectasis-related complications [110]. Additionally, regular sputum microbiology screening should be performed in people with clinically significant bronchiectasis to detect new isolation of P. aeruginosa [110]; in which case, patients should be offered eradication antibiotic treatment [23]. Eradication of P. aeruginosa is not only of clinical importance, but also of economic importance due to the associated HCRU and healthcare costs. As such, a better understanding of the key factors leading to P. aeruginosa infection is a priority for future research [113].

Bronchiectasis markedly impacted HRQoL across several PROs including the SGRQ, Quality of Life–Bronchiectasis score, LCQ, COPD Assessment Test and Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire. In children with bronchiectasis, significantly lower quality of life (according to the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory score) compared with age-matched controls was reported [53]. The majority of studies reporting HRQoL in individual aetiologies and associated diseases either reported in a single aetiology, did not perform any statistical analyses to compare aetiologies, or reported no significant differences across aetiologies. Patients also experienced mild-to-moderate anxiety and depression according to the HADS-Anxiety, HADS-Depression and 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire scores, with very limited data reported in individual aetiologies. When compared with healthy controls, anxiety and depression were found to be significantly more prevalent in patients with bronchiectasis [55]. Additionally, exercise capacity was reduced, with patients with bronchiectasis reported to spend significantly less time on activities of moderate and vigorous intensity and have a significantly lower step count per day compared with healthy controls [89]. Improvements in anxiety, depression and exercise capacity are important priorities for people with bronchiectasis; in a study assessing the aspects of bronchiectasis that patients found most difficult to manage, “not feeling fit for daily activities”, anxiety and depression were the fourth, eighth and ninth most common answers, respectively [113].

The studies relating to HCRU and costs in this review were heterogeneous in terms of methodology, time period, country and currency, making them challenging to compare. Nevertheless, this study found that HCRU was substantial, with patients reporting a maximum of 1.3 hospitalisation, 1.3 ED and 21.0 outpatient visits per year. Length of stay was found to be significantly longer in patients with bronchiectasis compared with patients with any other respiratory illness in one study [91]. In another study, patients with bronchiectasis reported significantly more specialist appointments (radiologist appointments and chest physician appointments) compared with matched controls [85]. Patients with bronchiectasis also experienced a significant treatment burden, with up to 36.4, 58.0 and 83.0% of patients receiving long-term inhaled antibiotics, oral antibiotics and macrolides, respectively, up to 80.4% receiving long-term ICS and up to 61.7% and 81.4% receiving long-term long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta agonists, respectively. Wide ranges of treatment use were reported in this study, which may reflect geographic variation in treatment patterns. Heterogeneous treatment patterns across Europe were observed in the EMBARC registry data with generally higher medication use in the UK and Northern/Western Europe and lower medication use in Eastern Europe (inhaled antibiotics: 1.8–8.9%; macrolides: 0.9–24.4%; ICS: 37.2–58.5%; long-acting beta agonists: 42.7–52.8%; long-acting muscarinic antagonists: 26.5–29.8%) [17]. Similarly, data from the Indian bronchiectasis registry indicate that the treatment of bronchiectasis in India is also diverse [19]. Furthermore, in a comparison of the European and Indian registry data, both long-term oral and inhaled antibiotics were more commonly used in Europe compared with India [19].

Cost varied widely across studies. However, patients, payers and healthcare systems generally accrued substantial medical costs due to hospitalisations, ED visits, outpatient visits, hospital-in-the-home and treatment-related costs. Other medical costs incurred included physiotherapy and outpatient remedies (including breathing or drainage techniques), outpatient medical aids (including nebulisers and respiration therapy equipment) and the cost of attending convalescence centres. Only one study compared the medical costs in patients with bronchiectasis and matched controls (age, sex and comorbidities) and found that patients with bronchiectasis had significantly higher total direct medical expenditure, hospitalisation costs, treatment costs for certain medications and costs associated with outpatient remedies and medical aids [85]. Bronchiectasis was also associated with indirect impacts and costs, including sick leave, sick pay and income lost due to absenteeism and missed work, and lost wages for caregivers of patients with bronchiectasis. Children with bronchiectasis also reported absenteeism from school or childcare.

Our findings regarding HRCU and costs in bronchiectasis are mirrored by a recent systematic literature review by Roberts et al. [117] estimating the annual economic burden of bronchiectasis in adults and children over the 2001–2022 time period. Roberts et al. [117] found that annual total healthcare costs per adult patient ranged from €3027 to €69 817 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), predominantly driven by hospitalisation costs. Likewise, we report annual costs per patient ranging from €218 to €51 033, with annual hospital costs ranging from €1215 to €27 612 (adults and children included) (table 4). Further, Roberts et al. [117] reports a mean annual hospitalisation rate ranging from 0.11 to 2.9, which is similar to our finding of 0.03–1.3 hospitalisations per year (table 3). With regard to outpatient visits, Roberts et al. [117] reports a mean annual outpatient respiratory physician attendance ranging from 0.83 to 6.8 visits, whereas we report a maximum of 21 visits per year (table 3). It should be noted, however, that our value is not restricted to visits to a respiratory physician. With regard to indirect annual costs per adult patient, Roberts et al. [117] reports a loss of income because of illness of €1109–€2451 (costs were converted from USD to € based on the average exchange rate in 2021), whereas we report a figure of ∼€1410 (table 4). Finally, burden on children is similarly reported by us and Roberts et al. [117], with children missing 12 days of school per year per child (table 4).

Limitations of this review and the existing literature

Due to the nature of this systematic literature review, no formal statistical analyses or formal risk of bias assessments were performed.

Several limitations within the existing literature were identified. Firstly, the vast majority of studies reported patients with NCFBE overall, with limited availability of literature reporting on individual aetiologies and associated disease. Furthermore, where this literature was available, it was limited to a handful of individual aetiologies and associated diseases, and in many of these studies, no statistical analyses to compare different aetiologies and associated disease were performed. Additionally, the methods used to determine aetiologies within individual studies may have differed. Literature on NCFBE and CFBE has traditionally been very distinct; as such, most of the studies included in this review have excluded people with CF. As the general term “CF lung disease” was not included in our search string in order to limit the number of hits, limited data on CFBE are included in this review. Bronchiectasis remains largely under-recognised and underdiagnosed, thus limiting the availability of literature. There is a particular knowledge gap with respect to paediatric NCFBE; however, initiatives such as the Children's Bronchiectasis Education Advocacy and Research Network (Child-BEAR-Net) (www.improvebe.org) are aiming to create multinational registries for paediatric bronchiectasis.

There were variations in the amount of literature available for the individual burdens. While there was more literature available on the clinical burden of bronchiectasis, economic data (related to both medical costs and indirect costs) and data on the impact of bronchiectasis on families and caregivers, were limited. Additionally, cost comparisons across studies and populations were difficult due to differences in cost definitions, currencies and healthcare systems.

Sample sizes of the studies included in this systematic literature review varied greatly, with the majority of studies reporting on a small number of participants. Furthermore, many of the studies were single-centre studies, thus limiting the ability to make generalisations about the larger bronchiectasis population, and cross-sectional, thus limiting the ability to assess the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis over a patient's lifetime. Furthermore, there may be potential sex/gender bias in reporting that has not been considered in this systematic literature review.

Finally, for many of the reported outcomes, data varied greatly across studies, with wide estimates for the frequency of different aetiologies and comorbidities as well as disease characteristics such as exacerbations and healthcare costs noted. This reflects the heterogeneity of both the study designs (including sample size and inclusion and exclusion criteria) and the study populations themselves. Additionally, the use of non-standardised terms across articles posed a limitation for data synthesis. Systematic collection of standardised data across multiple centres, with standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria such as that being applied in international registries, is likely to provide more accurate estimates than those derived from small single-centre studies.

Conclusions

Collectively, the evidence identified and presented in this systematic literature review show that bronchiectasis imposes a significant clinical and socioeconomic burden on patients and their families and employers, as well as on healthcare systems. Disease-modifying therapies that reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, and reduce both HCRU and overall costs are urgently needed. Further systematic analyses of the disease burden of specific bronchiectasis aetiologies and associated disease (particularly PCD-, COPD- and post-TB-associated bronchiectasis, which appear to impose a greater burden in some aspects) and paediatric bronchiectasis (the majority of data included in this study were obtained from adults) may provide more insight into the unmet therapeutic needs for these specific patient populations.

Questions for future research

Further research into the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis for individual aetiologies and associated diseases is required.

Supplementary material

10.1183/16000617.0049-2024.Supp1 Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary figures and tables ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary Excel file ERR-0049-2024.SUPPLEMENT

Acknowledgements

Laura Cottino, PhD, of Nucleus Global, provided writing, editorial support, and formatting assistance, which was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

Conflict of interest: The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). J.D. Chalmers has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Novartis, Insmed and Trudell, and received consultancy or speaker fees from Antabio, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Trudell and Zambon. M.A. Mall reports research grants paid to their institution from the German Research Foundation (DFG), German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), German Innovation Fund, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Prieris, Recode, Santhera, Splisense and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; speaker fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals; and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M.A. Mall also reports advisory board participation for AbbVie, Antabio, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotec, Pari and Vertex Pharmaceuticals and is a fellow of ERS (unpaid). P.J. McShane is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim's Airleaf trial and Insmed's Aspen trial. P.J. McShane is also a principal investigator for clinical trials with the following pharmaceutical companies: Insmed: Aspen, 416; Boehringer Ingelheim: Airleaf; Paratek: oral omadacycline; AN2 Therapeutics: epetraborole; Renovian: ARINA-1; Redhill; Spero; and Armata. K.G. Nielsen reports advisory board membership for Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Shteinberg reports having received research grants from Novartis, Trudell Pharma and GlaxoSmithKline; travel grants from Novartis, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Rafa; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Teva, Novartis, Kamada and Sanofi; and advisory fees (including steering committee membership) from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kamada, Syncrony Medical, Zambon and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. M. Shteinberg also reports data and safety monitoring board participation for Bonus Therapeutics, Israel and is an ERS Task Force member on bronchiectasis guideline development. S.D. Sullivan has participated in advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim and has research grants from Pfizer, Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline. S.H. Chotirmall is on advisory boards for CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pneumagen Ltd, served on a data and safety monitoring board for Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc., and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Chiesi Farmaceutici.

Support statement: This systematic literature review was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. Boehringer Ingelheim was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.
==== Refs
References

1 Murray MP, Hill AT. Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Clin Med 2009; 9 : 164–169. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.9-2-164
2 Laennec R. A Treatise on the Diseases of the Chest, and on Mediate Auscultation. New York, Samuel S. and William Wood, 1834.
3 Chalmers JD, Aliberti S, Blasi F. Management of bronchiectasis in adults. Eur Respir J 2015; 45 : 1446–1462. doi:10.1183/09031936.00119114 25792635
4 Flume PA, Chalmers JD, Olivier KN. Advances in bronchiectasis: endotyping, genetics, microbiome, and disease heterogeneity. Lancet 2018; 392 : 880–890. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31767-7 30215383
5 McShane PJ, Naureckas ET, Tino G, et al. Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188 : 647–656. doi:10.1164/rccm.201303-0411CI 23898922
6 Martins M, Keir HR, Chalmers JD. Endotypes in bronchiectasis: moving towards precision medicine. A narrative review. Pulmonology 2023; 29 : 505–517. doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.03.004 37030997
7 Chotirmall SH, Chalmers JD. Bronchiectasis: an emerging global epidemic. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18 : 76. doi:10.1186/s12890-018-0629-1 29788944
8 Feng J, Sun L, Sun X, et al. Increasing prevalence and burden of bronchiectasis in urban Chinese adults, 2013–2017: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Respir Res 2022; 23 : 111. doi:10.1186/s12931-022-02023-8 35509081
9 Henkle E, Chan B, Curtis JR, et al. Characteristics and health-care utilization history of patients with bronchiectasis in US Medicare enrollees with prescription drug plans, 2006 to 2014. Chest 2018; 154 : 1311–1320. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.014 30055168
10 Monteagudo M, Rodríguez-Blanco T, Barrecheguren M, et al. Prevalence and incidence of bronchiectasis in Catalonia, Spain: a population-based study. Respir Med 2016; 121 : 26–31. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2016.10.014 27888988
11 Quint JK, Millett ERC, Joshi M, et al. Changes in the incidence, prevalence and mortality of bronchiectasis in the UK from 2004 to 2013: a population-based cohort study. Eur Respir J 2016; 47 : 186–193. doi:10.1183/13993003.01033-2015 26541539
12 Ringshausen FC, de Roux A, Diel R, et al. Bronchiectasis in Germany: a population-based estimation of disease prevalence. Eur Respir J 2015; 46 : 1805–1807. doi:10.1183/13993003.00954-2015 26293498
13 Gao Y-H, Guan W-J, Liu S-X, et al. Aetiology of bronchiectasis in adults: a systematic literature review. Respirology 2016; 21 : 1376–1383. doi:10.1111/resp.12832 27321896
14 Weycker D, Hansen GL, Seifer FD. Prevalence and incidence of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis among US adults in 2013. Chron Respir Dis 2017; 14 : 377–384. doi:10.1177/1479972317709649 28555504
15 Shteinberg M, Stein N, Adir Y, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and prognosis of nontuberculous mycobacterial infection among people with bronchiectasis: a population survey. Eur Respir J 2018; 51 : 1702469. doi:10.1183/13993003.02469-2017 29545278
16 Aksamit TR, O'Donnell AE, Barker A, et al. Adult patients with bronchiectasis: a first look at the US Bronchiectasis Research Registry. Chest 2017; 151 : 982–992. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.055 27889361
17 Chalmers JD, Polverino E, Crichton ML, et al. Bronchiectasis in Europe: data on disease characteristics from the European bronchiectasis registry (EMBARC). Lancet Respir Med 2023; 11 : 637–649. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00093-0 37105206
18 Dhar R, Singh S, Talwar D, et al. Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India: data from the EMBARC/Respiratory Research Network of India registry. Eur Respir J 2023; 61 : 2200611. doi:10.1183/13993003.00611-2022 36229049
19 Dhar R, Singh S, Talwar D, et al. Bronchiectasis in India: results from the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) and Respiratory Research Network of India Registry. Lancet Glob Health 2019; 7 : e1269–e1279. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30327-4 31402007
20 Lee H, Choi H, Chalmers JD, et al. Characteristics of bronchiectasis in Korea: first data from the Korean Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration registry and comparison with other international registries. Respirology 2021; 26 : 619–621. doi:10.1111/resp.14059 33876470
21 Visser SK, Bye PTP, Fox GJ, et al. Australian adults with bronchiectasis: The first report from the Australian Bronchiectasis Registry. Respir Med 2019; 155 : 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2019.07.016 31326739
22 Hill AT, Sullivan AL, Chalmers JD, et al. British Thoracic Society Guideline for bronchiectasis in adults. Thorax 2019; 74 : Suppl. 1 , 1–69. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212463
23 Polverino E, Goeminne PC, McDonnell MJ, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2017; 50 : 1700629. doi:10.1183/13993003.00629-2017 28889110
24 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 : e1–34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 19631507
25 Scioscia G, Amaro R, Alcaraz-Serrano V, et al. Clinical factors associated with a shorter or longer course of antibiotic treatment in patients with exacerbations of bronchiectasis: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Med 2019; 8 : 1950. doi:10.3390/jcm8111950 31726739
26 Dente FL, Bilotta M, Bartoli ML, et al. Neutrophilic bronchial inflammation correlates with clinical and functional findings in patients with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Mediators Inflamm 2015; 2015 : 642503. doi:10.1155/2015/642503 26819500
27 Polverino E, Rosales-Mayor E, Benegas M, et al. Pneumonic and non-pneumonic exacerbations in bronchiectasis: clinical and microbiological differences. J Infect 2018; 77 : 99–106. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2018.04.006 29746946
28 Kapur N, Mackay IM, Sloots TP, et al. Respiratory viruses in exacerbations of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children. Arch Dis Child 2014; 99 : 749–753. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-305147 24819370
29 Williams N. The MRC breathlessness scale. Occup Med (Lond) 2017; 67 : 496–497. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqx086
30 Fong I, Low TB, Yii A. Characterisation of the post-tuberculous phenotype of bronchiectasis: a real-world observational study. Chron Respir Dis 2022; 19 : 14799731221098714. doi:10.1177/14799731221098714 35471849
31 Alcaraz-Serrano V, Gimeno-Santos E, Scioscia G, et al. Association between physical activity and risk of hospitalisation in bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2020; 55 : 1902138. doi:10.1183/13993003.02138-2019 32184321
32 Al-Harbi A, Al-Ghamdi M, Khan M, et al. Performance of multidimensional severity scoring systems in patients with post-tuberculosis bronchiectasis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2020; 15 : 2157–2165. doi:10.2147/COPD.S261797 32982208
33 Muñoz G, de Gracia J, Giron R, et al. Validation of a Spanish version of the Leicester Cough Questionnaire in cystic fibrosis. Chron Respir Dis 2021; 18 : 14799731211036903. doi:10.1177/14799731211036903 34730449
34 Sunjaya A, Poulos L, Reddel H, et al. Qualitative validation of the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale as a patient-reported measure of breathlessness severity. Respir Med 2022; 203 : 106984. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106984 36179385
35 Rosales-Mayor E, Polverino E, Raguer L, et al. Comparison of two prognostic scores (BSI and FACED) in a Spanish cohort of adult patients with bronchiectasis and improvement of the FACED predictive capacity for exacerbations. PLoS One 2017; 12 : e0175171. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175171 28384311
36 Martinez-Garcia MÁ, Athanazio R, Gramblicka G, et al. Prognostic value of frequent exacerbations in bronchiectasis: the relationship with disease severity. Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed) 2019; 55 : 81–87. doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2018.07.015 30119935
37 Ailiyaer Y, Wang X, Zhang Y, et al. A prospective trial of nebulized amikacin in the treatment of bronchiectasis exacerbation. Respiration 2018; 95 : 327–333. doi:10.1159/000486134 29587297
38 Stockley R, De Soyza A, Gunawardena K, et al. Phase II study of a neutrophil elastase inhibitor (AZD9668) in patients with bronchiectasis. Respir Med 2013; 107 : 524–533. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2012.12.009 23433769
39 Eden E, Choate R, Barker A, et al. The clinical features of bronchiectasis associated with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency and primary ciliary dyskinesia–results from the US Bronchiectasis Research Registry. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis 2019; 6 : 145–153. doi:10.15326/jcopdf.6.2.2018.0156 30974050
40 de la Rosa Carrillo D, Navarro Rolon A, Girón Moreno RM, et al. Cost of hospitalizations due to exacerbation in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Respiration 2018; 96 : 406–416. doi:10.1159/000489935 29996130
41 de la Rosa D, Martínez-Garcia M-A, Giron RM, et al. Clinical impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. A study on 1,790 patients from the Spanish Bronchiectasis Historical Registry . PLoS One 2017; 12 : e0177931. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177931 28542286
42 Sharif N, Baig MS, Sharif S, et al. Etiology, clinical, radiological, and microbiological profile of patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Cureus 2020; 12 : e7208. doi:10.7759/cureus.7208 32269886
43 Buscot M, Pottier H, Marquette CH, et al. Phenotyping adults with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a 10-year cohort study in a French regional university hospital center. Respiration 2016; 92 : 1–8. doi:10.1159/000446923 27336790
44 Watz H, Nagelschmitz J, Kirsten A, et al. Safety and efficacy of the human neutrophil elastase inhibitor BAY 85-8501 for the treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a randomized controlled trial. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2019; 56 : 86–93. doi:10.1016/j.pupt.2019.03.009 30917927
45 Artaraz A, Crichton ML, Finch S, et al. Development and initial validation of the bronchiectasis exacerbation and symptom tool (BEST). Respir Res 2020; 21 : 18. doi:10.1186/s12931-019-1272-y 31931782
46 Aksamit T, De Soyza A, Bandel TJ, et al. RESPIRE 2: a phase III placebo-controlled randomised trial of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51 : 1702053. doi:10.1183/13993003.02053-2017 29371384
47 Qi Q, Ailiyaer Y, Liu R, et al. Effect of N-acetylcysteine on exacerbations of bronchiectasis (BENE): a randomized controlled trial. Respir Res 2019; 20 : 73. doi:10.1186/s12931-019-1042-x 30975143
48 Olveira C, Olveira G, Gaspar I, et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms in bronchiectasis: associations with health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 2013; 22 : 597–605. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0188-5 22544417
49 Chalmers JD, Goeminne P, Aliberti S, et al. The Bronchiectasis Severity Index. An international derivation and validation study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 189 : 576–585. doi:10.1164/rccm.201309-1575OC 24328736
50 Soyza AD, Chalmers J, Dimakou K, et al. Impact of inflammatory bowel disease in bronchiectasis (IBD-BR) data from the EMBARC registry. Eur Respir J 2018; 52 : Suppl. 62 , PA2678. doi:10.1183/13993003.congress-2018.PA2678
51 Mitchelmore P, Polverino E, Rademacher J, et al. Immunodeficiency associated bronchiectasis in the European Bronchiectasis Registry (EMBARC). Eur Respir J 2020; 56 : Suppl. 64 , 2057. doi:10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.2057
52 Loebinger M, Aliberti S, Menendez R, et al. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency in patients with bronchiectasis: data from the European Bronchiectasis Registry EMBARC. Eur Respir J 2020; 56 : Suppl. 64 , 3330. doi:10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.3330
53 Cox N, Wilson C, Bennett K, et al. Parental perception of quality of life in children with bronchiectasis. Respirology 2018; 23 : TP 115. doi:10.1111/resp.13268
54 Wynne SC, Patel S, Barker RE, et al. Anxiety and depression in bronchiectasis: response to pulmonary rehabilitation and minimal clinically important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Chron Respir Dis 2020; 17 : 1479973120933292. doi:10.1177/1479973120933292 32545998
55 Gao YH, Guan WJ, Zhu YN, et al. Anxiety and depression in adult outpatients with bronchiectasis: associations with disease severity and health-related quality of life. Clin Respir J 2018; 12 : 1485–1494. doi:10.1111/crj.12695 28842946
56 Lee J-H, Lee W-Y, Yong SJ, et al. Prevalence of depression and its associated factors in bronchiectasis: findings from KMBARC registry. BMC Pulm Med 2021; 21 : 306. doi:10.1186/s12890-021-01675-4 34579692
57 Ozalp O, Inal-Ince D, Cakmak A, et al. High-intensity inspiratory muscle training in bronchiectasis: a randomized controlled trial. Respirology 2019; 24 : 246–253. doi:10.1111/resp.13397 30209855
58 Araújo AS, Figueiredo MR, Lomonaco I, et al. Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on systemic inflammation and exercise capacity in bronchiectasis: a randomized controlled trial. Lung 2022; 200 : 409–417. doi:10.1007/s00408-022-00540-3 35543710
59 Navas-Bueno B, Casas-Maldonado F, Padilla-Galo A, et al. High adherence, microbiological control and reduced exacerbations in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis treated with nebulised colistin. A prospective observational study. Arch Bronconeumol 2022; 58 : 834–836. doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2022.03.023 35618581
60 Qi Q, Wang W, Li T, et al. Aetiology and clinical characteristics of patients with bronchiectasis in a Chinese Han population: a prospective study. Respirology 2015; 20 : 917–924. doi:10.1111/resp.12574 26096854
61 Gatheral T, Kumar N, Sansom B, et al. COPD-related bronchiectasis; independent impact on disease course and outcomes. COPD 2014; 11 : 605–614. doi:10.3109/15412555.2014.922174 24983298
62 Park Y, Yong SH, Leem AY, et al. Impact of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis on critically ill patients in Korea: a retrospective observational study. Sci Rep 2021; 11 : 15757. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95366-z 34345008
63 Bellelli G, Chalmers JD, Sotgiu G, et al. Characterization of bronchiectasis in the elderly. Respir Med 2016; 119 : 13–19. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2016.08.008 27692133
64 Brill SE, Patel ARC, Singh R, et al. Lung function, symptoms and inflammation during exacerbations of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a prospective observational cohort study. Respir Res 2015; 16 : 16. doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0167-9 25849856
65 Kapur N, Stroil-Salama E, Morgan L, et al. Factors associated with “Frequent Exacerbator” phenotype in children with bronchiectasis: the first report on children from the Australian Bronchiectasis Registry. Respir Med 2021; 188 : 106627. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106627 34592538
66 Rowan SA, Bradley JM, Bradbury I, et al. Lung clearance index is a repeatable and sensitive indicator of radiological changes in bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 189 : 586–592. doi:10.1164/rccm.201310-1747OC 24428575
67 Horsley A. Lung clearance index in the assessment of airways disease. Respir Med 2009; 103 : 793–799. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2009.01.025 19246184
68 Huang HY, Chung FT, Lo CY, et al. Etiology and characteristics of patients with bronchiectasis in Taiwan: a cohort study from 2002 to 2016. BMC Pulm Med 2020; 20 : 45. doi:10.1186/s12890-020-1080-7 32070324
69 Olveira C, Padilla A, Martínez-García M-Á, et al. Etiology of bronchiectasis in a cohort of 2047 patients. An analysis of the Spanish Historical Bronchiectasis Registry. Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed) 2017; 53 : 366–374. doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2017.05.005 28118936
70 El Basha N. Impact of underlying cause of bronchiectasis on clinical outcome: a comparative study on CF and non-CF bronchiectasis in Egyptian children. Egypt Pediatr Assoc Gazette 2018; 66 : 49–53. doi:10.1016/j.epag.2018.03.001
71 Dicker AJ, Lonergan M, Keir HR, et al. The sputum microbiome and clinical outcomes in patients with bronchiectasis: a prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9 : 885–896. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30557-9 33961805
72 Fong C, Crichton M, Cassidy A, et al. Altered lung microbiota profiles are associated with disease severity, exacerbation frequency and neutrophilic inflammation in bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193 : A2879.
73 de Boer S, Lewis CA, Fergusson W, et al. Ethnicity, socioeconomic status and the severity and course of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Intern Med J 2018; 48 : 845–850. doi:10.1111/imj.13739 29345411
74 Lonni S, Chalmers JD, Goeminne PC, et al. Etiology of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in adults and its correlation to disease severity. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12 : 1764–1770. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201507-472OC 26431397
75 Suarez-Cuartin G, Feliu A, Rodrigo-Troyano A, et al. Exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring hospitalization; clinical characteristics and outcomes. Eur Respir J 2016; 48 : Suppl. 60 , PA1550. doi:10.1183/13993003.congress-2016.PA1550
76 Hill J, Renton D, Abo-Leyah H, et al. A single isolation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa predicts poor quality of life and increased exacerbation frequency in adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2015; 46 : Suppl. 59 , PA363. doi:10.1183/13993003.congress-2015.PA363
77 Blanchette CM, Noone JM, Stone G, et al. Healthcare use and costs among patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in the US. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193 : A2939. doi:10.3390/medsci5040020
78 Goyal V, Grimwood K, Ware RS, et al. Efficacy of oral amoxicillin–clavulanate or azithromycin for non-severe respiratory exacerbations in children with bronchiectasis (BEST-1): a multicentre, three-arm, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7 : 791–801. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30254-1 31427252
79 Lee E, Shim JY, Kim HY, et al. Clinical characteristics and etiologies of bronchiectasis in Korean children: a multicenter retrospective study. Respir Med 2019; 150 : 8–14. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2019.01.018 30961955
80 de la Rosa D, Martínez-Garcia MA, Olveira C, et al. Annual direct medical costs of bronchiectasis treatment: Impact of severity, exacerbations, chronic bronchial colonization and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease coexistence. Chron Respir Dis 2016; 13 : 361–371. doi:10.1177/1479972316643698 27072020
81 Chen YF, Lin HH, Lin CS, et al. Bronchiectasis and increased risk of ischemic stroke: a nationwide population-based cohort study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017; 12 : 1375–1383. doi:10.2147/COPD.S126102 28546745
82 Hung CT, Li SF, Chung WS. Increased risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients with bronchiectasis: a population-based cohort study. Respirology 2018; 23 : 828–834. doi:10.1111/resp.13298
83 Navaratnam V, Millett ER, Hurst JR, et al. Bronchiectasis and the risk of cardiovascular disease: a population-based study. Thorax 2017; 72 : 161–166. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-208188 27573451
84 Sin S, Yun SY, Kim JM, et al. Mortality risk and causes of death in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Respir Res 2019; 20 : 271. doi:10.1186/s12931-019-1243-3 31796019
85 Diel R, Chalmers JD, Rabe KF, et al. Economic burden of bronchiectasis in Germany. Eur Respir J 2019; 53 : 1802033. doi:10.1183/13993003.02033-2018 30523162
86 Gao YH, Cui JJ, Wang LY, et al. Arterial stiffness in adults with steady-state bronchiectasis: association with clinical indices and disease severity. Respir Res 2018; 19 : 86. doi:10.1186/s12931-018-0790-3 29743118
87 Schwartz BS, Al-Sayouri SA, Pollak JS, et al. Strong and consistent associations of precedent chronic rhinosinusitis with risk of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2022; 150 : 701–708. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2022.03.006 35314187
88 Girón Moreno RM, Sánchez Azofra A, Aldave Orzaiz B, et al. Does the impact of cough on quality of life in bronchiectasis depend on prognosis? Arch Bronconeumol (Engl Ed) 2018; 54 : 238–239. doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2018.02.010 29248262
89 Cakmak A, Inal-Ince D, Sonbahar-Ulu H, et al. Physical activity of patients with bronchiectasis compared with healthy counterparts: a cross-sectional study. Heart Lung 2020; 49 : 99–104. doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2019.09.004 31530430
90 Goeminne PC, Nawrot TS, Ruttens D, et al. Mortality in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a prospective cohort analysis. Respir Med 2014; 108 : 287–296. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2013.12.015 24445062
91 Navaratnam V, Muirhead CR, Hubbard RB, et al. Critical care admission trends and outcomes in individuals with bronchiectasis in the UK. QJM 2015; 109 : 523–526. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcv206 26582824
92 Marchant JM, Cook AL, Roberts J, et al. Burden of care for children with bronchiectasis from parents/carers perspective. J Clin Med 2021; 10 : 5856. doi:10.3390/jcm10245856 34945152
93 Lovie-Toon YG, Grimwood K, Byrnes CA, et al. Health-resource use and quality of life in children with bronchiectasis: a multi-center pilot cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19 : 561. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4414-5 31409413
94 Costa JdC, Monteiro R. Non-CF bronchiectasis impact on hospital admissions – need to change the paradigm. Eur Res J 2015; 46 : Suppl. 59 , OA472. doi:10.1183/13993003.congress-2015.OA472
95 Bibby S, Milne R, Beasley R. Hospital admissions for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in New Zealand. NZ Med J 2015; 128 : 30–38.
96 Blackall SR, Hong JB, King P, et al. Bronchiectasis in indigenous and non-indigenous residents of Australia and New Zealand. Respirology 2018; 23 : 743–749. doi:10.1111/resp.13280 29502335
97 Gao J, Li L, Jiang N, et al. Effect of OM-85 BV on reducing bronchiectasis exacerbation in Chinese patients: the iPROBE study. J Thorac Dis 2021; 13 : 1641–1651. doi:10.21037/jtd-20-1662 33841955
98 Wong C, Jayaram L, 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. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60953-2 22901887
99 Blanchette CM, Noone JM, Stone G, et al. Healthcare cost and utilization before and after diagnosis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa among patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in the US. Med Sci (Basel) 2017; 5 : 20. doi:10.3390/medsci5040020
100 McCullough AR, Tunney MM, Stuart Elborn J, et al. Predictors of adherence to treatment in bronchiectasis. Respir Med 2015; 109 : 838–845. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2015.04.011 25959236
101 Joschtel B, Gomersall SR, Tweedy S, et al. Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children with bronchiectasis: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pulm Med 2019; 19 : 7. doi:10.1186/s12890-018-0772-8 30621677
102 Pizzutto SJ, Grimwood K, Bauert P, et al. Bronchoscopy contributes to the clinical management of indigenous children newly diagnosed with bronchiectasis. Pediatr Pulmonol 2013; 48 : 67–73. doi:10.1002/ppul.22544 22431241
103 Tan SH, Mariana D. Clinical characteristics and outcome of pediatric bronchiectasis in a single institution, Malaysia. Pediatr Pulmonol 2022; 57 : M285. doi:10.1002/ppul.25697
104 Choi H, Yang B, Nam H, et al. Population-based prevalence of bronchiectasis and associated comorbidities in South Korea. Eur Respir J 2019; 54 : 1900194. doi:10.1183/13993003.00194-2019 31048349
105 Navarro-Rolon A, Rosa-Carrillo D, Esquinas C, et al. Evolution and comparative analysis of hospitalizations in Spain due to COPD and bronchiectasis between 2004 and 2015. COPD 2021; 18 : 210–218. doi:10.1080/15412555.2021.1896692 33729066
106 Seifer FD, Hansen G, Weycker D. Health-care utilization and expenditures among patients with comorbid bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in US clinical practice. Chron Respir Dis 2019; 16 : 1479973119839961. doi:10.1177/1479973119839961 30961354
107 Ma Y, Liu D, Ji Y, et al. Clinical features related to hospital expenses for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in China. J Int Med Res 2020; 48 : 300060520931616. doi:10.1177/0300060520932116
108 Goyal V, McPhail SM, Hurley F, et al. Cost of hospitalization for bronchiectasis exacerbation in children. Respirology 2020; 25 : 1250–1256. doi:10.1111/resp.13828 32358912
109 McCallum GB, Singleton RJ, Redding GJ, et al. A decade on: Follow-up findings of indigenous children with bronchiectasis. Pediatr Pulmonol 2020; 55 : 975–985. doi:10.1002/ppul.24696 32096916
110 Hill AT, Sullivan AL, Chalmers JD, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for bronchiectasis in adults. BMJ Open Respir Res 2018; 5 : e000348. doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2018-000348
111 Contarini M, Finch S, Chalmers JD. Bronchiectasis: a case-based approach to investigation and management. Eur Respir Rev 2018; 27 : 180016. doi:10.1183/16000617.0016-2018 29997246
112 Shoemark A, Ozerovitch L, Wilson R. Aetiology in adult patients with bronchiectasis. Respir Med 2007; 101 : 1163–1170. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2006.11.008 17223027
113 Aliberti S, Masefield S, Polverino E, et al. Research priorities in bronchiectasis: a consensus statement from the EMBARC Clinical Research Collaboration. Eur Respir J 2016; 48 : 632–647. doi:10.1183/13993003.01888-2015 27288031
114 Chalmers JD, Aliberti S, Filonenko A, et al. Characterization of the “frequent exacerbator phenotype” in bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 197 : 1410–1420. doi:10.1164/rccm.201711-2202OC 29357265
115 Guan WJ, Gao YH, Xu G, et al. Inflammatory responses, spirometry, and quality of life in subjects with bronchiectasis exacerbations. Respir Care 2015; 60 : 1180–1189. doi:10.4187/respcare.04004 26060319
116 Choi H, Chalmers JD. Bronchiectasis exacerbation: a narrative review of causes, risk factors, management and prevention. Ann Transl Med 2023; 11 : 25. doi:10.21037/atm-22-3437 36760239
117 Roberts JM, Goyal V, Kularatna S, et al. The economic burden of bronchiectasis: a systematic review. Chest 2023; 164 : 1396–1421. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2023.06.040 37423293
