-
Respiratory Care Feb 2022Artificial airway suctioning is a key component of airway management and a core skill for clinicians charged with assuring airway patency. Suctioning of the artificial...
Artificial airway suctioning is a key component of airway management and a core skill for clinicians charged with assuring airway patency. Suctioning of the artificial airway is a common procedure performed worldwide on a daily basis. As such, it is imperative that clinicians are familiar with the most-effective and efficient methods to perform the procedure. We conducted a systematic review to assist in the development of evidence-based recommendations that pertain to the care of patients with artificial airways. From our systematic review, we developed guidelines and recommendations that addressed questions related to the indications, complications, timing, duration, and methods of artificial airway suctioning. By using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the following recommendations for suctioning were developed for neonatal, pediatric, and adult patients with an artificial airway: (1) breath sounds, visual secretions in the artificial airway, and a sawtooth pattern on the ventilator waveform are indicators for suctioning pediatric and adult patients, and an acute increase in airway resistance may be an indicator for suctioning in neonates; (2) as-needed only, rather than scheduled, suctioning is sufficient for neonatal and pediatric patients; (3) both closed and open suction systems may be used to safely and effectively remove secretions from the artificial airway of adult patients; (4) preoxygenation should be performed before suctioning in pediatric and adult patients; (5) the use of normal saline solution should generally be avoided during suctioning; (6) during open suctioning, sterile technique should be used; (7) suction catheters should occlude < 70% of the endotracheal tube lumen in neonates and < 50% in pediatric and adult patients, and suction pressure should be kept below -120 mm Hg in neonatal and pediatric patients and -200 mm Hg in adult patients; (8) suction should be applied for a maximum of 15 s per suctioning procedure; (9) deep suctioning should only be used when shallow suctioning is ineffective; (10) routine bronchoscopy for secretion removal is not recommended; and (11) devices used to clear endotracheal tubes may be used when airway resistance is increased due to secretion accumulation.
Topics: Adult; Airway Management; Child; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intubation, Intratracheal; Respiration, Artificial; Suction; Ventilators, Mechanical
PubMed: 35078900
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.09548 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Pneumonia is a lung infection that causes more deaths in children aged under five years than any other single cause. Chest physiotherapy is widely used as adjuvant...
BACKGROUND
Pneumonia is a lung infection that causes more deaths in children aged under five years than any other single cause. Chest physiotherapy is widely used as adjuvant treatment for pneumonia. Physiotherapy is thought to help remove inflammatory exudates, tracheobronchial secretions, and airway obstructions, and reduce airway resistance to improve breathing and enhance gas exchange. This is an update of a review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of chest physiotherapy with regard to time until clinical resolution in children (from birth to 18 years) of either gender with any type of pneumonia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (22 February 2018), Embase (22 February 2018), CINAHL (22 February 2018), LILACS (22 February 2018), Web of Science (22 February 2018), and PEDro (22 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to identify planned, ongoing, and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy for children with pneumonia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality, duration of hospital stay, and time to clinical resolution. We used Review Manager 5 software to analyse data and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three new RCTs for this update, for a total of six included RCTs involving 559 children aged from 29 days to 12 years with pneumonia who were treated as inpatients. Pneumonia severity was described as moderate in one trial, severe in two trials, and was not stated in three trials. The studies assessed five different interventions: effects of conventional chest physiotherapy (3 studies, 211 children), positive expiratory pressure (1 study, 72 children), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (1 study, 94 children), bubble CPAP (bCPAP) (1 study, 225 children), and assisted autogenic drainage (1 studies, 29 children). The included studies were conducted in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, and South Africa. The studies were overall at low risk of bias. Blinding of participants was not possible in most studies, but we considered that the outcomes were unlikely to be influenced by the lack of blinding.All included studies evaluated mortality. However, three studies assessed mortality as an outcome, and only one study of bCPAP reported that deaths occurred. Three deaths occurred in children in the physiotherapy group (N = 79) and 20 deaths in children in the control group (N = 146) (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.90; 559 children; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether chest physiotherapy techniques (bCPAP, assisted autogenic drainage, and conventional chest physiotherapy) reduced hospital stay duration (days) (mean difference (MD) 0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.76; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was variation among clinical parameters used to define clinical resolution. Two small studies found no difference in resolution of fever between children in the physiotherapy (conventional chest physiotherapy and assisted autogenic drainage) and control groups. Of five studies that considered peripheral oxygen saturation levels, only two reported that use of chest physiotherapy (CPAP and conventional chest physiotherapy) showed a greater improvement in peripheral oxygen saturation levels. However, it was unclear whether respiratory rate (breaths/min) improved after conventional chest physiotherapy (MD -2.25, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.68; 2 studies, 122 children; low-quality evidence). Two studies assessed adverse events (number of events), but only one study reported any events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.67; 2 studies, 254 children; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We could draw no reliable conclusions concerning the use of chest physiotherapy for children with pneumonia due to the small number of included trials with differing study characteristics and statistical presentation of data. Future studies should consider the following key points: appropriate sample size with adequate power to detect expected differences, standardisation of chest physiotherapy techniques, appropriate outcomes (such as duration of leukocytosis, and airway clearance), and adverse effects.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Drainage; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Length of Stay; Male; Oxygen; Pneumonia; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Rate; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 30601584
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010277.pub3 -
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 -
Cureus Nov 2023Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The... (Review)
Review
Nasal congestion is a common issue stemming from various factors such as allergies and anatomical variations. Allergic rhinitis frequently leads to nasal congestion. The pathophysiology involves inflammation, swelling, and mucus production in the nasal mucosa. Multiple treatments are available, including oral phenylephrine, an over-the-counter or prescription option. However, the effectiveness and safety of phenylephrine have been subjects of debate. This systematic review aims to provide an updated perspective on the efficacy of oral phenylephrine versus placebo in addressing nasal congestion in adults. We conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review involving searches on PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined to identify high-quality studies. The focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies published in English between 1998 and 2023, involving adult populations. The interventions compared oral phenylephrine with placebo or standard care, with outcomes centering on changes in nasal congestion symptoms and nasal airway resistance. We identified four articles that met the criteria. These studies exhibited varied designs and populations. The findings consistently indicated that phenylephrine was not more effective than a placebo in relieving nasal congestion. This systematic review demonstrates that oral phenylephrine did not offer substantial relief from nasal congestion compared to a placebo in adults. The studies featured diverse designs, yet the prevailing conclusion was that phenylephrine's efficacy was limited. Safety assessments showed no life-threatening adverse events, with common side effects including headaches and mild discomfort. In summary, this systematic review indicates that oral phenylephrine is not significantly more effective than a placebo in alleviating nasal congestion in adults. Clinicians should explore alternative treatment options, considering the review's limitations. Additional research may be needed to clarify the role of oral phenylephrine in managing nasal congestion.
PubMed: 38125218
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49074 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a significant cause of hospitalisation and death in young children. Positioning and mechanical ventilation have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a significant cause of hospitalisation and death in young children. Positioning and mechanical ventilation have been regularly used to reduce respiratory distress and improve oxygenation in hospitalised patients. Due to the association of prone positioning (lying on the abdomen) with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) within the first six months, it is recommended that young infants be placed on their back (supine). However, prone positioning may be a non-invasive way of increasing oxygenation in individuals with acute respiratory distress, and offers a more significant survival advantage in those who are mechanically ventilated. There are substantial differences in respiratory mechanics between adults and infants. While the respiratory tract undergoes significant development within the first two years of life, differences in airway physiology between adults and children become less prominent by six to eight years old. However, there is a reduced risk of SIDS during artificial ventilation in hospitalised infants. Thus, an updated review focusing on positioning for infants and young children with ARDS is warranted. This is an update of a review published in 2005, 2009, and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different body positions in hospitalised infants and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome aged between four weeks and 16 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from January 2004 to July 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing two or more positions for the management of infants and children hospitalised with ARDS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from each study. We resolved differences by consensus, or referred to a third contributor to arbitrate. We analysed bivariate outcomes using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We analysed continuous outcomes using a mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model, unless heterogeneity was significant (I statistic > 50%), when we used a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials: four cross-over trials, and two parallel randomised trials, with 198 participants aged between 4 weeks and 16 years, all but 15 of whom were mechanically ventilated. Four trials compared prone to supine positions. One trial compared the prone position to good-lung dependent (where the person lies on the side of the healthy lung, e.g. if the right lung was healthy, they were made to lie on the right side), and independent (or non-good-lung independent, where the person lies on the opposite side to the healthy lung, e.g. if the right lung was healthy, they were made to lie on the left side) position. One trial compared good-lung independent to good-lung dependent positions. When the prone (with ventilators) and supine positions were compared, there was no information on episodes of apnoea or mortality due to respiratory events. There was no conclusive result in oxygen saturation (SaO MD 0.40 mmHg, 95% CI -1.22 to 2.66; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low certainty evidence); blood gases, PCO (MD 3.0 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 7.93; 1 trial, 99 participants; low certainty evidence), or PO (MD 2 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 9.29; 1 trial, 99 participants; low certainty evidence); or lung function (PaO/FiO ratio; MD 28.16 mmHg, 95% CI -9.92 to 66.24; 2 trials, 121 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, there was an improvement in oxygenation index (FiO% X M/ PaO) with prone positioning in both the parallel trials (MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.60 to -1.25; 2 trials, 121 participants; very low certainty evidence), and the cross-over study (MD -8.13, 95% CI -15.01 to -1.25; 1 study, 20 participants). Derived indices of respiratory mechanics, such as tidal volume, respiratory rate, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were reported. There was an apparent decrease in tidal volume between prone and supine groups in a parallel study (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 1 study, 84 participants; very low certainty evidence). When prone and supine positions were compared in a cross-over study, there were no conclusive results in respiratory compliance (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.24; 1 study, 10 participants); changes in PEEP (MD -0.70 cm HO, 95% CI -2.72 to 1.32; 1 study, 10 participants); or resistance (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.04; 1 study, 10 participants). One study reported adverse events. There were no conclusive results for potential harm between groups in extubation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.54; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); obstructions of the endotracheal tube (OR 5.20, 95% CI 0.24 to 111.09; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); pressure ulcers (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.44; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); and hypercapnia (high levels of arterial carbon dioxide; OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.88; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence). One study (50 participants) compared supine positions to good-lung dependent and independent positions. There was no conclusive evidence that PaO was different between supine and good-lung dependent positioning (MD 3.44 mm Hg, 95% CI -23.12 to 30.00; 1 trial, 25 participants; very low certainty evidence). There was also no conclusive evidence for supine position and good-lung independent positioning (MD -2.78 mmHg, 95% CI -28.84, 23.28; 25 participants; very low certainty evidence); or between good-lung dependent and independent positioning (MD 6.22, 95% CI -21.25 to 33.69; 1 trial, 25 participants; very low certainty evidence). As most trials did not describe how possible biases were addressed, the potential for bias in these findings is unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although included studies suggest that prone positioning may offer some advantage, there was little evidence to make definitive recommendations. There appears to be low certainty evidence that positioning improves oxygenation in mechanically ventilated children with ARDS. Due to the increased risk of SIDS with prone positioning and lung injury with artificial ventilation, it is recommended that hospitalised infants and children should only be placed in this position while under continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Patient Positioning; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Sudden Infant Death
PubMed: 35661343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003645.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Bronchiectasis is a chronic airway disease characterised by a destructive cycle of recurrent airway infection, inflammation and tissue damage. Antibiotics are a main... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a chronic airway disease characterised by a destructive cycle of recurrent airway infection, inflammation and tissue damage. Antibiotics are a main treatment for bronchiectasis. The aim of continuous therapy with prophylactic antibiotics is to suppress bacterial load, but bacteria may become resistant to the antibiotic, leading to a loss of effectiveness. On the other hand, intermittent prophylactic antibiotics, given over a predefined duration and interval, may reduce antibiotic selection pressure and reduce or prevent the development of resistance. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence for studies comparing continuous versus intermittent administration of antibiotic treatment in bronchiectasis in terms of clinical efficacy, the emergence of resistance and serious adverse events.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis, using the primary outcomes of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and serious adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
On 1 August 2017 and 4 May 2018 we searched the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. On 25 September 2017 and 4 May 2018 we also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, conference proceedings and the reference lists of existing systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with bronchiectasis that compared continuous versus intermittent administration of long-term prophylactic antibiotics of at least three months' duration. We considered eligible studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results and full-text reports.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 268 unique records. Of these we retrieved and examined 126 full-text reports, representing 114 studies, but none of these studies met our inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No randomised controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and risks of continuous antibiotic therapy versus intermittent antibiotic therapy for bronchiectasis. High-quality clinical trials are needed to establish which of these interventions is more effective for reducing the frequency and duration of exacerbations, antibiotic resistance and the occurrence of serious adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Child; Humans
PubMed: 29860722
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012733.pub2 -
Cureus Jul 2023Airway suctioning is routinely performed in the majority of care circumstances, including acute care, subacute care, home-based settings, and long-term care. Using an... (Review)
Review
Airway suctioning is routinely performed in the majority of care circumstances, including acute care, subacute care, home-based settings, and long-term care. Using an artificial airway to suction the patient allows for the mobilization and evacuation of secretions. When a patient can't independently remove all of the secretions from their respiratory tract, suction is used. This can occur when the body produces excessive secretion or it is not eliminated quickly enough, causing the respiratory system's upper and lower respiratory secretions to accumulate. Airway blockage and inadequate breathing may result from this. Ultimately, this leads to a shortage of oxygen and carbon dioxide from the air, both of which are necessary for ideal cellular activity. Artificial airway suctioning is one of the most crucial components of airway care and a core competency for medical professionals trying to ensure airway patency. Artificial airway suctioning is a standard treatment carried out every day globally and is frequently done in both outpatient and inpatient patients. Therefore, specialists must know the safest and most efficient ways to perform surgery and any potential side effects. In ventilated infants and children, the removal of obstructive secretions by endotracheal suctioning is frequently done. It is unknown how suctioning affects the mechanics of breathing. This study used a prospective observational clinical design to examine the immediate impact of airway resistance in endotracheal suctioning, tidal volume, and dynamic lung regulation in mechanically ventilated adult patients and mechanically ventilated pediatric patients. The preparation, process, and indications for intraoperative fusion treatment in various circumstances are covered in this systematic review.
PubMed: 37641766
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42579 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2018The diagnosis of bronchiectasis is defined by abnormal dilation of the airways related to a pathological mechanism of progressive airway destruction that is due to a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The diagnosis of bronchiectasis is defined by abnormal dilation of the airways related to a pathological mechanism of progressive airway destruction that is due to a 'vicious cycle' of recurrent bacterial infection, inflammatory mediator release, airway damage, and subsequent further infection. Antibiotics are the main treatment option for reducing bacterial burden in people with exacerbations of bronchiectasis and for longer-term eradication, but their use is tempered against potential adverse effects and concerns regarding antibiotic resistance. The comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of different antibiotics have been highlighted as important issues, but currently little evidence is available to help resolve uncertainty on these questions.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the comparative effects of different antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials and online trials registries, run 30 April 2018. We augmented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data. We included adults and children (younger than 18 years) with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography or high-resolution computed tomography who reported daily signs and symptoms, such as cough, sputum production, or haemoptysis, and those with recurrent episodes of chest infection; we included studies that compared one antibiotic versus another when they were administered by the same delivery method.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction, and risk of bias. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We made efforts to collect missing data from trial authors. We have presented results with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs).
MAIN RESULTS
Four randomised trials were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review - two studies with 83 adults comparing fluoroquinolones with β-lactams and two studies with 55 adults comparing aminoglycosides with polymyxins.None of the included studies reported information on exacerbations - one of our primary outcomes. Included studies reported no serious adverse events - another of our primary outcomes - and no deaths. We graded this evidence as low or very low quality. Included studies did not report quality of life. Comparison between fluoroquinolones and β-lactams (amoxicillin) showed fewer treatment failures in the fluoroquinolone group than in the amoxicillin group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32; low-quality evidence) after 7 to 10 days of therapy. Researchers reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection was eradicated in more participants treated with fluoroquinolones (Peto OR 20.09, 95% CI 2.83 to 142.59; low-quality evidence) but provided no evidence of differences in the numbers of participants showing improvement in sputum purulence (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.96 to 5.72; very low-quality evidence). Study authors presented no evidence of benefit in relation to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). The two studies that compared polymyxins versus aminoglycosides described no clear differences between groups in the proportion of participants with P aeruginosa eradication (OR 1.40. 95% CI 0.36 to 5.35; very low-quality evidence) or improvement in sputum purulence (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.85; very low-quality evidence). The evidence for changes in FEV₁ was inconclusive. Two of three trials reported adverse events but did not report the proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events, so we were unable to interpret the information.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited low-quality evidence favours short-term oral fluoroquinolones over beta-lactam antibiotics for patients hospitalised with exacerbations. Very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit from inhaled aminoglycosides verus polymyxins. RCTs have presented no evidence comparing other modes of delivery for each of these comparisons, and no RCTs have included children. Overall, current evidence from a limited number of head-to-head trials in adults or children with bronchiectasis is insufficient to guide the selection of antibiotics for short-term or long-term therapy. More research on this topic is needed.
Topics: Adult; Aminoglycosides; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Child; Fluoroquinolones; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Polymyxins; Pseudomonas Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; beta-Lactams
PubMed: 30184243
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012590.pub2 -
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine Feb 2015Evidence suggests that 15-30% of individuals with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and that OSA is an independent risk factor for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of continuous positive airway pressure therapy on glycaemic control, insulin sensitivity and body mass index in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Evidence suggests that 15-30% of individuals with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) have type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and that OSA is an independent risk factor for T2DM. There is considerable interest in ascertaining whether OSA treatment improves glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity in patients with OSA and T2DM.
AIMS
To assess the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, insulin sensitivity and body mass index (BMI) in patients with OSA and T2DM.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify prospective studies involving patients with OSA and T2DM who had received CPAP, and data on primary outcome (change in HbA1c) and/or secondary outcomes (changes in insulin sensitivity and BMI) were reported. All relevant studies published before 31 January 2014 were included.
RESULTS
Six studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The numbers of patients ranged from 9 to 44 (total=128), and mean age ranged from 50.7 to 66.1 years. For the change in HbA1c (six studies, 128 patients), the combined standardised paired difference revealed no significant effect of CPAP (-0.071, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.245, 0.103; P=0.421). Similarly, there was no significant effect of CPAP on the change in BMI (-0.102, 95% CI=-0.296, 0.092; P=0.302; five studies, 103 patients). In contrast, there was a significant effect of CPAP on the change (improvement) in insulin sensitivity (0.330, 95% CI=0.001, 0.658; P=0.049; three studies, 39 patients).
CONCLUSION
The limited available evidence from randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies suggests that CPAP does not decrease HbA1c level or BMI in patients with OSA and T2DM but may improve insulin sensitivity.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Body Mass Index; Child; Comorbidity; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Insulin Resistance; Male; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Young Adult
PubMed: 25719929
DOI: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2015.5 -
Preventive Medicine Dec 2014To provide a systematic review of the existing literature on health consequences of vaporing of electronic cigarettes (ECs). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide a systematic review of the existing literature on health consequences of vaporing of electronic cigarettes (ECs).
METHODS
Search in: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
Original publications describing a health-related topic, published before 14 August 2014. PRISMA recommendations were followed. We identified 1101 studies; 271 relevant after screening; 94 eligible.
RESULTS
We included 76 studies investigating content of fluid/vapor of ECs, reports on adverse events and human and animal experimental studies. Serious methodological problems were identified. In 34% of the articles the authors had a conflict of interest. Studies found fine/ultrafine particles, harmful metals, carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic compounds, carcinogenic carbonyls (some in high but most in low/trace concentrations), cytotoxicity and changed gene expression. Of special concern are compounds not found in conventional cigarettes, e.g. propylene glycol. Experimental studies found increased airway resistance after short-term exposure. Reports on short-term adverse events were often flawed by selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to many methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, the relatively few and often small studies, the inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and the lack of long-term follow-up no firm conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs. However, they can hardly be considered harmless.
Topics: Animals; Conflict of Interest; Cytotoxins; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Glycols; Humans; Metals, Heavy; Mice; Particulate Matter; Steam; Volatilization
PubMed: 25456810
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.009