-
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Jul 2021To assess the published evidence to establish the efficacy and safety of high flow oxygen cannula (HFNC) as respiratory support for children up to 24 months of age with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To assess the published evidence to establish the efficacy and safety of high flow oxygen cannula (HFNC) as respiratory support for children up to 24 months of age with bronchiolitis within acute hospital settings.
METHODS
We searched eight databases up to March 2021. Studies including children up to 24 months of age with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis recruited to an randomised controlled trial were considered in the full meta-analysis. At least one arm of the study must include HFNC as respiratory support and report at least one of the outcomes of interest. Studies were identified and extracted by two reviewers. Data were analysed using Review Manager V.5.4.
RESULTS
From 2943 article titles, 308 full articles were screened for inclusion. 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, 15 were included in the metanalyses. Four studies reported on treatment failure rates when comparing HFNC to standard oxygen therapy (SOT). Data suggests HFNC is superior to SOT (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.57). Four studies reported on treatment failure rates when comparing HFNC to continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP). No significant difference was found between CPAP and HFNC (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.79; p=0.07). Four studies report on adverse outcomes when comparing HFNC to SOT. No significant difference was found between HFNC & SOT (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.99).
CONCLUSION
HFNC is superior to SOT in terms of treatment failure and there is no significant difference between HFNC and CPAP in terms of treatment failure. The results suggest HFNC is safe to use in acute hospital settings.
Topics: Bronchiolitis; Cannula; Child; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Humans; Oxygen; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34326153
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000844 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jan 2018In February, 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the blood infection marker procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic therapy in patients with acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In February, 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the blood infection marker procalcitonin for guiding antibiotic therapy in patients with acute respiratory infections. This meta-analysis of patient data from 26 randomised controlled trials was designed to assess safety of procalcitonin-guided treatment in patients with acute respiratory infections from different clinical settings.
METHODS
Based on a prespecified Cochrane protocol, we did a systematic literature search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, and pooled individual patient data from trials in which patients with respiratory infections were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics based on procalcitonin concentrations (procalcitonin-guided group) or control. The coprimary endpoints were 30-day mortality and setting-specific treatment failure. Secondary endpoints were antibiotic use, length of stay, and antibiotic side-effects.
FINDINGS
We identified 990 records from the literature search, of which 71 articles were assessed for eligibility after exclusion of 919 records. We collected data on 6708 patients from 26 eligible trials in 12 countries. Mortality at 30 days was significantly lower in procalcitonin-guided patients than in control patients (286 [9%] deaths in 3336 procalcitonin-guided patients vs 336 [10%] in 3372 controls; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·70 to 0·99], p=0·037). This mortality benefit was similar across subgroups by setting and type of infection (p>0·05), although mortality was very low in primary care and in patients with acute bronchitis. Procalcitonin guidance was also associated with a 2·4-day reduction in antibiotic exposure (5·7 vs 8·1 days [95% CI -2·71 to -2·15], p<0·0001) and a reduction in antibiotic-related side-effects (16% vs 22%, adjusted OR 0·68 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·82], p<0·0001).
INTERPRETATION
Use of procalcitonin to guide antibiotic treatment in patients with acute respiratory infections reduces antibiotic exposure and side-effects, and improves survival. Widespread implementation of procalcitonin protocols in patients with acute respiratory infections thus has the potential to improve antibiotic management with positive effects on clinical outcomes and on the current threat of increasing antibiotic multiresistance.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Procalcitonin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29037960
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30592-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Load; Bayes Theorem; Bias; Disease Progression; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Macrolides; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetracyclines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33448349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013198.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2019Individuals with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer recurrent exacerbations with an increase in volume or purulence of sputum,...
BACKGROUND
Individuals with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer recurrent exacerbations with an increase in volume or purulence of sputum, or both. Personal and healthcare costs associated with exacerbations indicate that therapies that reduce the occurrence of exacerbations are likely to be useful. Mucolytics are oral medicines that are believed to increase expectoration of sputum by reducing its viscosity, thus making it easier to cough it up. Improved expectoration of sputum may lead to a reduction in exacerbations of COPD.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective• To determine whether treatment with mucolytics reduces exacerbations and/or days of disability in patients with chronic bronchitis or COPDSecondary objectives• To assess whether mucolytics lead to improvement in lung function or quality of life• To determine frequency of adverse effects associated with use of mucolytics SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of articles on 12 separate occasions, most recently on 23 April 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised studies that compared oral mucolytic therapy versus placebo for at least two months in adults with chronic bronchitis or COPD. We excluded studies of people with asthma and cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This review analysed summary data only, most derived from published studies. For earlier versions, one review author extracted data, which were rechecked in subsequent updates. In later versions, review authors double-checked extracted data and then entered data into RevMan 5.3 for analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We added four studies for the 2019 update. The review now includes 38 trials, recruiting a total of 10,377 participants. Studies lasted between two months and three years and investigated a range of mucolytics, including N-acetylcysteine, carbocysteine, erdosteine, and ambroxol, given at least once daily. Many studies did not clearly describe allocation concealment, and we had concerns about blinding and high levels of attrition in some studies. The primary outcomes were exacerbations and number of days of disability.Results of 28 studies including 6723 participants show that receiving mucolytics may be more likely to be exacerbation-free during the study period compared to those given placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 1.91; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more recent studies show less benefit of treatment than was reported in earlier studies in this review. The overall number needed to treat with mucolytics for an average of nine months to keep an additional participant free from exacerbations was eight (NNTB 8, 95% CI 7 to 10). High heterogeneity was noted for this outcome (I² = 62%), so results need to be interpreted with caution. The type or dose of mucolytic did not seem to alter the effect size, nor did the severity of COPD, including exacerbation history. Longer studies showed smaller effects of mucolytics than were reported in shorter studies.Mucolytic use was associated with a reduction of 0.43 days of disability per participant per month compared with use of placebo (95% CI -0.56 to -0.30; studies = 9; I² = 61%; moderate-certainty evidence). With mucolytics, the number of people with one or more hospitalisations was reduced, but study results were not consistent (Peto OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; participants = 1788; studies = 4; I² = 58%; moderate-certainty evidence). Investigators reported improved quality of life with mucolytics (mean difference (MD) -1.37, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.11; participants = 2721; studies = 7; I² = 64%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the mean difference did not reach the minimal clinically important difference of -4 units, and the confidence interval includes no difference. Mucolytic treatment was associated with a possible reduction in adverse events (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; participants = 7264; studies = 24; I² = 46%; moderate-certainty evidence), but the pooled effect includes no difference if a random-effects model is used. Several studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported high numbers of adverse events, up to a mean of five events per person during follow-up. There was no clear difference between mucolytics and placebo for mortality, but the confidence interval is too wide to confirm that treatment has no effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.87; participants = 3527; studies = 11; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In participants with chronic bronchitis or COPD, we are moderately confident that treatment with mucolytics leads to a small reduction in the likelihood of having an acute exacerbation, in days of disability per month and possibly hospitalisations, but is not associated with an increase in adverse events. There appears to be limited impact on lung function or health-related quality of life. Results are too imprecise to be certain whether or not there is an effect on mortality. Our confidence in the results is reduced by high levels of heterogeneity in many of the outcomes and the fact that effects on exacerbations shown in early trials were larger than those reported by more recent studies. This may be a result of greater risk of selection or publication bias in earlier trials, thus benefits of treatment may not be as great as was suggested by previous evidence.
Topics: Bronchitis, Chronic; Disease Progression; Expectorants; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31107966
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001287.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics in improving outcomes and to assess adverse effects of antibiotic therapy for people with a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11 (accessed 13 January 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 1, 2017), Embase (1974 to 13 January 2017), and LILACS (1982 to 13 January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo or no treatment in acute bronchitis or acute productive cough, in people without underlying pulmonary disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this 2017 update. We included 17 trials with 5099 participants in the primary analysis. The quality of trials was generally good. At follow-up there was no difference in participants described as being clinically improved between the antibiotic and placebo groups (11 studies with 3841 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.15). Participants given antibiotics were less likely to have a cough (4 studies with 275 participants, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and a night cough (4 studies with 538 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 7). Participants given antibiotics had a shorter mean cough duration (7 studies with 2776 participants, mean difference (MD) -0.46 days, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.04). The differences in presence of a productive cough at follow-up and MD of productive cough did not reach statistical significance.Antibiotic-treated participants were more likely to be improved according to clinician's global assessment (6 studies with 891 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79; NNTB 11) and were less likely to have an abnormal lung exam (5 studies with 613 participants, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Antibiotic-treated participants also had a reduction in days feeling ill (5 studies with 809 participants, MD -0.64 days, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13) and days with impaired activity (6 studies with 767 participants, MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.04). The differences in proportions with activity limitations at follow-up did not reach statistical significance. There was a significant trend towards an increase in adverse effects in the antibiotic group (12 studies with 3496 participants, RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36; NNT for an additional harmful outcome 24).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence of clinical benefit to support the use of antibiotics in acute bronchitis. Antibiotics may have a modest beneficial effect in some patients such as frail, elderly people with multimorbidity who may not have been included in trials to date. However, the magnitude of this benefit needs to be considered in the broader context of potential side effects, medicalisation for a self limiting condition, increased resistance to respiratory pathogens, and cost of antibiotic treatment.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchitis; Cough; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28626858
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000245.pub4 -
Pediatric Pulmonology Jun 2022Bronchiolitis is common reason for infant hospitalization. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate helium-oxygen (heliox) in bronchiolitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiolitis is common reason for infant hospitalization. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate helium-oxygen (heliox) in bronchiolitis.
METHODS
We screened 463 studies, assessed 22 of them, and included six randomized controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the need for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or intubation, hospitalization duration, and change in the modified Woods Clinical Asthma Scale (M-WCAS). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS
Six studies (five double- and one single-blinded) with 560 infants were included. The risk of bias was high in one, moderate in four, and low in one. The RR for the need for CPAP (three studies) was 0.87 (CI: 0.56-1.35), and for intubation (four studies) was 1.39 (CI: 0.53-3.63), heliox compared to air-oxygen. The hospital stay (four studies) was 0.25 days longer (CI: -0.22 to 0.71) in the heliox group. The mean decrease in M-WCAS from the baseline (three studies) was 1.90 points (CI: 1.46-2.34) greater in the heliox group.
CONCLUSION
We found low-quality evidence that heliox does not reduce the need for CPAP, intubation, or length of hospitalization for bronchiolitis. Based on the M-WCAS scores, heliox seems to relieve respiratory distress symptoms rapidly after its initiation. The included studies had high heterogeneity in their methods and included relatively mild cases of bronchiolitis. A larger randomized controlled trial with more severe cases of bronchiolitis with enough power to analyze the need for intubation is needed in the future.
Topics: Acute Disease; Bronchiolitis; Helium; Humans; Infant; Oxygen
PubMed: 35297227
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.25895 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Apr 2016Acute bronchitis (AB) is one of the common diseases. Tanreqing injection (TRQ) was widely used to treat patients with acute bronchitis, and many randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute bronchitis (AB) is one of the common diseases. Tanreqing injection (TRQ) was widely used to treat patients with acute bronchitis, and many randomized controlled trials have been conducted to investigate its efficacy.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TRQ for AB.
METHODS
Eight English and Chinese electronic databases, up to October 2014, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on TRQ for AB. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of each trial by using Cochrane handbook. Meta-analysis was carried out by using Review Manager software.
RESULT
A total of 49 trials with 5131 participants were collected. Data of three main outcomes were pooled and analyzed as following: (1) effective rates: TRQ versus antibiotics (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05, 1.18; P=0.0002); TRQ plus antiviral drugs versus antiviral drugs (RR: 5.12; 95% CI 3.03, 8.66; P<0.00001); TRQ plus antibiotics versus antibiotics (RR 3.46; 95% CI 2.59, 4.62; P<0.00001); TRQ versus antibiotics plus antiviral drugs (RR 2.03; 95% CI 1.10, 3.74; P=0.02); TRQ plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.15, 1.27; P<0.00001). (2) Time for fever resolution: TRQ plus antiviral drugs versus antiviral drugs (MD: -1.08; 95% CI -1.59, -0.57; P<0.00001); TRQ plus antibiotics versus antibiotics (MD -1.33; 95% CI -1.81, -0.86; P<0.00001); TRQ versus antibiotics plus antiviral drugs (MD -0.88; 95% CI -1.25, -0.51; P<0.00001); TRQ plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (MD -1.06; 95% CI -1.13, -0.98; P<0.00001). (3) Resolution of cough: TRQ plus antiviral drugs versus antiviral drugs (MD: -2.09; 95% CI -3.11, -1.43; P<0.00001); TRQ plus antibiotics versus antibiotics (MD: -2.65; 95% CI -2.88, -2.42; P<0.00001); TRQ plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone (MD -1.84; 95% CI -2.85, -0.83; P=0.0003). Four trials described the adverse drug reactions of TRQ, while no severe adverse drug reactions reported.
CONCLUSIONS
As a therapy for AB, TRQ has potentially beneficial effect in improving effective rates, reducing the time to resolution of fever, cough, crackles and absorption of shadows on X-ray. However, due to the limitations of methodological quality of the included trials, it is difficult to make a conclusive recommendation about TRQ treating patients with AB. Further rigorous clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TRQ.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchitis; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27062962
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.02.008 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Mar 2024Tanreqing injection (TRQI) is an intravenous herbal preparation derived from 5 types of traditional Chinese medicines including Scutellariae Radix, Lonicerae Japonicae... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Tanreqing injection (TRQI) is an intravenous herbal preparation derived from 5 types of traditional Chinese medicines including Scutellariae Radix, Lonicerae Japonicae Flos, Forsythiae Fructus, bear bile powder and goral horn, incorporating baicalin, chlorogenic acid, ursodeoxycholic acid, and goose deoxycholic acid and other compounds known for anti-inflammatory properties, is widely used in China to treat cough caused by acute trachea-bronchitis disease (ATB).
AIM OF THE STUDY
To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of Tanreqing injection (TRQI) with and without Western medicine (WM) for cough caused by acute trachea-bronchitis (ATB).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched eight databases, including CENTRAL, Embase, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and WanFang, from inception to August 2023 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on TRQI for cough caused by ATB. The critical outcomes of interest were time to symptom disappearance, including time for cough symptom to disappear and time to improve cough and sputum production. Important outcomes included symptom disappearance rate, adverse events (AEs) and lung function. We carried out random-effects meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.4 and assessed the certainty of evidence utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
A total of 2872 citations were identified by our search, of which 26 eligible RCTs enrolled 2731 participants. Low to moderate certainty evidence showed that when compared with WM, TRQI plus WM treatment was associated with a favorable effect on the time for cough symptom to disappear (MD -2.21 d, 95% CI -2.64 to -1.78), time to improve cough and sputum production (MD -0.68 d, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.53), symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.55), forced vital capacity, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (MD 0.38 L, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; MD 2.92%, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.56, respectively). In terms of AEs, there was no association between TRQI plus WM and WM (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.21; low-certainty evidence). Very low certainty evidence showed that TRQI alone was associated with reduced time to improve cough and sputum (MD -0.14 d, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.02) and increased symptom disappearance rate (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.88; low certainty evidence) compared to WM.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall efficacy of TRQI or WM for ATB cough is better than that of WM, and TRQI also effectively improve symptoms in patients with similar adverse events. However, due to the lack of methodological rigor of included studies, the present findings should be interpreted with caution. We advocate better high-quality and convincing clinical studies to be performed to prove the effectiveness and safety of TRQIs.
Topics: Humans; Acute Disease; Bronchitis; Cough; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachea
PubMed: 38007165
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2023.117429 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) range from acute bronchitis and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis to pneumonia. Approximately five million people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) range from acute bronchitis and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis to pneumonia. Approximately five million people die from acute respiratory tract infections annually. Among these, pneumonia represents the most frequent cause of mortality, hospitalisation and medical consultation. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, structurally modified from erythromycin and noted for its activity against some gram-negative organisms associated with respiratory tract infections, particularly Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid (amoxyclav) in the treatment of LRTI, in terms of clinical failure, incidence of adverse events and microbial eradication.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (January 1974 to November 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing azithromycin to amoxycillin or amoxycillin/clavulanic acid in participants with clinical evidence of an acute LRTI, such as acute bronchitis, pneumonia and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The review authors independently assessed all potential studies identified from the searches for methodological quality. We extracted and analysed relevant data separately. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We initially pooled all types of acute LRTI in the meta-analyses. We investigated the heterogeneity of results using the forest plot and Chi(2) test. We also used the index of the I(2) statistic to measure inconsistent results among trials. We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials involving 2648 participants. We were able to analyse 15 of the trials with 2496 participants. The pooled analysis of all the trials showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of clinical failure on about days 10 to 14 between the two groups (risk ratio (RR), random-effects 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.85). A subgroup analysis in trials with acute bronchitis participants showed significantly lower clinical failure in the azithromycin group compared to amoxycillin or amoxyclav (RR random-effects 0.63; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). A sensitivity analysis showed a non-significant reduction in clinical failure in azithromycin-treated participants (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.21) in three adequately concealed studies, compared to RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.70 to 2.49 in 12 studies with inadequate concealment. Twelve trials reported the incidence of microbial eradication and there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). The reduction of adverse events in the azithromycin group was RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is unclear evidence that azithromycin is superior to amoxycillin or amoxyclav in treating acute LRTI. In patients with acute bronchitis of a suspected bacterial cause, azithromycin tends to be more effective in terms of lower incidence of treatment failure and adverse events than amoxycillin or amoxyclav. However, most studies were of unclear methodological quality and had small sample sizes; future trials of high methodological quality and adequate sizes are needed.
Topics: Acute Disease; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Bronchitis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 25749735
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001954.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015The diagnosis of acute bronchitis is made on clinical grounds and a variety of clinical definitions have been used. There are no clearly effective treatments for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of acute bronchitis is made on clinical grounds and a variety of clinical definitions have been used. There are no clearly effective treatments for the cough of acute bronchitis. Beta2-agonists are often prescribed, perhaps because clinicians suspect many patients also have reversible airflow restriction (as seen in asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)) contributing to the symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether beta2-agonists improve acute bronchitis symptoms in people with no underlying pulmonary disease (such as asthma, COPD or pulmonary fibrosis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2015, Issue 5, MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE (1974 to May 2015), Web of Science (2011 to May 2015) and LILACS (1982 to May 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated people (adults, or children over two years of age) with acute bronchitis or acute cough and without known pulmonary disease to beta2-agonist versus placebo, no treatment or alternative treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently selected outcomes and extracted data while blinded to study results. Two review authors independently assessed each trial for risk of bias. We analysed trials in children and adults separately.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials of moderate quality in children (n = 134) with no evidence of airflow restriction did not find any benefits from oral beta2-agonists. Five trials in adults (n = 418) had mixed results but overall summary statistics did not reveal any significant benefits from oral (three trials) nor from inhaled (two trials) beta2-agonists. Three studies with low-quality evidence demonstrated no significant differences in daily cough scores, nor in the percentage of adults still coughing after seven days (control group 71%; risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.18; 220 participants). In one trial, subgroups with evidence of airflow limitation had lower symptom scores if given beta2-agonists. The trials that noted quicker resolution of cough with beta2-agonists were those with a higher proportion of people wheezing at baseline. Low-quality evidence suggests that adults given beta2-agonists were more likely to report tremor, shakiness or nervousness (RR 7.94, 95% CI 1.17 to 53.94; 211 participants; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence to support the use of beta2-agonists in children with acute cough who do not have evidence of airflow restriction. There is also little evidence that the routine use of beta2-agonists is helpful for adults with acute cough. These agents may reduce symptoms, including cough, in people with evidence of airflow restriction. However, this potential benefit is not well supported by the available data and must be weighed against the adverse effects associated with their use.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Airway Obstruction; Bronchitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Humans; Infant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26333656
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001726.pub5