-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Nov 2021Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice.... (Review)
Review
Anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are efficacious and well tolerated in randomized controlled trials, but findings may not be generalizable to routine clinical practice. This systematic literature review aimed to identify real-world (RW) evidence for AOMs to treat adults ( ≥ 18 years) with obesity or overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m ). Searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of relevant FDA-approved AOMs yielded 41 publications. Weight loss (WL) was consistently observed, with 14% to 58.6% of patients achieving ≥ 5% WL on orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, naltrexone/bupropion, phentermine, or liraglutide in studies of 3-6 months' duration where this was measured. When cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed, AOMs reduced or had no impact on blood pressure, lipids, or glycemia. RW data on the impact of AOMs on existing obesity-related comorbidities and mortality were generally lacking. AOMs were associated with various adverse events, but these were of mild to moderate severity and no unexpected safety signals were reported. A pattern of poor adherence and persistence with AOMs was observed across studies. Overall, the review confirmed the effectiveness of AOMs in RW settings but demonstrated large gaps in the evidence base.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Obesity Agents; Humans; Orlistat; Phentermine; State Medicine; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34423889
DOI: 10.1111/obr.13326 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2023Antidepressant medications are used by increasing numbers of pregnant women. The evidence on the relationship between antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Antidepressant medications are used by increasing numbers of pregnant women. The evidence on the relationship between antidepressant use during pregnancy and the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is inconsistent. We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the GDM risk associated with antidepressant exposure during pregnancy.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases until December 2021. We sought observational studies assessing the association between gestational antidepressant use and GDM.
RESULTS
Five observational studies were included in the analysis. Mothers exposed to antidepressants during pregnancy were at a significantly increased risk for GDM (relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.30; < .001). However, after considering confounding by indication, we observed no significant effect of antidepressant use during pregnancy on the risk of GDM (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1-1.28; = .054; = 0%). Independent of clinical indication, subgroup analysis based on individual antidepressants suggested that the risk was increased by venlafaxine or amitriptyline use, but not by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
The significant association between antidepressant exposure during pregnancy and GDM may be overestimated due to confounding by indication. However, the evidence remains insufficient, particularly for specific drug classes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Antidepressive Agents; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline
PubMed: 36599445
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2022.2162817 -
CNS Drugs Apr 2020Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Stimulant drugs are second only to cannabis as the most widely used class of illicit drug globally, accounting for 68 million past-year consumers. Dependence on amphetamines (AMPH) or methamphetamine (MA) is a growing global concern. Yet, there is no established pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence. A comprehensive assessment of the research literature on pharmacotherapy for AMPH/MA dependence may inform treatment guidelines and future research directions.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature via the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and SCOPUS for randomised controlled trials reported in the English language examining a pharmacological treatment for AMPH/MA dependence or use disorder. We included all studies published to 19 June 2019. The selected studies were evaluated for design; methodology; inclusion and exclusion criteria; sample size; pharmacological and (if included) psychosocial interventions; length of follow-up and follow-up schedules; outcome variables and measures; results; overall conclusions and risk of bias. Outcome measures were any reported impact of treatment related to AMPH/MA use.
RESULTS
Our search returned 43 studies that met our criteria, collectively enrolling 4065 participants and reporting on 23 individual pharmacotherapies, alone or in combination. Disparate outcomes and measures (n = 55 for the primary outcomes) across studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Some studies demonstrated mixed or weak positive signals (often in defined populations, e.g. men who have sex with men), with some variation in efficacy signals dependent on baseline frequency of AMPH/MA use. The most consistent positive findings have been demonstrated with stimulant agonist treatment (dexamphetamine and methylphenidate), naltrexone and topiramate. Less consistent benefits have been shown with the antidepressants bupropion and mirtazapine, the glutamatergic agent riluzole and the corticotropin releasing factor (CRF-1) antagonist pexacerfont; whilst in general, antidepressant medications (e.g. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) have not been effective in reducing AMPH/MA use.
CONCLUSIONS
No pharmacotherapy yielded convincing results for the treatment of AMPH/MA dependence; mostly studies were underpowered and had low treatment completion rates. However, there were positive signals from several agents that warrant further investigation in larger scale studies; agonist therapies show promise. Common outcome measures should include change in use days. Future research must address the heterogeneity of AMPH/MA dependence (e.g. coexisting conditions, severity of disorder, differences between MA and AMPH dependence) and the role of psychosocial intervention.
Topics: Amphetamine; Amphetamine-Related Disorders; Animals; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Methamphetamine; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 32185696
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-020-00711-x -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2023According to the EU Early Warning System (EWS), synthetic cathinones (SCs) are the second largest new psychoactive substances (NPS) class, with 162 synthetic cathinones... (Review)
Review
According to the EU Early Warning System (EWS), synthetic cathinones (SCs) are the second largest new psychoactive substances (NPS) class, with 162 synthetic cathinones monitored by the EU EWS. They have a similar structure to cathinone, principally found in Catha Edulis; they have a phenethylamine related structure but also exhibit amphetamine-like stimulant effects. Illegal laboratories regularly develop new substances and place them on the market. For this reason, during the last decade this class of substances has presented a great challenge for public health and forensic toxicologists. Acting on different systems and with various mechanisms of action, the spectrum of side effects caused by the intake of these drugs of abuse is very broad. To date, most studies have focused on the substances' cardiac effects, and very few on their associated neurotoxicity. Specifically, synthetic cathinones appear to be involved in different neurological events, including increased alertness, mild agitation, severe psychosis, hyperthermia and death. A systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases according to PRISMA guidelines was performed. A total of 515 studies published from 2005 to 2022 (350 articles from PubMed and 165 from Scopus) were initially screened for eligibility. The papers excluded, according to the criteria described in the Method Section (n = 401) and after full text analyses (n = 82), were 483 in total. The remaining 76 were included in the present review, as they met fully the inclusion criteria. The present work provides a comprehensive review on neurotoxic mechanisms of synthetic cathinones highlighting intoxication cases and fatalities in humans, as well as the toxic effects on animals (in particular rats, mice and zebrafish larvae). The reviewed studies showed brain-related adverse effects, including encephalopathy, coma and convulsions, and sympathomimetic and hallucinogenic toxidromes, together with the risk of developing excited/agitated delirium syndrome and serotonin syndrome.
Topics: Mice; Rats; Humans; Animals; Synthetic Cathinone; Zebrafish; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Fever; Amphetamine; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 37047201
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24076230 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Apr 2020The novel phenethylamines 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) fall in the top 10 most used new psychoactive substances (NPSs) among...
BACKGROUND
The novel phenethylamines 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) fall in the top 10 most used new psychoactive substances (NPSs) among high-risk substance users. Various phenethylamines and NPS are also highly used in populations with mental disorders, depression, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, NPS use is highly prevalent among men and women with risky sexual behavior. Considering these specific populations and their frequent concurrent use of drugs, such as antidepressants, ADHD medication, and antiretrovirals, reports on potential interactions between these drugs, and phenethylamines 4-FA and 2C-B, were reviewed.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic literature review on 4-FA and 2C-B interactions with antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, bupropion, venlafaxine, phenelzine, moclobemide, and tranylcypromine), ADHD medications (atomoxetine, dexamphetamine, methylphenidate, and modafinil), and antiretrovirals.
RESULTS
Limited literature exists on the pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of 2C-B and 4-FA. Only one case report indicated a possible interaction between 4-FA and ADHD medication. Although pharmacokinetic interactions between 4-FA and prescription drugs remain speculative, their pharmacodynamic points toward interactions between 4-FA and ADHD medication and antidepressants. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of 2C-B also points toward such interactions, between 2C-B and prescription drugs such as antidepressants and ADHD medication.
CONCLUSIONS
A drug-drug (phenethylamine-prescription drug) interaction potential is anticipated, mainly involving monoamine oxidases for 2C-B and 4-FA, with monoamine transporters being more specific to 4-FA.
Topics: Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Depressive Disorder; Dimethoxyphenylethylamine; Drug Interactions; Humans; Phenethylamines; Prescription Drugs
PubMed: 32022784
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000725 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2011.Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent of the comorbid psychiatric disorders that complicate tic disorders. Medications commonly used to treat ADHD symptoms include stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamine; non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine; tricyclic antidepressants; and alpha agonists. Alpha agonists are also used as a treatment for tics. Due to the impact of ADHD symptoms on the child with tic disorder, treatment of ADHD is often of greater priority than the medical management of tics. However, for many decades, clinicians have been reluctant to use stimulants to treat children with ADHD and tics for fear of worsening their tics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological treatments for ADHD in children with comorbid tic disorders on symptoms of ADHD and tics.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 12 other databases. We also searched two trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized, double-blind, controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for ADHD used specifically in children with comorbid tic disorders. We included both parallel-group and cross-over study designs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane, in that two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data using standardized forms, assessed risk of bias, and graded the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomized controlled trials (four of which were cross-over trials) with 510 participants (443 boys, 67 girls) in this review. Participants in these studies were children with both ADHD and a chronic tic disorder. All studies took place in the USA and ranged from three to 22 weeks in duration. Five of the eight studies were funded by charitable organizations or government agencies, or both. One study was funded by the drug manufacturer. The other two studies did not specify the source of funding. Risk of bias of included studies was low for blinding; low or unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and attrition bias; and low or high for selective outcome reporting. We were unable to combine any of the studies in a meta-analysis due to important clinical heterogeneity and unit-of-analysis issues.Several of the trials assessed multiple agents. Medications assessed included methylphenidate, clonidine, desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine, atomoxetine, and deprenyl. There was low-quality evidence for methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and clonidine, and very low-quality evidence for desipramine, dextroamphetamine, guanfacine and deprenyl in the treatment of ADHD in children with tics. All studies, with the exception of a study using deprenyl, reported improvement in symptoms of ADHD. Tic symptoms also improved in children treated with guanfacine, desipramine, methylphenidate, clonidine, and a combination of methylphenidate and clonidine. In one study, tics limited further dosage increases of methylphenidate. High-dose dextroamphetamine appeared to worsen tics in one study, although the length of this study was limited to three weeks. There was appetite suppression or weight loss in association with methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, atomoxetine, and desipramine. There was insomnia associated with methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine, and sedation associated with clonidine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Following an updated search of potentially relevant studies, we found no new studies that matched our inclusion criteria and thus our conclusions have not changed.Methylphenidate, clonidine, guanfacine, desipramine, and atomoxetine appear to reduce ADHD symptoms in children with tics though the quality of the available evidence was low to very low. Although stimulants have not been shown to worsen tics in most people with tic disorders, they may, nonetheless, exacerbate tics in individual cases. In these instances, treatment with alpha agonists or atomoxetine may be an alternative. Although there is evidence that desipramine may improve tics and ADHD in children, safety concerns will likely continue to limit its use in this population.
Topics: Adolescent; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Child; Child, Preschool; Clonidine; Desipramine; Dextroamphetamine; Female; Guanfacine; Humans; Male; Methylphenidate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selegiline; Tic Disorders
PubMed: 29944175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub3 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Jul 2023Selegiline is an irreversible, selective type-B monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) approved for Parkison's disease-oral and major depressive disorder-transdermal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Selegiline is an irreversible, selective type-B monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) approved for Parkison's disease-oral and major depressive disorder-transdermal formulation) resulting in non-selective MAOI activity at oral doses≥20 mg/day. The present systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the evidence of different formulations/dosages of selegiline across different psychiatric conditions. We inquired PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane-Central/WHO-ICTRP/Clarivate-WebOfScience and the Chinese-Electronic-Journal Database from inception to 10/26/2022 for selegiline trials involving psychiatric patients. Random-effects meta-analyses assessed heterogeneity, publication/risk biases, and confidence in the evidence, followed by sensitivity, subgroup, and meta-regression analyses. Co-primary outcomes were: changes in symptom score (standardized mean difference=SMD) and author-defined response (risk ratios=RRs). RRs of adverse events and all-cause discontinuation were secondary and acceptability outcomes, respectively. Systematic-review included 42 studies; meta-analysis, 23. Selegiline outperformed placebo in depressive symptom reduction (SMD=-0.96, 95%C.I.=-1.78, -0.14, k = 10, n = 1,308), depression (RR=1.61, 95%C.I.=1.20, 2.15, k = 9, n = 1,238) and atypical-depression response (RR=2.23, 95%C.I.=1.35, 3.68, k = 3, n = 136). Selegiline failed to outperform the placebo in negative (k = 4) or positive symptoms of schizophrenia (k = 4), attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms reduction (k = 2), and smoking abstinence rate (k = 4). Selegiline did not differ from methylphenidate and ADHD scores (k = 2). No significant difference emerged in acceptability, incident diarrhea, headache, dizziness, and nausea RRs, in contrast to xerostomia (RR=1.58, 95%C.I. =1.03, 2.43, k = 6, n = 1,134), insomnia (RR=1.61, 95%C.I.=1.19, 2.17, k = 10, n = 1,768), and application-site reaction for transdermal formulation (RR=1.81, 95%C.I.=1.40, 2.33, k = 6, n = 1,662). Confidence in findings was low/very-low for most outcomes; moderate for depressive symptoms reduction (transdermal). Selegiline proved effective, safe, and well-tolerated for depressive disorders, yet further evidence is warranted about specific psychiatric disorders.
Topics: Humans; Selegiline; Depressive Disorder, Major; Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Methylphenidate
PubMed: 37087864
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2023.03.012 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Oct 2023Methamphetamine use typically starts in adolescence, and early onset is associated with worse outcomes. Yet, health, functional, and cognitive outcomes associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Methamphetamine use typically starts in adolescence, and early onset is associated with worse outcomes. Yet, health, functional, and cognitive outcomes associated with methamphetamine use in young people are not well understood. The aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the evidence on health, functional, and cognitive outcomes in young people (10-25 years-old) who use methamphetamine. Sixty-six studies were included. The strongest association observed was with conduct disorder, with young people who use methamphetamine some 13 times more likely to meet conduct disorder criteria than controls. They were also more likely to have justice system involvement and to perpetrate violence against others. Educational problems were consistently associated with youth methamphetamine use. The cognitive domain most reliably implicated was inhibitory control. Key limitations in the literature were identified, including heterogenous measurement of exposure and outcomes, lack of adequate controls, and limited longitudinal evidence. Outcomes identified in the present review - suggesting complex and clinically significant behavioural issues in this population - are informative for the development of future research and targeted treatments.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Child; Young Adult; Adult; Methamphetamine; Violence; Cognition
PubMed: 37678571
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105380 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate climates and in the rainy season in warmer countries. Bronchiolitis is a common reason for attendance at and admission to hospital.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of prophylactic interventions for bronchiolitis in high-risk children? What are the effects of measures to prevent transmission of bronchiolitis in hospital? What are the effects of treatments for children with bronchiolitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 59 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, bronchodilators (oral, inhaled salbutamol, inhaled adrenaline [epinephrine], hypertonic saline), chest physiotherapy, continuous positive airway pressure, corticosteroids, fluid management, heliox, montelukast, nasal decongestants, nursing interventions (cohort segregation, hand washing, gowns, masks, gloves, and goggles), oxygen, respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulins, pooled immunoglobulins, or palivizumab (monoclonal antibody), ribavirin, or surfactants.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 21486501
DOI: No ID Found