-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.
OBJECTIVES
We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers' websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. 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 with any severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included four studies (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma) and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six-month period, in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis, the percentages with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a three-month period the percentages of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol and 1.3% for salmeterol.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified four studies comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all participants were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Chronic Disease; Ethanolamines; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate
PubMed: 22419326
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007695.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Recurrent miscarriage affects 1% to 3% of women of reproductive age and mostly occurs before the 10th week of gestation (and around the same gestational week in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Recurrent miscarriage affects 1% to 3% of women of reproductive age and mostly occurs before the 10th week of gestation (and around the same gestational week in subsequent miscarriages). Although most pregnant women may not recognise a miscarriage until uterine bleeding and cramping occur, a repeat miscarriage after one or more pregnancy loss and the chance of having a successful pregnancy varies. To date, there is no universally accepted treatment for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. Chinese herbal medicines have been widely used in Asian societies for millennia and have become a popular alternative to Western medicines in recent years. Many clinical studies have reported that Chinese herbal medicines can improve pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women who had previously suffered recurrent miscarriage. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicines for recurrent miscarriage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for the treatment of unexplained recurrent miscarriage.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (01 June 2015), Embase (1980 to 01 June 2015); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 01 June 2015); Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1978 to 01 June 2015); China Journal Net (CJN) (1915 to 01 June 2015); China Journals Full-text Database (1915 to 01 June 2015); and WanFang Database (Chinese Ministry of Science & Technology) (1980 to 01 June 2015). We also searched reference lists of relevant trials and reviews. We identified and contacted organisations, individual experts working in the field, and medicinal herb manufacturers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised trials, with or without full text, comparing Chinese herbal medicines (alone or combined with other intervention or other pharmaceuticals) with placebo, no treatment, other intervention (including bed rest and psychological support), or other pharmaceuticals as treatments for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all the studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine randomised clinical trials (involving 861 women). The trials compared Chinese herbal medicines (various formulations) either alone (one trial), or in combination with other pharmaceuticals (seven trials) versus other pharmaceuticals alone. One study compared Chinese herbal medicines and other pharmaceuticals versus psychotherapy. We did not identify any trials comparing Chinese herbal medicines with placebo or no treatment, including bed rest.Various Chinese herbal medicines were used in the different trials (and some of the classical the formulations were modified in the trials). The Western pharmaceutical medicines included tocolytic drugs such as salbutamol and magnesium sulphate; hormonal supplementation with human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), progesterone or dydrogesterone; and supportive supplements such as vitamin E, vitamin K and folic acid.Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was poor with unclear risk of bias for nearly all the 'Risk of bias' domains assessed.Chinese herbal medicines alone versus other pharmaceuticals alone - the live birth rate was no different between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.65; one trial, 80 women). No data were available for the outcome of pregnancy rate (continuation of pregnancy after 20 weeks of gestation).In contrast, the continuing pregnancy rate (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48, two trials, 189 women) and live birth rate (average RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.10; six trials, 601 women, Tau² = 0.10; I² = 73%) were higher among the group of women who received a combination of Chinese herbal medicines and other pharmaceuticals when compared with women who received other pharmaceuticals alone.For Chinese herbal medicines and psychotherapy versus psychotherapy alone (one study) - there was a higher live birth rate (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.64; one trial, 90 women) in the group of women who received a combination of Chinese herbal medicines and psychotherapy compared to those women who received psychotherapy alone. No data were available on the continuing pregnancy rate for this comparison.Other primary outcomes (maternal adverse effect and toxicity rate and the perinatal adverse effect and toxicity rate) were not reported in most of the included studies. Two trials (341 women) reported that no maternal adverse effects were found (one trial compared (combined) medicines with other pharmaceuticals, and one trial compared combined Chinese herbal medicine alone versus other pharmaceuticals). One trial (Chinese herbal medicine alone versus other pharmaceuticals alone) reported that there were no abnormal fetuses (ultrasound) or after delivery.There were no data reported for any of this review's secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found limited evidence (from nine studies with small sample sizes and unclear risk of bias) to assess the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicines for treating unexplained recurrent miscarriage; no data were available to assess the safety of the intervention for the mother or her baby. There were no data relating to any of this review's secondary outcomes. From the limited data we found, a combination of Chinese herbal medicines and other pharmaceuticals (mainly Western medicines) may be more effective than Western medicines alone in terms of the rate of continuing pregnancy and the rate of live births. However, the methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor.A comparison of Chinese herbal medicines alone versus placebo or no treatment (including bed rest) was not possible as no relevant trials were identified.More high-quality studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicines for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. In addition to assessing the effect of Chinese herbal medicines on pregnancy rate and the rate of live births, future studies should also consider safety issues (adverse effects and toxicity for the mother and her baby) as well as the secondary outcomes listed in this review. This review would provide more valuable information if the included studies could overcome the problems in their designs, such as lacking of qualified placebo-controlled trials, applying adequate randomisation methods and avoiding potential bias.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Adult; Birth Rate; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Female; Hormones; Humans; Live Birth; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tocolytic Agents
PubMed: 26760986
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010568.pub2 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2006Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a condition associated with high morbidity, mortality and cost to the community. Patients often report symptomatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a condition associated with high morbidity, mortality and cost to the community. Patients often report symptomatic improvement with long acting beta-2 agonists (LABAs) and anticholinergic bronchodilator medications, both of which are recommended in COPD guidelines. These medications have different mechanisms of action and therefore theoretically could have an additive effect when combined. As these medications are prescribed in COPD as long term therapy, it is important to assemble reliable evidence on their relative and additive effects.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative efficacy and safety of regular long term use (at least four weeks) of ipratropium bromide and LABA in patients with stable COPD. Comparisons were made between single agents and in combination versus LABAs alone.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (August 2005) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted drug companies for relevant trial data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing treatment for at least four weeks with an anticholinergic agent (ipratropium bromide) alone or in combination with LABA versus LABA alone, delivered via metered dose inhaler or nebuliser, in non-asthmatic adult subjects with stable COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently performed data extraction and study quality assessment. We contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies for missing data.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven studies met the inclusion criteria of the review (2652 participants). Monotherapy comparison (six studies): There was a significantly greater change in favour of salmeterol in morning PEF and FEV1. There were no significant differences in quality of life, exacerbations, or symptoms. Formoterol appeared to confer some benefits over ipratropium treatment in terms of morning peak flow. Combination comparison (three studies): There was a significant improvement in post-bronchodilator lung function, supplemental short-acting beta-agonist use and HRQL in favour of combination therapy compared with salmeterol alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available data from the trials suggest that there is little difference between regular long term use of IpB alone and salmeterol if the aim is to improve COPD symptoms and exercise tolerance. However, salmeterol was more effective in improving lung function variables. In terms of post-bronchodilator lung function, combination therapy conferred modest benefits and a significant improvement in HRQL, and reduced supplemental short-acting beta-agonist requirement, although this effect was not consistent. Additional studies are needed to assess the relative effects of combining therapies, using validated subjective measurements, and should consider concordance and the convenience of people having to use different inhaler devices.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Adult; Albuterol; Bronchodilator Agents; Ethanolamines; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Ipratropium; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salmeterol Xinafoate
PubMed: 16856113
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006101 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Child; Child, Preschool; Creatine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 32006461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006282.pub5 -
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 -
Chinese Medical Journal Nov 2021Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone compared with montelukast alone (or add-on therapy to fluticasone) in the treatment of bronchial asthma in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise approaches in asthmatic children, there is a lack of published systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of the two therapies in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) vs. montelukast (MON), or combination of montelukast and fluticasone (MFC) in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with bronchial asthma.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China BioMedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodical, and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to May 24, 2021. Interventions are as follows: SFC vs. MON, or combination of MFC, with no limitation of dosage or duration. Primary and secondary outcome measures were as follows: the primary outcome of interest was the risk of asthma exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included risk of hospitalization, pulmonary function, asthma control level, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects (I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effects model (I2 < 50%) was used to calculate pooled effect estimates, comparing the outcomes between the intervention and control groups where feasible.
RESULTS
Of the 1006 articles identified, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria with 2643 individuals; two were at low risk of bias. As no primary outcomes were similar after an identical treatment duration in the included studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. However, more studies favored SFC, instead of MON, owing to a lower risk of asthma exacerbation in the SFC group. As for secondary outcome, SFC showed a significant improvement of peak expiratory flow (PEF)%pred after 4 weeks compared with MFC (mean difference [MD]: 5.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-9.34; I2 = 95%; P = 0.006). As for asthma control level, SFC also showed a higher full-controlled level (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.24-1.85; I2 = 0; P < 0.001) and higher childhood asthma control test score after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.39-3.21; I2 = 72%; P < 0.001) compared with MFC.
CONCLUSIONS
SFC may be more effective than MFC for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in improving asthma control level. However, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the use of SFC or MON in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with asthma. Further research is needed, particularly a combination of good-quality long-term prospective studies and well-designed RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019133156.
Topics: Acetates; Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fluticasone; Humans; Quinolines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Sulfides
PubMed: 34784306
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001853 -
Minerva Anestesiologica May 2015Our objective was to systematically review the effect of pharmacological therapies on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), focusing on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to systematically review the effect of pharmacological therapies on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published since a previous review in 2004.
METHODS
We updated previous searches and searched OVID versions of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (to January 2013) and proceedings from conferences and bibliographies of included studies. We included RCTs of pharmacologic therapies compared with placebo or no therapy for adult patients with ARDS, using authors' definitions, which reported on mortality (≤ 3 months after randomization). We excluded subgroups of patients with ARDS reported in RCTs enrolling other populations and RCTs of therapies to prevent ARDS, nutritional or fluid interventions, inhaled nitric oxide, therapies coupled to a mechanical ventilation strategy, or oxygen. Two reviewers independently screened citations, selected articles for inclusion, and abstracted clinical and methodological data from included studies with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Mortality data were pooled using random-effects models.
RESULTS
From 13461 citations, 58 trials (6635 patients) of 21 classes of medications met selection criteria; 26 trials (3880 patients) were published after 2003. Meta-analyses showed reduced 28-day mortality with a 48-hour infusion of cis-atracurium in early ARDS (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.87; 431 patients, 138 deaths). There was no effect on mortality with granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor, late low-dose methylprednisolone, neutrophil elastase inhibitors, intravenous salbutamol, surfactant, or N-acetylcysteine; each meta-analysis included ≥ 1 trial published after 2003. Seven single trials of other treatments published after 2003 showed no effect. Meta-analysis of older trials of prostaglandin E1 also showed no effect.
CONCLUSION
Effective pharmacotherapy for ARDS remains extremely limited. Cis-atracurium is a promising treatment for early moderate-severe ARDS (using Berlin definition nomenclature) and merits further investigation in a large RCT.
Topics: Atracurium; Humans; Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 24937499
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002Due to its low density properties, helium-oxygen mixtures have the potential to decrease the work of breathing and possibly avoid the need for intubation and mechanical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Due to its low density properties, helium-oxygen mixtures have the potential to decrease the work of breathing and possibly avoid the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of the addition of helium/oxygen mixtures (heliox) to standard medical care during ventilated and nonventilated acute exacerbations of COPD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomized controlled trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group asthma Register. Primary authors and experts were contacted. References from included and excluded studies, known reviews and texts were also searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were selected for inclusion if they compared treatment with heliox to placebo (oxygen or air) in randomized controlled trials in adults with an exacerbation of COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from all trials were combined using the Review Manager (version 4.1). We planned to perform: 1) random effects weighted mean difference (WMD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 2) Homogeneity of effect sizes with the Dersimonian and Laird method with p<0.1 as the cut point for significance, and 3) sensitivity analysis on different helium-oxygen mixtures (80/20 vs 70/30), and 4) methodological quality (Jadad score >2 vs. <3).
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies, all published between 1997 and 2000 met the inclusion criteria. Two studies compared heliox-oxygen vs. air-oxygen in decompensated COPD patients who were not ventilated. One study was performed in mechanical ventilated patients and one in patients undergoing noninvasive pressure support (NIPSV) ventilated patients. Data could be obtained for only two of the studies. One was a randomized crossover study of 70:30 helium-oxygen vs air-oxygen that involved nineteen patients with acute severe COPD, hospitalized in an intensive care unit for NIPSV. In the patients receiving heliox, arterial PCO2 fell more; WMD 0.8 kPa (95% CI 0.26, -1.34). The second was a randomized trial involved 47 patients with acute COPD, who presented to an Emergency Department randomized to receive updraft nebulization of albuterol and ipratropium bromide using 80% helium and 20% oxygen or compressed air as the driving gas. Treatments were administered at 0, 20, 40, and 120 minutes after randomization. There were no significant differences in the change of FEV1 and FVC between the two groups by either the 1 or 2 hours point. although a small improvement in FEF 25-75 was significantly greater in the heliox group than in the air group.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of helium-oxygen mixtures to treat acute exacerbations of COPD in either ventilated or nonventilated patients. Suitably designed randomised controlled trials with the endpoint being the avoidance of mechanical ventilation may be justified.
Topics: Helium; Humans; Oxygen; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 12076487
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003571