-
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide scientific evidence regarding the effects of training on respiratory muscle training's impact with the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inspiratory Muscle Training Program Using the PowerBreath: Does It Have Ergogenic Potential for Respiratory and/or Athletic Performance? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide scientific evidence regarding the effects of training on respiratory muscle training's impact with the PowerBreath. A systematic analysis based on the guides and a conducted research structured around the bases of Web of Science, Scopus, Medline/PubMed, SciELO y Cochrane Library Plus. Six articles published before January 2021 were included. The documentation and quantification of heterogeneity in every meta-analysis were directed through Cochran's Q test and the statistic I; additionally, a biased publication analysis was made using funnel plots, whose asymmetry was quantified Egger's regression. The methodological quality was assessed through McMaster's. PowerBreath administering a ≥ 15% resistive load of the maximum inspiratory pressure (PIM) achieves significant improvements (54%) in said pressure within 4 weeks of commencing the inspiratory muscle training. The maximal volume of oxygen (VOmax) considerable enhancements was achieved from the 6 weeks associated with the maximum inspiratory pressure ≥ 21.5% post inspiratory muscle training onwards. Conversely, a significant blood lactate concentration decrement occurred from the 4th week of inspiratory muscle training, after a maximum inspiratory pressure ≥ 6.8% increment. PowerBreath is a useful device to stimulate sport performance and increase pulmonary function.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Breathing Exercises; Lung; Respiratory Muscles; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 34206354
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136703 -
Allergy May 2021This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.
METHODS
We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis.
RESULTS
It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar.
CONCLUSIONS
Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Bronchodilator Agents; Case-Control Studies; Epinephrine; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32880997
DOI: 10.1111/all.14580 -
Chest Nov 2023Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient care must include confirming a diagnosis with postbronchodilator spirometry. Because of the clinical heterogeneity and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient care must include confirming a diagnosis with postbronchodilator spirometry. Because of the clinical heterogeneity and the reality that airflow obstruction assessed by spirometry only partially reflects disease severity, a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient should include assessment of symptom burden and risk of exacerbations that permits the implementation of evidence-informed pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. This guideline provides recommendations from a comprehensive systematic review with a meta-analysis and expert-informed clinical remarks to optimize maintenance pharmacologic therapy for individuals with stable COPD, and a revised and practical treatment pathway based on new evidence since the 2019 update of the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Guideline. The key clinical questions were developed using the Patients/Population (P), Intervention(s) (I), Comparison/Comparator (C), and Outcome (O) model for three questions that focuses on the outcomes of symptoms (dyspnea)/health status, acute exacerbations, and mortality. The evidence from this systematic review and meta-analysis leads to the recommendation that all symptomatic patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD should receive long-acting bronchodilator maintenance therapy. Those with moderate to severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council ≥ 2) and/or impaired health status (COPD Assessment Test ≥ 10) and a low risk of exacerbations should receive combination therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ẞ2-agonist (LAMA/LABA). For those with a moderate/severe dyspnea and/or impaired health status and a high risk of exacerbations should be prescribed triple combination therapy (LAMA/LABA/inhaled corticosteroids) azithromycin, roflumilast or N-acetylcysteine is recommended for specific populations; a recommendation against the use of theophylline, maintenance systemic oral corticosteroids such as prednisone and inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy is made for all COPD patients.
Topics: Humans; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bronchodilator Agents; Canada; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Muscarinic Antagonists; Administration, Inhalation; Dyspnea; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 37690008
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.08.014 -
The European Respiratory Journal Apr 2023Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) Working Group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies.
METHODS
COMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives, and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients' and carers' views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria.
RESULTS
Both adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV) as z-scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test or Childhood Asthma Control Test, while the adult COM set includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately).
CONCLUSIONS
This patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adult; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Disease Progression; Asthma; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36229046
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00606-2022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter months in infants younger than 24 months old. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter months in infants younger than 24 months old. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and updated in 2006, 2012, and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants younger than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (vibration and percussion, passive exhalation, or instrumental).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, PEDro (October 2011 to 20 April 2022), and two trials registers (5 April 2022).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared to control (conventional medical care with no physiotherapy intervention) or other respiratory physiotherapy techniques in infants younger than 24 months old with bronchiolitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Our update of the searches dated 20 April 2022 identified five new RCTs with 430 participants. We included a total of 17 RCTs (1679 participants) comparing chest physiotherapy with no intervention or comparing different types of physiotherapy. Five trials (246 participants) assessed percussion and vibration techniques plus postural drainage (conventional chest physiotherapy), and 12 trials (1433 participants) assessed different passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques, of which three trials (628 participants) assessed forced expiratory techniques, and nine trials (805 participants) assessed slow expiratory techniques. In the slow expiratory subgroup, two trials (78 participants) compared the technique with instrumental physiotherapy techniques, and two recent trials (116 participants) combined slow expiratory techniques with rhinopharyngeal retrograde technique (RRT). One trial used RRT alone as the main component of the physiotherapy intervention. Clinical severity was mild in one trial, severe in four trials, moderate in six trials, and mild to moderate in five trials. One study did not report clinical severity. Two trials were performed on non-hospitalised participants. Overall risk of bias was high in six trials, unclear in five, and low in six trials. The analyses showed no effects of conventional techniques on change in bronchiolitis severity status, respiratory parameters, hours with oxygen supplementation, or length of hospital stay (5 trials, 246 participants). Regarding instrumental techniques (2 trials, 80 participants), one trial observed similar results in bronchiolitis severity status when comparing slow expiration to instrumental techniques (mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval (C) -0.17 to 0.37). Forced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on bronchiolitis severity in time to recovery (2 trials, 509 participants; high-certainty evidence) and time to clinical stability (1 trial, 99 participants; high-certainty evidence) in infants with severe bronchiolitis. Important adverse effects were reported with the use of forced expiratory techniques. Regarding slow expiratory techniques, a mild to moderate improvement was observed in bronchiolitis severity score (standardised mean difference -0.43, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; I = 55%; 7 trials, 434 participants; low-certainty evidence). Also, in one trial an improvement in time to recovery was observed with the use of slow expiratory techniques. No benefit was observed in length of hospital stay, except for one trial which showed a one-day reduction. No effects were shown or reported for other clinical outcomes such as duration on oxygen supplementation, use of bronchodilators, or parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty evidence that passive slow expiratory technique may result in a mild to moderate improvement in bronchiolitis severity when compared to control. This evidence comes mostly from infants with moderately acute bronchiolitis treated in hospital. The evidence was limited with regard to infants with severe bronchiolitis and those with moderately severe bronchiolitis treated in ambulatory settings. We found high-certainty evidence that conventional techniques and forced expiratory techniques result in no difference in bronchiolitis severity or any other outcome. We found high-certainty evidence that forced expiratory techniques in infants with severe bronchiolitis do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse effects. Currently, the evidence regarding new physiotherapy techniques such as RRT or instrumental physiotherapy is scarce, and further trials are needed to determine their effects and potential for use in infants with moderate bronchiolitis, as well as the potential additional effect of RRT when combined with slow passive expiratory techniques. Finally, the effectiveness of combining chest physiotherapy with hypertonic saline should also be investigated.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Drainage, Postural; Oxygen; Physical Therapy Modalities; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 37010196
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004873.pub6 -
The European Respiratory Journal Feb 2023Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.
RESULTS
A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.
CONCLUSION
Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.
Topics: Humans; Bronchodilator Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Administration, Inhalation; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Muscarinic Antagonists; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists
PubMed: 36137586
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00302-2022 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2022The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends 2 alternative treatments for patients receiving treatment at steps 3 to 5: single inhaler combination inhaled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends 2 alternative treatments for patients receiving treatment at steps 3 to 5: single inhaler combination inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever (SMART) or inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist as maintenance plus short-acting β2-agonist as reliever.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether switching to SMART is associated with longer time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared with a step up or continuation of GINA treatment step with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever among patients with poorly controlled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the literature, internal study databases at AstraZeneca and the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, and references from a previous systematic review and meta-analysis on SMART were searched to identify randomized clinical trials published from January 1990 to February 2018, that compared budesonide-formoterol by SMART with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever.
STUDY SELECTION
Trials of at least 24 weeks' duration were included if they reported baseline data on GINA treatment step, asthma control status, and efficacy measures of severe exacerbations. Included patients were adults and adolescents with asthma and baseline Asthma Control Questionnaire 5-item version scores of 1.5 or higher.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Patient-level data were identified by independent extraction, and analyses were performed using a fixed-effect model. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to November 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was time to first severe asthma exacerbation associated with each treatment, analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS
Overall, 4863 patients were included (3034 [62.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 39.8 [16.3] years). Switching patients with uncontrolled asthma at GINA step 3 (n = 1950) to SMART at either step 3 or 4 was associated with a prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation, with a 29% reduced risk compared with stepping up to step 4 inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist maintenance plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97). For patients with uncontrolled asthma at step 3 and step 4 (n = 2913), switching to SMART was associated with a prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation and a 30% reduced risk compared with remaining at the same treatment step (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, for patients with poorly controlled asthma, SMART was associated with longer time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared with a step up or continuation of GINA step with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever. These findings suggest that if an adult or adolescent receiving treatment at GINA step 3 or 4 has poorly controlled asthma, it is preferable to switch to the SMART regimen rather than to step up or continue the GINA treatment step with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever therapy.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Budesonide; Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Female; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35230437
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0615 -
Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal... Jul 2022There are no evidence-based recommendations for surfactant use in late preterm (LPT) and term infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are no evidence-based recommendations for surfactant use in late preterm (LPT) and term infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the safety and efficacy of surfactant in LPT and term infants with RDS.
METHODS
Systematic review, meta-analysis and evidence grading.
INTERVENTIONS
Surfactant therapy versus standard of care.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Mortality and requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).
RESULTS
Of the 7970 titles and abstracts screened, 17 studies (16 observational studies and 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT)) were included. Of the LPT and term neonates with RDS, 46% (95% CI 40% to 51%) were treated with surfactant. We found moderate certainty of evidence (CoE) from observational studies evaluating infants supported with non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) or IMV that surfactant use may be associated with a decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64). Very low CoE from observational trials in which surfactant was administered at FiO >0.30-0.40 to infants on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) indicated that surfactant did not decrease the risk of IMV (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.56). Very low to low CoE from the RCT and observational trials showed that surfactant use was associated with a significant decrease in risk of air leak, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), duration of IMV, NRS and hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence base on surfactant therapy in LPT and term infants with RDS indicates a potentially decreased risk of mortality, air leak, PPHN and duration of respiratory support. In view of the low to very low CoE and widely varying thresholds for deciding on surfactant replacement in the included studies, further trials are needed.
Topics: Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pulmonary Surfactants; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; Surface-Active Agents
PubMed: 34686533
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2021-322890 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Cough; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; United States
PubMed: 35060618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004976.pub4 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2024To compare LISA with INSURE technique for surfactant administration in preterm with gestational age (GA) < 36 weeks with RDS in respect to the incidence of pneumothorax,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Less invasive surfactant administration versus intubation-surfactant-extubation in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVES
To compare LISA with INSURE technique for surfactant administration in preterm with gestational age (GA) < 36 weeks with RDS in respect to the incidence of pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), need for mechanical ventilation (MV), regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2), peri‑intraventricular hemorrhage (PIVH) and mortality.
METHODS
A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, CINAHL, SciELO databases, Brazilian Registry of Randomized Clinical Trials (ReBEC), Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed. RCTs evaluating the effects of the LISA technique versus INSURE in preterm infants with gestational age < 36 weeks and that had as outcomes evaluation of the rates of pneumothorax, BPD, need for MV, rSO2, PIVH, and mortality were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects and hazard ratio models were used to combine all study results. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q statistics and Higgin's I2 statistics.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs published between 2012 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria, a total of 1,944 preterms. Eleven studies showed a shorter duration of MV and CPAP in the LISA group than in INSURE group. Two studies evaluated rSO2 and suggested that LISA and INSURE transiently affect brain autoregulation during surfactant administration. INSURE group had a higher risk for MV in the first 72 h of life, pneumothorax, PIVH and mortality in comparison to the LISA group.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analyses provided evidence for the benefits of the LISA technique in the treatment of RDS, decreasing CPAP time, need for MV, BPD, pneumothorax, PIVH, and mortality when compared to INSURE.
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Infant, Premature; Surface-Active Agents; Airway Extubation; Pneumothorax; Pulmonary Surfactants; Intubation; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; Cerebral Hemorrhage
PubMed: 37353207
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2023.05.008