-
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... 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 -
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 -
Pediatric Research May 2024The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the efficacy of azithromycin in acute bronchiolitis and wheezing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the efficacy of azithromycin in acute bronchiolitis and wheezing.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing azithromycin to placebo in children <2 years of age. Main outcomes were progress of acute wheezing episode and recurrence of wheezing. We used random-effects model to calculate mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or risk ratios (RR) with CI.
RESULTS
We screened 1604 abstracts and included 7 studies. Risk of bias was low in three and had some concerns in four studies. Need for intensive care unit treatment was assessed in four studies (446 children) and the risk difference was 0.0% (CI -2.0 to 2.0; low quality evidence). Hospitalization duration was -0.27 days shorter in the azithromycin group (MD-0.27, CI -0.47 to -0.07; three studies; moderate quality evidence). Azithromycin did not prevent recurrence of wheezing (RR 0.84, CI 0.45-1.56; three studies), hospital readmissions (RR 1.14, CI 0.82-1.60; four studies).
CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate quality evidence that azithromycin may reduce hospitalization duration. Low certainty evidence suggests that azithromycin does not reduce the need for intensive care unit treatment. Furthermore, azithromycin did not prevent wheezing recurrence.
IMPACT
Azithromycin may reduce hospitalization time in acute bronchiolitis and wheezing episodes among children aged less than two. Azithromycin administrated during the acute wheezing period, does not have preventive effect on wheezing recurrence. Azithromycin seemed to have similar adverse event profile than placebo. Future studies with clinically relevant outcomes, and sufficient sample sizes are needed, before implementing azithromycin into clinical use.
Topics: Humans; Azithromycin; Bronchiolitis; Respiratory Sounds; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Infant; Acute Disease; Treatment Outcome; Hospitalization; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Length of Stay
PubMed: 38066246
DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02953-z -
International Journal of Medical... Aug 2023Acute respiratory diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children. Cough is a common symptom of acute respiratory diseases and the sound of cough can... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children. Cough is a common symptom of acute respiratory diseases and the sound of cough can be indicative of the respiratory disease. However, cough sound assessment in routine clinical practice is limited to human perception and the skills of the clinician. Objective cough sound evaluation has the potential to aid clinicians in acute respiratory disease diagnosis. In this systematic review, we assess and summarize the predictive ability of machine learning algorithms in analyzing cough sounds of acute respiratory diseases in the pediatric population.
METHOD
Our systematic search of the Scopus, Medline, and Embase databases on 25 January 2023 identified six articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the checklist for the assessment of medical artificial intelligence.
RESULTS
Our analysis shows variability in the input to the machine learning algorithms, such as the use of various cough sound features and combining cough sound features with clinical features. The use of the machine learning algorithms also varies from conventional algorithms, such as logistic regression and support vector machine, to deep learning techniques, such as convolutional neural networks. The classification accuracy for the detection of bronchiolitis, croup, pertussis, and pneumonia across five articles is in the range of 82-96%. However, a significant drop is observed in the detection accuracy for bronchiolitis and pneumonia in the remaining article.
CONCLUSION
The number of articles is limited but, in general, the predictive ability of cough sound classification algorithms in childhood acute respiratory diseases shows promise.
Topics: Child; Humans; Cough; Artificial Intelligence; Algorithms; Pneumonia; Bronchiolitis; Machine Learning
PubMed: 37224643
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105093 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Nov 2015Acute bronchiolitis is the commonest cause of hospitalisation in infancy. Currently management consists of supportive care and oxygen. A Cochrane review concluded that,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute bronchiolitis is the commonest cause of hospitalisation in infancy. Currently management consists of supportive care and oxygen. A Cochrane review concluded that, "nebulised 3 % saline may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay". We conducted a systematic review of controlled trials of nebulised hypertonic saline (HS) for infants hospitalised with primary acute bronchiolitis.
METHODS
Searches to January 2015 involved: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Embase; Google Scholar; Web of Science; and, a variety of trials registers. We hand searched Chest, Paediatrics and Journal of Paediatrics on 14 January 2015. Reference lists of eligible trial publications were checked. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials which compared HS versus either normal saline (+/- adjunct treatment) or no treatment were included. Eligible studies involved children less than 2 years old hospitalised due to the first episode of acute bronchiolitis. Two reviewers extracted data to calculate mean differences (MD) and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs) for length of hospital stay (LoS-primary outcome), Clinical Severity Score (CSS) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed effect model, supplemented with additional sensitivity analyses. We investigated statistical heterogeneity using I(2). Risk of bias, within and between studies, was assessed using the Cochrane tool, an outcome reporting bias checklist and a funnel plot.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials were included in the systematic review (n = 1922), HS reduced mean LoS by 0.36, (95 % CI 0.50 to 0.22) days, but with considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 78 %) and sensitivity to alternative analysis methods. A reduction in CSS was observed where assessed [n = 516; MD -1.36, CI -1.52, -1.20]. One trial reported one possible intervention related SAE, no other studies described intervention related SAEs.
CONCLUSIONS
There is disparity between the overall combined effect on LoS as compared with the negative results from the largest and most precise trials. Together with high levels of heterogeneity, this means that neither individual trials nor pooled estimates provide a firm evidence-base for routine use of HS in inpatient acute bronchiolitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Bronchiolitis; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 26597174
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-015-0140-x -
Journal of Global Health Jun 2023Severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) are the leading cause of paediatric death globally, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the...
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs) are the leading cause of paediatric death globally, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the potential rapid clinical decompensation and high mortality rate from SARIs, interventions that facilitate the early care are critical to improving patient outcomes. Through this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the impact of emergency care interventions on improving clinical outcomes of paediatric patients with SARIs in LMICs.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Global Health, and Global Index Medicus for peer-reviewed clinical trials or studies with comparator groups published before November 2020. We included all studies which evaluated acute and emergency care interventions on clinical outcomes for children (29 days to 19 years) with SARIs conducted in LMICs. Due to observed heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes, we performed narrative synthesis. We assessed bias using the Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tools.
RESULTS
We screened 20 583, 99 of which met the inclusion criteria. Conditions studied included pneumonia or acute lower respiratory infection (61.6%) and bronchiolitis (29.3%). Studies evaluated medications (80.8%), respiratory support (14.1%), and supportive care (5%). We found the strongest evidence of benefit for decreasing risk of death for respiratory support interventions. Results were inconclusive on the utility of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We found mixed results for interventions for bronchiolitis, but a possible benefit for hypertonic nebulised saline to decrease hospital length of stay. Early use of adjuvant treatments such as Vitamin A, D, and zinc for pneumonia and bronchiolitis did not appear to have convincing evidence of benefit on clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the high global burden of SARI in paediatric populations, few emergency care (EC) interventions have high quality evidence for benefit on clinical outcomes in LMICs. Respiratory support interventions have the strongest evidence for benefit. Further research on the use of CPAP in diverse settings is needed, as is a stronger evidence base for EC interventions for children with SARI, including metrics on the timing of interventions.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42020216117).
Topics: Child; Humans; Developing Countries; Pneumonia; Bronchiolitis; Respiratory Tract Infections; Emergency Medical Services
PubMed: 37288550
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04065