-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Beclomethasone; Child; Chronic Disease; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ethanolamines; Female; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate
PubMed: 26594816
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007949.pub2 -
Chronic Respiratory Disease 2020Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver bronchodilators. Although correct device use is paramount to successful medication delivery, patient errors are common. This global systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined device use errors with SMIs among patients with obstructive lung diseases. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language; (b) a diagnosis of COPD, bronchitis, or emphysema; and (c) reported device use errors among adults receiving long-acting bronchodilator treatment with Respimat® SMI (i.e. Spiriva®, Stiolto®, Spiolto®, and Striverdi®). Descriptive statistics examined sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and device use errors. Meta-analysis techniques were employed with random-effects models to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and step-by-step errors. The statistic measured heterogeneity. Twelve studies ( = 1288 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Eighty-eight percent of patients had COPD, and most had moderate/very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease spirometric stages II to IV). Aggregate results revealed that 58.9% (95% CI: 42.4-75.5; = 92.8%) of patients made ≥1 device use errors. Among 11 studies with step-by-step data, the most common errors were failure to (1) exhale completely and away from the device (47.8% (95% CI: 33.6-62.0)); (2) hold breath for up to 10 seconds (30.6% (95% CI: 17.5-43.7)); (3) take a slow, deep breath while pressing the dose release button (27.9% (95% CI: 14.5-41.2)); (4) hold the inhaler upright (22.6% (95% CI: 6.2-39.0)); and (5) turn the base toward the arrows until it clicked (17.6% (95% CI: 3.0-32.2)). Device use errors occurred in about 6 of 10 patients who used SMIs. An individualized approach to inhalation device selection and ongoing training and monitoring of device use are important in optimizing bronchodilator treatment.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol, Ipratropium Drug Combination; Bronchodilator Agents; Humans; Metered Dose Inhalers; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Self Administration
PubMed: 31984767
DOI: 10.1177/1479973119901234 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2024To comparison of the application of Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer and Jet Nebulizer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To comparison of the application of Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer and Jet Nebulizer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
RESEARCH METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: The amount of inhaler in the urine sample at 30 minutes after inhalation therapy (USAL0.5), The total amount of inhaler in urine sample within 24 hours (USAL24), Aerosol emitted, Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV), Forced vital capacity (FVC).
RESULTS
Ten studies were included with a total of 314 study participants, including 157 subjects in the VMN group and 157 subjects in the JN group. The data analysis results of USAL0.5, MD (1.88 [95% CI, 0.95 to 2.81], P = 0.000), showed a statistically significant difference. USAL24, MD (1.61 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.09], P = 0.000), showed a statistically significant difference. The results of aerosol emitted showed a statistically significant difference in MD (3.44 [95% CI, 2.84 to 4.04], P = 0.000). The results of FEV showed MD (0.05 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.35], P=0.716), the results were not statistically significant. The results of FVC showed MD (0.11 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.41], P=0.459), the results were not statistically significant. It suggests that VMN is better than JN and provides higher aerosols, but there is no difference in improving lung function between them.
CONCLUSION
VMN is significantly better than JN in terms of drug delivery and utilization in the treatment of patients with COPD. However, in the future use of nebulizers, it is important to select a matching nebulizer based on a combination of factors such as mechanism of action of the nebulizer, disease type and comorbidities, ventilation strategies and modes, drug formulations, as well as cost-effectiveness, in order to achieve the ideal treatment of COPD.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Delivery Systems; Equipment Design; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets
PubMed: 38562440
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S452191 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but have important safety concerns in asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have confirmed efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now being considered as an alternative add-on therapy for people with uncontrolled asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LAMA to ICS compared with adding a LABA for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. We searched additional resources to pick up unpublished studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization trials portal, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for parallel and cross-over RCTs in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled with ICS alone were randomised to receive LAMA add-on or LABA add-on for at least 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the electronic and additional searches and extracted data from study reports. We used Covidence for duplicate screening, extraction of study characteristics and numerical data, and risk of bias ratings.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), quality of life and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS.Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses.People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies).There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant.More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Asthma; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Muscarinic Antagonists; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Tiotropium Bromide
PubMed: 26031392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011438.pub2 -
The British Journal of General Practice... Oct 2018Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Subacute cough following a non-specific viral infection lasting 3-8 weeks is common. However, despite many treatment options there are no systematic reviews evaluating these.
AIM
To provide a systematic overview of treatment options and outcomes evaluated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review and meta-analyses assessing the overall effects of any treatment for subacute cough.
METHOD
The authors systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (last search March 2017) for RCTs in adult patients with subacute cough. The authors considered trials evaluating any outcome of any drug or non-drug treatments, apart from traditional Chinese and Asian medicines. They combined treatment effects on cough-related outcomes in random effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Six eligible RCTs including 724 patients were identified. These assessed montelukast, salbutamol plus ipratropium bromide, gelatine, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and nociception opioid 1 receptor agonist and codeine. Five studies reported effects on various cough severity scores at various timepoints. No treatment option was associated with a clear benefit on cough recovery or other patient-relevant outcomes in any of the studies or in meta-analyses for cough outcomes at 14 days and 28 days. Reported adverse events were rather mild and reported for 14% of patients across all treatments.
CONCLUSION
Evidence on treatment options for subacute cough is weak. There is no treatment showing clear patient-relevant benefits in clinical trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antitussive Agents; Cough; Humans; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30201828
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698885 -
Medicine Jan 2020To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of salbutamol treatment in infants with bronchiolitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of salbutamol treatment in infants with bronchiolitis.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of salbutamol in infants with bronchiolitis was performed. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the quality of RCTs. Data were extracted and meta-analyzed using STATA version 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs, including a total of 977 participants, were assessed in the present meta-analysis. Results indicated that salbutamol therapy for bronchiolitis in infants led to an increase in respiratory rate (weighted mean difference [WMD] 2.26 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.36-4.16]) and higher heart rate (WMD 12.15 [95% CI 9.24-15.07]). However, as a selective β2-agonist, salbutamol did not improve the clinical severity score of infants with bronchiolitis (WMD -0.11 [95% CI -0.26 to 0.03]), length of hospital stay (WMD 0.12 [95% CI -0.32 to 0.56]), or oxygen saturation (WMD 0.20 [95% CI -0.35 to 0.75]).
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this systematic review, the use of salbutamol had no effect on bronchiolitis in children <24 months of age. Moreover, the treatment can also lead to side effects, such as high heart rate. As such, salbutamol should not be recommended for treatment of bronchiolitis in infants.
Topics: Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Heart Rate; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Rate; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 31977855
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018657 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Mar 2020Quality, real-world comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy efficacy are scarce. We identified and evaluated...
Quality, real-world comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy efficacy are scarce. We identified and evaluated peer-reviewed CE and appropriate-use evaluations of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) maintenance therapy. Analyses were limited to retrospective, real-world utilization studies of BFC delivered by pressurized metered-dose inhalers. In a CE study of BFC versus fluticasone/salmeterol combinations (FSC) in asthma, BFC users had fewer total exacerbations. In appropriate-use studies of asthma treatment, BFC patients were consistently more likely to meet treatment escalation recommendations. BFC comparisons with FSC or tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease found differences in exacerbation rates and rescue inhaler use. We found available, good quality BFC CE and appropriate-use articles; however, all had limitations.
Topics: Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 31983228
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2019-0161 -
The Journal of International Medical... Mar 2020To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) in treating pediatric asthma during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in treating pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) in treating pediatric asthma during a 12-week treatment cycle.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL in treating pediatric asthma were searched systematically using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.
RESULTS
Two articles including 546 patients were evaluated. The FP/SAL group showed obvious improvements in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV) from day 0 to 84, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores compared with the FP/FORM group; however, the FP/FORM group had improved peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). In terms of 2-hour post-dose FEV from day 0 to 84, 2-hour forced expiratory flow at 25%, 50%, and 75%, and 2-hour forced vital capacity, we observed no significant differences between the two groups. For safety, including patients with at least one adverse event, bronchitis, cough, or pharyngitis, both groups had similar incidences, differing only in incidence of nasopharyngitis.
CONCLUSION
Compared with FP/FORM, FP/SAL showed a clear improvement in pre-dose FEV, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores. However, FP/FORM resulted in improved PEFR with a lower incidence of nasopharyngitis.
Topics: Androstadienes; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Propionates; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31852314
DOI: 10.1177/0300060519889442 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Acute bronchiolitis is a significant burden on children, their families and healthcare facilities. It mostly affects children younger than two years of age. Treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute bronchiolitis is a significant burden on children, their families and healthcare facilities. It mostly affects children younger than two years of age. Treatment involves adequate hydration, humidified oxygen supplementation, and nebulisation of medications, such as salbutamol, epinephrine, and hypertonic saline. The effectiveness of magnesium sulphate for acute bronchiolitis is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of magnesium sulphate in acute bronchiolitis in children up to two years of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and two trials registries to 30 April 2020. We contacted trial authors to identify additional studies. We searched conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles. Unpublished and published studies were eligible for inclusion.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing magnesium sulphate, alone or with another treatment, with placebo or another treatment, in children up to two years old with acute bronchiolitis. Primary outcomes were time to recovery, mortality, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospital stay, clinical severity score at 0 to 24 hours and 25 to 48 hours after treatment, pulmonary function test, hospital readmission within 30 days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of intensive care unit stay.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs (564 children). One study received funding from a hospital and one from a university; two studies did not report funding sources. Comparator interventions differed among all four trials. Studies were conducted in Qatar, Turkey, Iran, and India. We assessed two studies to be at an overall low risk of bias, and two to be at unclear risk of bias, overall. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes and comparisons was very low except for one: hospital re-admission rate within 30 days of discharge for magnesium sulphate versus placebo. None of the studies measured time to recovery, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, or pulmonary function. There were no events of mortality or adverse effects for magnesium sulphate compared with placebo (1 RCT, 160 children). The effects of magnesium sulphate on clinical severity are uncertain (at 0 to 24 hours: mean difference (MD) on the Wang score 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.54; and at 25 to 48 hours: MD on the Wang score -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.00). Magnesium sulphate may increase hospital re-admission rate within 30 days of discharge (risk ratio (RR) 3.16, 95% CI 1.20 to 8.27; 158 children; low-certainty evidence). None of our primary outcomes were measured for magnesium sulphate compared with hypertonic saline (1 RCT, 220 children). Effects were uncertain on the duration of hospital stay in days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.28), and on clinical severity on the Respiratory Distress Assessment Instrument (RDAI) score at 25 to 48 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.59). There were no events of mortality or adverse effects for magnesium sulphate, with or without salbutamol, compared with salbutamol (1 RCT, 57 children). Effects on the duration of hospital stay were uncertain (magnesium sulphate: 24 hours (95% CI 25.8 to 47.4), magnesium sulphate + salbutamol: 20 hours (95% CI 15.3 to 39.0), and salbutamol: 24 hours (95% CI 23.4 to 76.9)). None of our primary outcomes were measured for magnesium sulphate + epinephrine compared with no treatment or normal saline + epinephrine (1 RCT,120 children). Effects were uncertain for the duration of hospital stay in hours (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.94 to 3.14), and for RDAI scores (0 to 24 hours: MD -0.20, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.66; and 25 to 48 hours: MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.05).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to establish the efficacy and safety of magnesium sulphate for treating children up to two years of age with acute bronchiolitis. No evidence was available for time to recovery, duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay, or pulmonary function. There was no information about adverse events for some comparisons. Well-designed RCTs to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate for children with acute bronchiolitis are needed. Important outcomes, such as time to recovery and adverse events should be measured.
Topics: Acute Disease; Albuterol; Bias; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Length of Stay; Magnesium Sulfate; Patient Readmission; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 33316083
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012965.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.
MAIN RESULTS
We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Age Factors; Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Cause of Death; Child; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Young Adult
PubMed: 30521673
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006922.pub4