-
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases May 2018Origin of anorectal malformations (ARM) are considered multifactorial. Several genetic and non-genetic risk factors are discussed in literature. Maternal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Origin of anorectal malformations (ARM) are considered multifactorial. Several genetic and non-genetic risk factors are discussed in literature. Maternal periconceptional medical drug use as possible risk factor, however, has not been reviewed systematically.
METHODS
Studies published between 1977 and April 2017 were reviewed through systematic search in PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus databases. Furthermore, related and cross-referencing publications were reviewed. Pooled odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were determined to quantify associations of maternal periconceptional use of folic acid, multivitamins, anti-asthma medication (separated in any anti-asthma medication, inhaled corticosteroids and salbutamol), thyroid hormone supplements, psychiatric drugs (separated in antidepressants, any selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI], sertraline, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, hypnotics and benzodiazepine) and aspirin with ARM using meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Thirty-seven studies that reported on the association between maternal periconceptional drug intake and infants born with ARM were included in this review. These were conducted in the United States of America (n = 14), Sweden (n = 6), Hungary (n = 5), Germany (n = 3), the Netherlands (n = 3), Denmark (n = 2), France (n = 2), Norway (n = 1) and the UK (n = 1). However, only few of these studies reported on the same risk factors. Studies were heterogeneous with respect to case numbers, period ingestion of medical drug use, control selection and adjustment for covariates. Consistently increased risks were observed for any anti-asthma medication, and hypnotics and benzodiazepine, but not for folic acid, multivitamins, inhaled corticosteroids, salbutamol, thyroid hormone supplements, antidepressants, any SSRI, sertraline, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine and aspirin. In meta-analyses, pooled odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for any anti-asthma medication, and hypnotics and benzodiazepine were 1.64 (1.22-2.21), and 2.43 (1.03-5.73), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Evidence on maternal drug use before conception and during pregnancy as risk factor for ARM from epidemiological studies is still very limited. Nevertheless, the few available studies indicate any anti-asthma medication, and hypnotics and benzodiazepine to be associated with increased risks. Further, ideally large-scale multicenter and register-based studies are needed to clarify the role of maternal drug intake for the development of ARM.
Topics: Anorectal Malformations; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Anus, Imperforate; Benzodiazepines; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pregnancy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29747656
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0789-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.
Topics: Adolescent; Albuterol; Antitussive Agents; Apitherapy; Bromelains; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cough; Dextromethorphan; Diphenhydramine; Honey; Humans; Infant; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29633783
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007094.pub5 -
Acupuncture in Medicine : Journal of... Dec 2017To evaluate the effects and safety of acupressure for the management of respiratory allergic diseases by systematically reviewing randomised controlled trials (RCTs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effects and safety of acupressure for the management of respiratory allergic diseases by systematically reviewing randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
A total of 13 electronic English and Chinese databases were searched until July 2017. Two authors extracted data and evaluated risk of bias independently. Review Manager V.5.3 was employed for data analysis.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 186 papers, of which only four of met the inclusion criteria: two for allergic rhinitis (AR) and two for asthma. High and unclear risk of bias existed across all the included studies. The findings demonstrated that acupressure greater effects on the relief of nasal symptoms of AR compared with 1% ephedrine nasal drop plus thermal therapy. With either Western medicine or Chinese herbal medicine as a cointervention, one study indicated that acupressure plus salbutamol was led to a significantly greater improvement of pulmonary function for patients with asthma compared with salbutamol only. However, the remaining two studies indentified no significant differences in any outcome measures between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
No reliable conclusions regarding the effects of acupressure on AR and asthma could be drawn by this review due to the small number of available trials with significant heterogeneity of study design and high/unclear risk of bias. Further, more rigorously designed RCTs are needed. Acupressure seems safe for symptomatic relief of AR and asthma, although larger studies are required to be able to robustly confirm its safety.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ACTRN12617001106325; Pre-results.
Topics: Acupressure; Acupuncture Points; Acupuncture Therapy; Asthma; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 29113981
DOI: 10.1136/acupmed-2016-011354 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a chronic form of cutaneous lupus, which can cause scarring. Many drugs have been used to treat this disease and some (such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a chronic form of cutaneous lupus, which can cause scarring. Many drugs have been used to treat this disease and some (such as thalidomide, cyclophosphamide and azathioprine) are potentially toxic. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2000, and previously updated in 2009. We wanted to update the review to assess whether any new information was available to treat DLE, as we were still unsure of the effectiveness of available drugs and how to select the most appropriate treatment for an individual with DLE.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to 22 September 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials databases, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials. Index Medicus (1956 to 1966) was handsearched and we approached authors for information about unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs to treat people with DLE in any population group and of either gender. Comparisons included any drug used for DLE against either another drug or against placebo cream. We excluded laser treatment, surgery, phototherapy, other forms of physical therapy, and photoprotection as we did not consider them drug treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two reviewers independently extracted data onto a data extraction sheet, resolving disagreements by discussion. We used standard methods to assess risk of bias, as expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials involving 197 participants were included. Three new trials were included in this update. None of the five trials were of high quality.'Risk of bias' assessments identified potential sources of bias in each study. One study used an inappropriate randomisation method, and incomplete outcome data were a concern in another as 15 people did not complete the trial. We found most of the trials to be at low risk in terms of blinding, but three of the five did not describe allocation concealment.The included trials inadequately addressed the primary outcome measures of this review (percentage with complete resolution of skin lesions, percentage with clearing of erythema in at least 50% of lesions, and improvement in patient satisfaction/quality of life measures).One study of fluocinonide cream 0.05% (potent steroid) compared with hydrocortisone cream 1% (low-potency steroid) in 78 people reported complete resolution of skin lesions in 27% (10/37) of participants in the fluocinonide cream group and in 10% (4/41) in the hydrocortisone group, giving a 17% absolute benefit in favour of fluocinonide (risk ratio (RR) 2.77, 95% CI 0.95 to 8.08, 1 study, n = 78, low-quality evidence). The other primary outcome measures were not reported. Adverse events did not require discontinuation of the drug. Skin irritation occurred in three people using hydrocortisone, and one person developed acne. Burning occurred in two people using fluocinonide (moderate-quality evidence).A comparative trial of two oral agents, acitretin (50 mg daily) and hydroxychloroquine (400 mg daily), reported two of the outcomes of interest: complete resolution was seen in 13 of 28 participants (46%) on acitretin and 15 of 30 participants (50%) on hydoxychloroquine (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.59, 1 study, n = 58, low-quality evidence). Clearing of erythema in at least 50% of lesions was reported in 10 of 24 participants (42%) on acitretin and 17 of 25 (68%) on hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.06, 1 study, n = 49, low-quality evidence). This comparison did not assess improvement in patient satisfaction/quality of life measures. Participants taking acitretin showed a small increase in serum triglyceride, not sufficient to require withdrawal of the drug. The main adverse effects were dry lips (93% of the acitretin group and 20% of the hydroxychloroquine group) and gastrointestinal disturbance (11% of the acitretin group and 17% of the hydroxychloroquine group). Four participants on acitretin withdrew due to gastrointestinal events or dry lips (moderate-quality evidence).One trial randomised 10 people with DLE to apply a calcineurin inhibitor, pimecrolimus 1% cream, or a potent steroid, betamethasone 17-valerate 0.1% cream, for eight weeks. The study reported none of the primary outcome measures, nor did it present data on adverse events.A trial of calcineurin inhibitors compared tacrolimus cream 0.1% with placebo (vehicle) over 12 weeks in 14 people, but reported none of our primary outcome measures. In the tacrolimus group, five participants complained of slight burning and itching, and for one participant, a herpes simplex infection was reactivated (moderate-quality evidence).Topical R-salbutamol 0.5% cream was compared with placebo (vehicle) over eight weeks in one trial of 37 people with DLE. There was a significant improvement in pain and itch in the salbutamol group at two, four, six, and eight weeks compared to placebo, but the trial did not record a formal measure of quality of life. None of the primary outcome measures were reported. Changes in erythema did not show benefit of salbutamol over placebo, but we could not obtain from the trial report the number of participants with clearing of erythema in at least 50% of lesions. There were 15 events in the placebo group (experienced by 12 participants) and 24 in the salbutamol group (experienced by nine participants). None of the adverse events were considered serious (moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fluocinonide cream may be more effective than hydrocortisone in clearing DLE skin lesions. Hydroxychloroquine and acitretin appear to be of equal efficacy in terms of complete resolution, although adverse effects might be more frequent with acitretin, and clearing of erythema in at least 50% of lesions occurred less often in participants applying acitretin. Moderate-quality evidence found adverse events were minor on the whole. There is not enough reliable evidence about other drugs used to treat DLE. Overall, the quality of the trials and levels of uncertainty were such that there is a need for further trials of sufficient duration comparing, in particular, topical steroids with other agents.
Topics: Acitretin; Albuterol; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Dermatologic Agents; Fluocinonide; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Hydroxychloroquine; Lupus Erythematosus, Discoid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28476075
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002954.pub3 -
Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal... May 2017Nurse-initiated medications are one of the most important strategies used to facilitate timely care for people who present to Emergency Departments (EDs). The purpose of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nurse-initiated medications are one of the most important strategies used to facilitate timely care for people who present to Emergency Departments (EDs). The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the evidence of nurse-initiated medications to guide future practice and research.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted to locate published studies and Grey literature. All studies were assessed independently by two independent reviewers for relevance using titles and abstracts, eligibility dictated by the inclusion criteria, and methodological quality.
RESULTS
Five experimental studies were included in this review: one randomised controlled trial and four quasi-experimental studies conducted in paediatric and adult EDs. The nurse-initiated medications were salbutamol for respiratory conditions and analgesia for painful conditions, which enabled patients to receive the medications quicker by half-an-hour compared to those who did not have nurse-initiated medications. The intervention had no effect on adverse events, doctor wait time and length of stay. Nurse-initiated analgesia was associated with increased likelihood of receiving analgesia, achieving clinically-relevant pain reduction, and better patient satisfaction.
CONCLUSION
Nurse-initiated medications are safe and beneficial for ED patients. However, randomised controlled studies are required to strengthen the validity of results.
Topics: Albuterol; Analgesics; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Prescriptions; Emergency Nursing; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Practice Patterns, Nurses'; Time Factors
PubMed: 28462830
DOI: 10.1016/j.aenj.2017.04.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Teachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Teachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect a child with asthma in their care, or may fail to take appropriate action in the event of a serious attack. Education about asthma could help to improve this knowledge and lead to better asthma outcomes for children.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of asthma education programmes for school staff, and to identify content and attributes underpinning them.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention to educate school staff about asthma versus a control group. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors screened the searches, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were emergency department (ED) or hospital visits, mortality and asthma control; we graded the main results and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table. We planned a qualitative synthesis of intervention characteristics, but study authors were unable to provide the necessary information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we narratively described skewed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Five cluster-RCTs of 111 schools met the review eligibility criteria. Investigators measured outcomes in participating staff and often in children or parents, most often at between 1 and 12 months.All interventions were educational programmes but duration, content and delivery varied; some involved elements of training for pupils or primary care providers. We noted risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition biases, although to a differing extent across studies and outcomes.Quanitative and qualitative analyses were limited. Only one study reported visits to the ED or hospital and provided data that were too skewed for analysis. No studies reported any deaths or adverse events. Studies did not report asthma control consistently, but results showed no difference between groups on the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.31; 1005 participants; we downgraded the quality of evidence to low for risk of bias and indirectness). Data for symptom days, night-time awakenings, restricted activities of daily living and school absences were skewed or could not be analysed; some mean scores were better in the trained group, but most differences between groups were small and did not persist to 24 months.Schools that received asthma education were more adherent to asthma policies, and staff were better prepared; more schools that had received staff asthma training had written asthma policies compared with control schools, more intervention schools showed improvement in measures taken to prevent or manage exercise-induced asthma attacks and more staff at intervention schools reported that they felt able to administer salbutamol via a spacer. However, the quality of the evidence was low; results show imbalances at baseline, and confidence in the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Staff knowledge was higher in groups that had received asthma education, although results were inconsistent and difficult to interpret owing to differences between scales (low quality).Available information about the interventions was insufficient for review authors to conduct a meaningful qualitative synthesis of the content that led to a successful intervention, or of the resources required to replicate results accurately.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Asthma education for school staff increases asthma knowledge and preparedness, but studies vary and all available evidence is of low quality. Studies have not yet captured whether this improvement in knowledge has led to appreciable benefits over the short term or the longer term for the safety and health of children with asthma in school. Randomised evidence does not contribute to our knowledge of content or attributes of interventions that lead to the best outcomes, or of resources required for successful implementation.Complete reporting of the content and resources of educational interventions is essential for assessment of their effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. This applies to both randomised and non-randomised studies, although the latter may be better placed to observe important clinical outcomes such as exacerbations and mortality in the longer term.
Topics: Absenteeism; Asthma; Child; Emergency Service, Hospital; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Program Evaluation; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; School Teachers; Schools; Teacher Training
PubMed: 28402017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012255.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Inhaled short-acting anticholinergics (SAAC) and short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA) are effective therapies for adult patients with acute asthma who present to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled short-acting anticholinergics (SAAC) and short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA) are effective therapies for adult patients with acute asthma who present to the emergency department (ED). It is unclear, however, whether the combination of SAAC and SABA treatment is more effective in reducing hospitalisations compared to treatment with SABA alone.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct an up-to-date systematic search and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC + SABA agents) vs. SABA alone to reduce hospitalisations in adult patients presenting to the ED with an exacerbation of asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and evidence-based medicine (EBM) databases using controlled vocabulary, natural language terms, and a variety of specific and general terms for inhaled SAAC and SABA drugs. The search spanned from 1946 to July 2015. The Cochrane Airways Group provided search results from the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials which was most recently conducted in July 2016. An extensive search of the grey literature was completed to identify any other potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Included studies were randomised or controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of combined inhaled therapy (SAAC and SABA) to SABA treatment alone to prevent hospitalisations in adults with acute asthma in the emergency department. Two independent review authors assessed studies for inclusion using pre-determined criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model and reporting heterogeneity (I²). For continuous outcomes, we reported individual trial results using mean differences (MD) and pooled results as weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies that involved a total of 2724 enrolled participants. Most studies were rated at unclear or high risk of bias.Overall, participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were less likely to be hospitalised (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87; participants = 2120; studies = 16; I² = 12%; moderate quality of evidence). An estimated 65 fewer patients per 1000 would require hospitalisation after receiving combination therapy (95% 30 to 95), compared to 231 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone. Although combination inhaled therapy was more effective than SABA treatment alone in reducing hospitalisation in participants with severe asthma exacerbations, this was not found for participants with mild or moderate exacerbations (test for difference between subgroups P = 0.02).Participants receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience improved forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (MD 0.25 L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; participants = 687; studies = 6; I² = 70%; low quality of evidence), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD 36.58 L/min, 95% CI 23.07 to 50.09; participants = 1056; studies = 12; I² = 25%; very low quality of evidence), increased percent change in PEF from baseline (MD 24.88, 95% CI 14.83 to 34.93; participants = 551; studies = 7; I² = 23%; moderate quality of evidence), and were less likely to return to the ED for additional care (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 1180; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) than participants receiving SABA alone.Participants receiving combination inhaled therapy were more likely to experience adverse events than those treated with SABA agents alone (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.20; participants = 1392; studies = 11; I² = 14%; moderate quality of evidence). Among patients receiving combination therapy, 103 per 1000 were likely to report adverse events (95% 31 to 195 more) compared to 131 per 1000 patients receiving SABA alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, combination inhaled therapy with SAAC and SABA reduced hospitalisation and improved pulmonary function in adults presenting to the ED with acute asthma. In particular, combination inhaled therapy was more effective in preventing hospitalisation in adults with severe asthma exacerbations who are at increased risk of hospitalisation, compared to those with mild-moderate exacerbations, who were at a lower risk to be hospitalised. A single dose of combination therapy and multiple doses both showed reductions in the risk of hospitalisation among adults with acute asthma. However, adults receiving combination therapy were more likely to experience adverse events, such as tremor, agitation, and palpitations, compared to patients receiving SABA alone.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Atropine; Cholinergic Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Ipratropium; Levalbuterol; Metaproterenol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scopolamine Derivatives
PubMed: 28076656
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001284.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Chronic lung disease (CLD) occurs frequently in preterm infants. Bronchodilators have the potential effect of dilating small airways with muscle hypertrophy. Increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic lung disease (CLD) occurs frequently in preterm infants. Bronchodilators have the potential effect of dilating small airways with muscle hypertrophy. Increased compliance and tidal volume and decreased pulmonary resistance have been documented with the use of bronchodilators in infants with CLD. Therefore, bronchodilators might have a role in the prevention and treatment of CLD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of bronchodilators given as prophylaxis or as treatment for CLD on mortality and other complications of preterm birth in infants at risk for or identified as having CLD.
SEARCH METHODS
On 2016 March 7, we used the standard strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1966), Embase (from 1980) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1982). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving preterm infants were eligible for inclusion. Initiation of bronchodilator therapy for prevention of CLD had to occur within two weeks of birth. Treatment of patients with CLD had to be initiated before discharge from the neonatal unit. The intervention had to include administration of a bronchodilator by nebulisation, by metered dose inhaler (with or without a spacer device) or by intravenous or oral administration versus placebo or no intervention. Eligible studies had to include at least one of the following predefined clinical outcomes: mortality, CLD, number of days on oxygen, number of days on ventilator, patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pulmonary interstitial emphysema (PIE), pneumothorax, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) of any grade, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), sepsis and adverse effects of bronchodilators.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard method described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). Two review authors extracted and assessed all data provided by each study. We reported risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we identified one new randomised controlled trial investigating effects of bronchodilators in preterm infants. This study, which enrolled 73 infants but reported on 52 infants, examined prevention of CLD with the use of aminophylline. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was very low. One previously included study enrolled 173 infants to look at prevention of CLD with the use of salbutamol. According to GRADE, the quality of the evidence was moderate. We found no eligible trial that studied the use of bronchodilator therapy for treatment of individuals with CLD. Prophylaxis with salbutamol led to no statistically significant differences in mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.31; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) nor in CLD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17). Results showed no statistically significant differences in other complications associated with CLD nor in preterm birth. Investigators in this study did not comment on side effects due to salbutamol. Prophylaxis with aminophylline led to a significant reduction in CLD at 28 days of life (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.74; RD -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.13; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 8) and no significant difference in mortality (RR 3.0, 95% CI 0.33 to 26.99; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.22), along with a significantly shorter dependency on supplementary oxygen in the aminophylline group compared with the no treatment group (MD -17.75 days, 95% CI -27.56 to -7.94). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses, as each meta-analysis included only one study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data are insufficient for reliable assessment of the use of salbutamol for prevention of CLD. One trial of poor quality reported a reduction in the incidence of CLD and shorter duration of supplementary oxygen with prophylactic aminophylline, but these results must be interpreted with caution. Additional clinical trials are necessary to assess the role of bronchodilator agents in prophylaxis or treatment of CLD. Researchers studying the effects of bronchodilators in preterm infants should include relevant clinical outcomes in addition to pulmonary mechanical outcomes. We identified no trials that studied the use of bronchodilator therapy for treatment of CLD.
Topics: Albuterol; Aminophylline; Beclomethasone; Bronchodilator Agents; Chronic Disease; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Lung Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27960245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003214.pub3 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Jul 2017To conduct a systematic review of strategies for the management of transient tachypnoea of the newborn (TTN). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of strategies for the management of transient tachypnoea of the newborn (TTN).
METHODS
The Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA guidelines were used for conducting and reporting this systematic review, respectively. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched in February 2016. Only randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing any intervention for the management of TTN in infants <7 days of age, born at 35 or more weeks with a clinical diagnosis of TTN were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included the duration of respiratory support, oxygen support, tachypnoea and hospitalisation.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with moderate risk of bias were included. The interventions assessed included furosemide (2 trials, n = 100), inhaled salbutamol (2 trials, n = 94), inhaled epinephrine (1 trial, n = 20), restrictive fluids (2 trials, n = 146) and non-invasive ventilation (2 trials, n = 80). Amongst all interventions, inhaled salbutamol significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation (2 trials, n = 94) [mean difference (MD) - 1.63 days (95% CI -2.71 to -0.55); p = 0.003] and duration of oxygen requirement (1 trial, n = 37) [MD - 43.10 h (95% CI -81.82 to -4.38; p = 0.03] without adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
Limited low-quality evidence exists on the effects of different management strategies for TTN. The safety and efficacy of inhaled salbutamol in the treatment of TTN can be assessed in a large RCT.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchodilator Agents; Diuretics; Epinephrine; Female; Furosemide; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Length of Stay; Male; Noninvasive Ventilation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Transient Tachypnea of the Newborn; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27762156
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1193143 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2016Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration.
OBJECTIVES
To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.
PubMed: 27582089
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010758.pub2