-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013Strength training or aerobic exercise programmes might optimise muscle and cardiorespiratory function and prevent additional disuse atrophy and deconditioning in people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Strength training or aerobic exercise programmes might optimise muscle and cardiorespiratory function and prevent additional disuse atrophy and deconditioning in people with a muscle disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the safety and efficacy of strength training and aerobic exercise training in people with a muscle disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (July 2012), CENTRAL (2012 Issue 3 of 4), MEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2012), EMBASE (January 1974 to July 2012), EMBASE Classic (1947 to 1973) and CINAHL (January 1982 to July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing strength training or aerobic exercise programmes, or both, to no training, and lasting at least six weeks, in people with a well-described diagnosis of a muscle disease.We did not use the reporting of specific outcomes as a study selection criterion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data obtained from the full text-articles and from the original investigators. We collected adverse event data from included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (170 participants). The first trial compared the effect of strength training versus no training in 36 people with myotonic dystrophy. The second trial compared aerobic exercise training versus no training in 14 people with polymyositis and dermatomyositis. The third trial compared strength training versus no training in a factorial trial that also compared albuterol with placebo, in 65 people with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). The fourth trial compared combined strength training and aerobic exercise versus no training in 18 people with mitochondrial myopathy. The fifth trial compared combined strength training and aerobic exercise versus no training in 35 people with myotonic dystrophy type 1.In both myotonic dystrophy trials and the dermatomyositis and polymyositis trial there were no significant differences between training and non-training groups for primary and secondary outcome measures. The risk of bias of the strength training trial in myotonic dystrophy and the aerobic exercise trial in polymyositis and dermatomyositis was judged as uncertain, and for the combined strength training and aerobic exercise trial, the risk of bias was judged as adequate. In the FSHD trial, for which the risk of bias was judged as adequate, a +1.17 kg difference (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 2.16) in dynamic strength of elbow flexors in favour of the training group reached statistical significance. In the mitochondrial myopathy trial, there were no significant differences in dynamic strength measures between training and non-training groups. Exercise duration and distance cycled in a submaximal endurance test increased significantly in the training group compared to the control group. The differences in mean time and mean distance cycled till exhaustion between groups were 23.70 min (95% CI 2.63 to 44.77) and 9.70 km (95% CI 1.51 to 17.89), respectively. The risk of bias was judged as uncertain. In all trials, no adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-intensity strength training in myotonic dystrophy and FSHD and aerobic exercise training in dermatomyositis and polymyositis and myotonic dystrophy type I appear to do no harm, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they offer benefit. In mitochondrial myopathy, aerobic exercise combined with strength training appears to be safe and may be effective in increasing submaximal endurance capacity. Limitations in the design of studies in other muscle diseases prevent more general conclusions in these disorders.
Topics: Dermatomyositis; Exercise; Humans; Mitochondrial Myopathies; Muscular Diseases; Muscular Dystrophy, Facioscapulohumeral; Myotonic Dystrophy; Physical Fitness; Polymyositis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 23835682
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003907.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Bronchiolitis is one of the most common respiratory problems in the first year of life. The sputum of infants with bronchiolitis has increased deoxyribonucleic acid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiolitis is one of the most common respiratory problems in the first year of life. The sputum of infants with bronchiolitis has increased deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) content, leading to mucous plugging and airway obstruction. Recombinant human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase), an enzyme that digests extracellular DNA, might aid the clearance of mucus and relieve peripheral airway obstruction.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of nebulised rhDNase on the severity and duration of viral bronchiolitis in children younger than 24 months of age in the hospital setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2012, Issue 7 which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to July Week 4, 2012), EMBASE (1974 to August 2012) and LILACS (1982 to August 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using nebulised rhDNase alone or with concomitant therapy in children younger than 24 months of age hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed literature searches, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We obtained unpublished data from trial authors. We used Review Manager 5.1 to pool treatment effects expressed as the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs (333 participants) were identified, two of which were multicentre trials comprising only participants positive for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The other trial enrolled participants clinically diagnosed with bronchiolitis from a hospital in Italy. All studies used 2.5 mL (1 mg/mL) of nebulised rhDNase compared with placebo either as a daily or a twice daily dose. Adjunctive therapy included nebulised salbutamol, steroids, supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluids or tube feeding, nasal washing, nasal decongestants and antibiotics.Overall, nebulised rhDNase showed no benefit in clinically meaningful outcomes. Meta-analysis favoured the control group with a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, P = 0.01) and better clinical score improvement (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.01, P = 0.06). The largest trial showed no difference in supplemental oxygen use or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.In one RCT, four out of 11 patients in the treatment group had atelectasis. Two of these patients showed distinctive clinical improvement after nebulised rhDNase.There was no significant difference in adverse events. These included temporary desaturation, temporary coughing, increased coughing, facial rash, hoarseness, dyspnoea and bad taste, reported in a total of 11 patients from both treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results based on the three included studies in this review did not support the use of nebulised rhDNase in children under 24 months of age hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis. In these patients, treatment did not shorten the length of hospitalisation or improve clinical outcomes. It might have a role in severe bronchiolitis complicated by atelectasis, but further clinical studies would need to be performed.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Bronchiolitis, Viral; Deoxyribonucleases; Humans; Infant; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Pulmonary Atelectasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23152257
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008395.pub2 -
Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or regular salbutamol. No similar sized surveillance studies have been carried out in children with asthma, and we remain uncertain about the comparative safety of regular combination therapy with either formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma.
OBJECTIVES
We have used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in children with asthma.
METHODS
We included Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews conducted in May 2012, and ran updated searches for each of the reviews. These were independently assessed. All the reviews were assessed for quality using the AMSTAR tool. We extracted the data relating to children from each review and from new trials found in the updated searches (including risks of bias, study characteristics, serious adverse event outcomes, and control arm event rates).The safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol were assessed directly from the paediatric trials in the Cochrane reviews of monotherapy and combination therapy with each product. Then monotherapy was indirectly compared to combination therapy by looking at the differences between the pooled trial results for monotherapy and the pooled results for combination therapy. The comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol was assessed using direct evidence from trials that randomised children to each treatment; this was combined with the result of an indirect comparison of the combination therapy trials, which represents the difference between the pooled results of each product when randomised against inhaled corticosteroids alone.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six high quality, up to date Cochrane reviews. Four of these related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and these included 19 studies in children. We added data from two recent studies on salmeterol combination therapy in 689 children which were published after the relevant Cochrane review had been completed, making a total of 21 trials on 7474 children (from four to 17 years of age). The two remaining reviews compared the safety of formoterol with salmeterol from trials randomising participants to one or other treatment, but the reviews only included a single trial in children in which there were 156 participants.Only one child died across all the trials, so impact on mortality could not be assessed.We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a non-fatal serious adverse event of any cause in children on formoterol monotherapy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.83, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1335, high quality) and smaller increases in odds which were not statistically significant for salmeterol monotherapy (Peto OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.05, I(2) = 17%, 5 trials, N = 1333, moderate quality), formoterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, I(2) = 32%, 7 trials, N = 2788, moderate quality) and salmeterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.91, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1862, moderate quality).We compared the pooled results of the monotherapy and combination therapy trials. There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of children with a serious adverse event (SAE) from long-acting beta(2)-agonist beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination trials (Peto OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.75, 12 trials, N = 4,650). However, there were fewer children with an SAE in the regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) control group (0.7%) than in the placebo control group (3.6%). As a result, there was an absolute increase of an additional 21 children (95% CI 4 to 45) suffering such an SAE of any cause for every 1000 children treated over six months with either regular formoterol or salmeterol monotherapy, whilst for combination therapy the increased risk was an additional three children (95% CI 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 over three months.We only found a single trial in 156 children comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol monotherapy, and even with the additional evidence from indirect comparisons between the combination formoterol and salmeterol trials, the CI around the effect on SAEs is too wide to tell whether there is a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.37 to 4.32).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We do not know if regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children alters the risk of dying from asthma.Regular combination therapy is likely to be less risky than monotherapy in children with asthma, but we cannot say that combination therapy is risk free. There are probably an additional three children per 1000 who suffer a non-fatal serious adverse event on combination therapy in comparison to ICS over three months. This is currently our best estimate of the risk of using LABA combination therapy in children and has to be balanced against the symptomatic benefit obtained for each child. We await the results of large on-going surveillance studies to further clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma.The relative safety of formoterol in comparison to salmeterol remains unclear, even when all currently available direct and indirect trial evidence is combined.
Topics: Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ethanolamines; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate
PubMed: 23076961
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010005.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative clinical effects of tiotropium bromide alone versus LABA alone, upon measures of quality of life, exacerbations, lung function and serious adverse events, in people with stable COPD.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness associated with tiotropium compared to LABA in people with COPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and economic evaluations from searching NHS EED and HEED (date of last search February 2012). We found additional trials from web-based clinical trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and full economic evaluations if they compared effects of tiotropium alone with LABAs alone in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, then extracted data on study quality and outcomes. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information. We analysed data using the Cochrane Review Manager(RevMan 5.1) software.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven clinical studies totalling 12,223 participants with COPD were included in the review. The studies used similar designs and were generally of good methodological quality. Inclusion criteria for RCTs were similar across the included studies, although studies varied in terms of smoking history and COPD severity of participants. They compared tiotropium (which was delivered by HandiHaler in all studies) with salmeterol (four studies, 8936 participants), formoterol (one study, 431 participants) and indacaterol (two studies, 2856 participants). All participants were instructed to discontinue anticholinergic or long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilators during treatment, but could receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at a stable dose. Study duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. We extracted data for 11,223 participants. In general, the treatment groups were well matched at baseline. Overall, the risk of bias across the included RCTs was low.In the analysis of the primary outcomes in this review, a high level of heterogeneity amongst studies meant that we did not pool data for St George's Respiratory Questionnaire quality of life score. Subgroup analyses based on the type of LABA found statistically significant differences among effects on quality of life depending on whether tiotropium was compared with salmeterol, formoterol or indacaterol. Tiotropium reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations compared with LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.93). For this outcome, there was no difference seen among the different types of LABA. There was no statistical difference in mortality observed between the treatment groups.For secondary outcomes, tiotropium was associated with a reduction in the number of COPD exacerbations leading to hospitalisation compared with LABA treatment (OR 0.87; 95% 0.77 to 0.99), but not in the overall rate of all-cause hospitalisations. There was no statistically significant difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) or symptom score between tiotropium and LABA-treated participants. There was a lower rate of non-fatal serious adverse events recorded with tiotropium compared with LABA (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99). The tiotropium group was also associated with a lower rate of study withdrawals (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).We identified six full economic evaluations assessing the cost and cost-effectiveness of tiotropium and salmeterol. The studies were based on an economic model or empirical analysis of clinical data from RCTs. They all looked at maintenance costs and the costs for COPD exacerbations, including respiratory medications and hospitalisations. The setting for the evaluations was primary and secondary care in the UK, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and USA. All the studies estimated tiotropium to be superior to salmeterol based on better clinical outcomes (exacerbations or quality of life) and/or lower total costs. However, the authors of all evaluations reported there was substantial uncertainty around the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with COPD, the evidence is equivocal as to whether or not tiotropium offers greater benefit than LABAs in improving quality of life; however, this is complicated by differences in effect among the LABA types. Tiotropium was more effective than LABAs as a group in preventing COPD exacerbations and disease-related hospitalisations, although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall hospitalisation rates or mortality during the study periods. There were fewer serious adverse events and study withdrawals recorded with tiotropium compared with LABAs. Symptom improvement and changes in lung function were similar between the treatment groups. Given the small number of studies to date, with high levels of heterogeneity among them, one approach may be to give a COPD patient a substantial trial of tiotropium, followed by a LABA (or vice versa), then to continue prescribing the long-acting bronchodilator that the patient prefers. Further studies are needed to compare tiotropium with different LABAs, which are currently ongoing. The available economic evidence indicates that tiotropium may be cost-effective compared with salmeterol in several specific settings, but there is considerable uncertainty around this finding.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Albuterol; Bronchodilator Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease Progression; Ethanolamines; Formoterol Fumarate; Hospitalization; Humans; Indans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Scopolamine Derivatives; Tiotropium Bromide
PubMed: 22972134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009157.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing budesonide plus formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality.Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I(2) = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate.There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid.Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV(1) improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations.More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Adult; Albuterol; Androstadienes; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ethanolamines; Fluticasone; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Pneumonia; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate
PubMed: 22972099
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006829.pub2 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Jun 2012The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the indacaterol trial program and aggregate data (AD) identified from a systematic review of RCTs.
METHODS
22 RCTs were included in the AD analysis that evaluated: indacaterol 75 μg (n = 2 studies), indacaterol 150 μg n = 5 (i.e. salmeterol 50 μg) (n = 5), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 2), tiotropium 18 μg (n = 10), salmeterol 50 μg (n = 7), and formoterol 12 μg (n = 4). All of the studies except for one head-to-head comparison (tiotropium vs. salmeterol) were placebo controlled. Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 12. The AD from all trials was analysed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. In a separate analysis, the IPD available from the 6 indacaterol RCTs was analysed in a NMA. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included in both analyses to improve similarity of the trials.
RESULTS
All interventions compared were more efficacious than placebo regarding FEV1 at 12 weeks. Indacaterol 75 μg is expected to result in a comparable FEV1 at 12 weeks to tiotropium and salmeterol based on both IPD and AD analyses. In comparison to formoterol, the IPD and AD results indicate indacaterol 75 μg is more efficacious (IPD = 0.07 L difference; 95%Credible Interval (CrI) 0.02 to 0.11; AD = 0.05 L difference; 95%CrI 0.01; 0.09). In terms of SGRQ total score at 12 weeks, indacaterol 75 μg and formoterol were more efficacious than placebo, whereas for tiotropium and salmeterol the credible intervals included zero for the AD results only (tiotropium: -2.99 points improvement versus placebo; 95%CrI -6.48 to 0.43; salmeterol:-2.52; 95%CrI: -5.34; 0.44). Both IPD and AD results suggest that indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be comparable to all active treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a synthesis of currently available AD RCT evidence as well as an IPD network meta-analysis of six RCTs, indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be at least as efficacious as formoterol and comparable to tiotropium and salmeterol regarding FEV1. Furthermore, indacaterol 75 μg shows comparable level of improvement in health-related quality of life to tiotropium, salmeterol, and formoterol, as measured by the SGRQ.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Albuterol; Bronchodilator Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Ethanolamines; Female; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Indans; Male; Middle Aged; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Scopolamine Derivatives; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22732017
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2466-12-29 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2012Non-oliguric hyperkalaemia of the newborn is defined as a plasma potassium level > 6.5 mmol/L in the absence of acute renal failure. Hyperkalaemia is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-oliguric hyperkalaemia of the newborn is defined as a plasma potassium level > 6.5 mmol/L in the absence of acute renal failure. Hyperkalaemia is a common complication in the first 48 hours of life in very low birth weight (VLBW) (birth weight < 1500 g) and/or very preterm newborns (≤32 weeks gestational age).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of interventions for non-oliguric hyperkalaemia [for the purpose of this review defined as serum potassium > 6.0 mmol/L (the clinical setting in which interventions would likely be introduced prior to reaching a grossly abnormal level) and urine output > 0.5 ml/kg/hour] in preterm or VLBW infants during their first 72 hours of life.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006) was searched to identify relevant randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. The following data bases were searched in June 2006; MEDLINE from 1966, EMBASE from 1980, CINAHL from 1982. Search updated in June 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials conducted in preterm and/or VLBW neonates with a diagnosis of non-oliguric hyperkalaemia. Interventions included were those aimed at redistributing serum potassium (sodium bicarbonate or insulin and glucose) or increasing the elimination of potassium from the body [diuretics (any type) or ion exchange resins (any type), or exchange transfusion, or peritoneal dialysis, or salbutamol, or albuterol] or counteracting potential arrhythmias from hyperkalaemia (calcium) versus placebo or no intervention; or comparing any two of these interventions. Primary outcome measure was 'All cause mortality during initial hospital stay'. Secondary outcomes included common adverse outcomes seen in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard review methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two authors assessed all studies identified as potentially relevant by the literature search for inclusion in the review. Statistical methods included relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) or number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) for dichotomous and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed effect model for meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I squared (I(2) ) statistic.
MAIN RESULTS
Three randomised trials, enrolling 74 preterm infants (outcome data available on 71 infants) evaluated interventions for hyperkalaemia. Urine output was ascertained in only one study (Hu 1999). In none of the trials could we ascertain that allocation to the comparison groups was concealed. The sample sizes of the three trials were very small with 12 (Malone 1991), 19 (Singh 2002) and 40 infants enrolled (Hu 1999). The intervention and the outcome assessments could not be blinded to the clinical staff in two trials (Malone 1991; Hu 1999).One study (Malone 1991), glucose and insulin, compared to cation-exchange resin, caused a reduction in all cause mortality that was of borderline statistical significance: RR 0.18 (95% CI 0.03 to 1.15); RD -0.66 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.22); NNTB 2 (95% CI 1 to 5)]. In the study of Hu (Hu 1999), the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage ≥ grade 2 was significantly reduced [RR 0.30 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.93); RD -0.35 (95% CI -0.62 to -0.08); NNTB 3 (95% CI 2 to 13).Albuterol inhalation versus saline inhalation changed serum K+ from baseline at four hours [WMD -0.69 mmol/L (95% CI -0.87 to -0.51)] and at eight hours [WMD -0.59 mmol/L (95% CI -0.78 to -0.40)] after initiation of treatment. No differences noted in mortality or other clinical outcomes (Singh 2002).No serious side effects were noted with either the combination of insulin and glucose or albuterol inhalation. Other interventions listed in our objectives have not been studied to date.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In view of the limited information from small studies of uncertain quality, no firm recommendations for clinical practice can be made. It appears that the combination of insulin and glucose is preferred over treatment with rectal cation-resin for hyperkalaemia in preterm infants. Both the combination of insulin and glucose and albuterol inhalation deserve further study. The two interventions could possibly be tested against each other. The effectiveness of other potentially effective interventions for non-oliguric hyperkalaemia (diuretics, exchange transfusion, peritoneal dialysis and calcium) have not been tested in randomised controlled trials.
Topics: Albuterol; Glucose; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Insulin; Polystyrenes; Potassium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reference Values
PubMed: 22592703
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005257.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative effects of treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinicaltrials.gov up to January 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist against tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials were included in this review, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All of them compared tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist to tiotropium alone, but only one trial additionally compared a combination of the two types of bronchodilator with long-acting beta(2)-agonist (formoterol) alone. Two studies used the long-acting beta(2)-agonist indacaterol, two used formoterol and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone (3263 patients), treatment with tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist resulted in a slightly larger improvement in the mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.61; 95% CI -2.93 to -0.29). In the control arm, tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with both treatments the improvement was a fall of 6.1 units from baseline (on average). High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of long-acting beta(2)-agonist (MD 0.07 L; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09) over the control arm, which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L on tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There were wide confidence intervals around these outcomes and moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.The results from the one trial comparing the combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist to long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone (417 participants) were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results from this review indicate a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life for patients on a combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium alone, but it is not clear how clinically important this mean difference may be. Hospital admission and mortality have not been shown to be altered by adding long-acting beta(2)-agonists to tiotropium. There were not enough data to determine the relative efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone. There were insufficient data to make comparisons between the different long-acting beta(2)-agonists when used in addition to tiotropium.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aged; Albuterol; Bronchodilator Agents; Ethanolamines; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Indans; Middle Aged; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Scopolamine Derivatives; Tiotropium Bromide
PubMed: 22513969
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008989.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Adult; Age Factors; Albuterol; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Chronic Disease; Ethanolamines; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Terbutaline
PubMed: 22513944
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006923.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012Inhaled anticholinergics as single agent bronchodilators (or in combination with beta(2)-agonists) are one of the several medications available for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled anticholinergics as single agent bronchodilators (or in combination with beta(2)-agonists) are one of the several medications available for the treatment of acute asthma in children.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of only inhaled anticholinergic drugs (i.e. administered alone), compared to a control in children over the age of two years with acute asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials were searched by the Cochrane Airways Group. The latest search was performed in April 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which inhaled anticholinergics were given as single therapy and compared with placebo or any other drug or drug combinations for children over the age of two years with acute asthma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies met the inclusion criteria but were limited by small sample sizes, various treatment regimes used and outcomes assessed. The studies were overall of unclear quality. Data could only be pooled for the outcomes of treatment failure and hospitalisation. Other data could not be combined due to divergent outcome measurements. Meta-analysis revealed that children who received anticholinergics alone were significantly more likely to have treatment failure compared to those who received beta(2)-agonists from four trials on 171 children (odds ratio (OR) 2.27; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.75). Also, treatment failure on anticholinergics alone was more likely than when anticholinergics were combined with beta(2)-agonists from four trials on 173 children (OR 2.65; 95% CI 1.2 to 5.88). Data on clinical scores/symptoms that were measured on different scales were conflicting. Individual trials reported that lung function was superior in the combination group when compared with anticholinergic agents used alone. The use of anticholinergics was not found to be associated with significant side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In children over the age of two years with acute asthma exacerbations, inhaled anticholinergics as single agent bronchodilators were less efficacious than beta(2)-agonists. Inhaled anticholinergics were also less efficacious than inhaled anticholinergics combined with beta(2)-agonists. Inhaled anticholinergic drugs alone are not appropriate for use as a single agent in children with acute asthma exacerbations.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Albuterol; Asthma; Atropine; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholinergic Antagonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fenoterol; Humans; Ipratropium; Metaproterenol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scopolamine Derivatives; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 22513916
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003797.pub2