-
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 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Nov 2023The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The nasal microbiome represents the main environmental factor of the inflammatory process in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Antibiotics and steroids constitute the mainstay of CRS therapies. However, their impact on microbial communities needs to be better understood. This systematic review summarizes the evidence about antibiotics' and steroids' impact on the nasal microbiota in patients with CRS.
METHODS
The search strategy was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. The authors searched all papers in the three major medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) using the PICO tool (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). The search was carried out using a combination of the key terms "Microbiota" or "Microbiome" and "Chronic Rhinosinusitis".
RESULTS
Overall, 402 papers were identified, and after duplicate removal (127 papers), excluding papers off-topic (154) and for other structural reasons (110), papers were assessed for eligibility; finally, only 11 papers were included and summarized in the present systematic review. Some authors used only steroids, other researchers used only antibiotics, and others used both antibiotics and steroids. With regard to the use of steroids as exclusive medical treatment, topical mometasone and budesonide were investigated. With regard to the use of antibiotics as exclusive medical treatments, clarithromycin, doxycycline, roxithromycin, and amoxicillin clavulanate were investigated. Regarding the use of both antibiotics and steroids, two associations were investigated: systemic prednisone combined with amoxicillin clavulanate and topical budesonide combined with azithromycin.
CONCLUSIONS
The impact that therapies can have on the nasal microbiome of CRS patients is very varied. Further studies are needed to understand the role of the nasal microbiome, prevent CRS, and improve therapeutic tools for personalized medicine tailored to the individual patient.
PubMed: 38003898
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111583 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2011Lichen sclerosus is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition that most commonly occurs in adult women, although it may also be seen in men and children. It primarily... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lichen sclerosus is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition that most commonly occurs in adult women, although it may also be seen in men and children. It primarily affects the genital area and around the anus, where it causes persistent itching and soreness. Scarring after inflammation may lead to severe damage by fusion of the vulval lips (labia); narrowing of the vaginal opening; and burying of the clitoris in women and girls, as well as tightening of the foreskin in men and boys, if treatments are not started early. Affected people have an increased risk of genital cancers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical interventions for genital lichen sclerosus and adverse effects reported in included trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 16 September 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), LILACS (from 1982), CINAHL (from 1981), British Nursing Index and Archive (from 1985), Science Citation Index Expanded (from 1945), BIOSIS Previews (from 1926), Conference Papers Index (from 1982), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (from 1990). We also searched ongoing trial registries and scanned the bibliographies of included studies, published reviews, and papers that had cited the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical interventions in genital lichen sclerosus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A third author was available for resolving differences of opinion.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 7 RCTs, with a total of 249 participants, covering 6 treatments. Six of these RCTs tested the efficacy of one active intervention against placebo or another active intervention, while the other trial tested three active interventions against placebo.When compared to placebo in one trial, clobetasol propionate 0.05% was effective in treating genital lichen sclerosus in relation to the following outcomes: 'participant-rated improvement or remission of symptoms' (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 5.61) and 'investigator-rated global degree of improvement' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 5.74, 95% CI 4.26 to 7.23).When mometasone furoate 0.05% was compared to placebo in another trial, there was a significant improvement in the 'investigator-rated change in clinical grade of phimosis' (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.31).Both trials found no significant differences in reported adverse drug reactions between the corticosteroid and placebo groups. The data from four trials found no significant benefit for topical testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, and progesterone. When used as maintenance therapy after an initial treatment with topical clobetasol propionate in another trial, topical testosterone worsened the symptoms (P < 0.05), but the placebo did not.One trial found no differences between pimecrolimus and clobetasol propionate in relieving symptoms through change in pruritus (itching) (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.33) and burning/pain (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.69). However, pimecrolimus was less effective than clobetasol propionate with regard to the 'investigator-rated global degree of improvement' (SMD -1.64, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.87). This trial found no significant differences in reported adverse drug reactions between the pimecrolimus and placebo groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The current limited evidence demonstrates the efficacy of clobetasol propionate, mometasone furoate, and pimecrolimus in treating genital lichen sclerosus. Further RCTs are needed to determine the optimal potency and regimen of topical corticosteroids, examine other topical interventions, assess the duration of remission or prevention of flares, evaluate the reduction in the risk of genital squamous cell carcinoma or genital intraepithelial neoplasia, and examine the efficacy in improving the quality of the sex lives of people with this condition.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Child; Clobetasol; Dermatologic Agents; Dihydrotestosterone; Female; Genital Diseases, Male; Humans; Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus; Male; Mometasone Furoate; Pregnadienediols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus; Testosterone Propionate; Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus
PubMed: 22161424
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008240.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Hand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social stigma, and impairment in employment. Many different interventions of unknown effectiveness are used to treat hand eczema.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of topical and systemic interventions for hand eczema in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following up to April 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, LILACS, GREAT, and four trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared interventions for hand eczema, regardless of hand eczema type and other affected sites, versus no treatment, placebo, vehicle, or active treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant- and investigator-rated good/excellent control of symptoms, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 60 RCTs, conducted in secondary care (5469 participants with mild to severe chronic hand eczema). Most participants were over 18 years old. The duration of treatment was short, generally up to four months. Only 24 studies included a follow-up period. Clinical heterogeneity in treatments and outcome measures was evident. Few studies performed head-to-head comparisons of different interventions. Risk of bias varied considerably, with only five studies at low risk in all domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded.Eighteen trials studied topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors; 10 studies, phototherapy; three studies, systemic immunosuppressives; and five studies, oral retinoids. Most studies compared an active intervention against no treatment, variants of the same medication, or placebo (or vehicle). Below, we present results from the main comparisons.Corticosteroid creams/ointments: when assessed 15 days after the start of treatment, clobetasol propionate 0.05% foam probably improves participant-rated control of symptoms compared to vehicle (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 3.91; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 8; 1 study, 125 participants); the effect of clobetasol compared to vehicle for investigator-rated improvement is less clear (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.40). More participants had at least one adverse event with clobetasol (11/62 versus 5/63; RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 6.06), including application site burning/pruritus. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.When assessed 36 weeks after the start of treatment, mometasone furoate cream used thrice weekly may slightly improve investigator-rated symptom control compared to twice weekly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.61; 1 study, 72 participants) after remission is reached. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Some mild atrophy was reported in both groups (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.83; 5/35 versus 3/37). This evidence was rated as low certainty.Irradiation with ultraviolet (UV) light: local combination ultraviolet light therapy (PUVA) may lead to improvement in investigator-rated symptom control when compared to local narrow-band UVB after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.16; 1 study, 60 participants). However, the 95% CI indicates that PUVA might make little or no difference. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Adverse events (mainly erythema) were reported by 9/30 participants in the narrow-band UVB group versus none in the PUVA group. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Topical calcineurin inhibitors: tacrolimus 0.1% over two weeks probably improves investigator-rated symptom control measured after three weeks compared to vehicle (14/14 tacrolimus versus 0/14 vehicle; 1 study). Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Four of 14 people in the tacrolimus group versus zero in the vehicle group had well-tolerated application site burning/itching.A within-participant study in 16 participants compared 0.1% tacrolimus to 0.1% mometasone furoate but did not measure investigator- or participant-rated symptoms. Both treatments were well tolerated when assessed at two weeks during four weeks of treatment.Evidence from these studies was rated as moderate certainty.Oral interventions: oral cyclosporin 3 mg/kg/d probably slightly improves investigator-rated (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.99; 1 study, 34 participants) or participant-rated (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.27) control of symptoms compared to topical betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% after six weeks of treatment. The risk of adverse events such as dizziness was similar between groups (up to 36 weeks; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.86, n = 55; 15/27 betamethasone versus 19/28 cyclosporin). The evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Alitretinoin 10 mg improves investigator-rated symptom control compared with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.07; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6.3 to 26.5; 2 studies, n = 781) and alitretinoin 30 mg also improves this outcome compared with placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.43; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 2 studies, n = 1210). Similar results were found for participant-rated symptom control: alitretinoin 10 mg RR 1.73 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.40) and 30 mg RR 2.75 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.48). Evidence was rated as high certainty. The number of adverse events (including headache) probably did not differ between alitretinoin 10 mg and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; 1 study, n = 158; moderate-certainty evidence), but the risk of headache increased with alitretinoin 30 mg (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.45 to 4.81; 2 studies, n = 1210; high-certainty evidence). Outcomes were assessed between 48 and 72 weeks.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most findings were from single studies with low precision, so they should be interpreted with caution. Topical corticosteroids and UV phototherapy were two of the major standard treatments, but evidence is insufficient to support one specific treatment over another. The effect of topical calcineurin inhibitors is not certain. Alitretinoin is more effective than placebo in controlling symptoms, but advantages over other treatments need evaluating.Well-designed and well-reported, long-term (more than three months), head-to-head studies comparing different treatments are needed. Consensus is required regarding the definition of hand eczema and its subtypes, and a standard severity scale should be established.The main limitation was heterogeneity between studies. Small sample size impacted our ability to detect differences between treatments.
Topics: Calcineurin Inhibitors; Eczema; Emollients; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Odds Ratio; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31025714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004055.pub2 -
Annals of Family Medicine 2012Acute sinusitis is a common condition in ambulatory care, where it is frequently treated with antibiotics, despite little evidence of their benefit. Intranasal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Acute sinusitis is a common condition in ambulatory care, where it is frequently treated with antibiotics, despite little evidence of their benefit. Intranasal corticosteroids might relieve symptoms; however, evidence for this benefit is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal corticosteroids on the symptoms of acute sinusitis.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases until February 2011 for studies comparing intranasal corticosteroids with placebo in children or adults having clinical symptoms and signs of acute sinusitis or rhinosinusitis in ambulatory settings. We excluded chronic/allergic sinusitis. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies' methodologic quality.
RESULTS
We included 6 studies having a total of 2,495 patients. In 5 studies, antibiotics were prescribed in addition to corticosteroids or placebo. Intranasal corticosteroids resulted in a significant, small increase in resolution of or improvement in symptoms at days 14 to 21 (risk difference [RD] = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13). Analysis of individual symptom scores revealed most consistently significant benefits for facial pain and congestion. Subgroup analysis by time of reported outcomes showed a significant beneficial effect at 21 days (RD = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.17), but not at 14 to 15 days (RD = 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11). Meta-regression analysis of trials using different doses of mometasone furoate showed a significant dose-response relationship (P=.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Intranasal corticosteroids offer a small therapeutic benefit in acute sinusitis, which may be greater with high doses and with courses of 21 days' duration. Further trials are needed in antibiotic-naïve patients.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Regression Analysis; Sinusitis
PubMed: 22585889
DOI: 10.1370/afm.1338 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Topical (intranasal) corticosteroids are used with the aim of reducing inflammation in the sinonasal mucosa in order to improve patient symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different types of intranasal steroids in people with chronic rhinosinusitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing first-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, flunisolide, budesonide) with second-generation intranasal corticosteroids (e.g. ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate, mometasone furoate, betamethasone sodium phosphate), or sprays versus drops, or low-dose versus high-dose intranasal corticosteroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis (nosebleed). Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse event of local irritation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs (911 participants), including four different comparisons. None of the studies evaluated our first primary outcome measure, disease-specific HRQL. Fluticasone propionate versus beclomethasone dipropionate We identified two small studies (56 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity and looked at the primary adverse effect: epistaxis , but no other outcomes. We cannot report any numerical data but the study authors reported no difference between the two steroids. The evidence was of very low quality. Fluticasone propionate versus mometasone furoate We identified only one study (100 participants with polyps) that evaluated disease severity (nasal symptoms scores), which reported no difference (no numerical data available). The evidence was of very low quality. High-dose versus low-dose steroidsWe included five studies (663 participants with nasal polyps), three using mometasone furoate (400 µg versus 200 µg in adults and older children, 200 µg versus 100 µg in younger children) and two using fluticasone propionate drops (800 µg versus 400 µg). We found low quality evidence relating to disease severity and nasal polyps size, with results from the high-dose and low-dose groups being similar. Although all studies reported more improvement in polyp score in the high-dose group, the significance of this is unclear due to the small size of the improvements.The primary adverse effect, epistaxis , was more common when higher doses were used (risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.54, 637 participants, moderate quality evidence). Most of the studies that contributed data to this outcome used a broad definition of epistaxis, which ranged from frank bleeding to bloody nasal discharge to flecks of blood in the mucus. Aqueous nasal spray versus aerosol spray We identified only one poorly reported study (unclear number of participants for comparison of interest, 91 between three treatment arms), in which there were significant baseline differences between the participants in the two groups. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to suggest that one type of intranasal steroid is more effective than another in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, nor that the effectiveness of a spray differs from an aerosol. We identified no studies that compared drops with spray.It is unclear if higher doses result in better symptom improvements (low quality evidence), but there was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of epistaxis as an adverse effect of treatment when higher doses were used. This included all levels of severity of epistaxis and it is likely that the proportion of events that required patients to discontinue usage is low due to the low numbers of withdrawals attributed to it. If epistaxis is limited to streaks of blood in the mucus it may be tolerated by the patient and it may be safe to continue treatment. However, it may be a factor that affects compliance.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the different types of corticosteroid molecule or spray versus aerosol have different effects. Lower doses have similar effectiveness but fewer side effects.Clearly more research in this area is needed, with specific attention given to trial design, disease-specific health-related quality of life outcomes and evaluation of longer-term outcomes and adverse effects.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Beclomethasone; Child; Chronic Disease; Fluticasone; Humans; Mometasone Furoate; Nasal Polyps; Nasal Sprays; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Steroids
PubMed: 27115215
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011993.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation.
MAIN RESULTS
Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X(2) = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androstadienes; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Beclomethasone; Budesonide; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fluticasone; Growth; Growth Disorders; Humans; Mometasone Furoate; Pregnadienediols; Pregnenediones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25030199
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009878.pub2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2004To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the... (Review)
Review
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the treatment of people with atopic eczema.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies and related papers. Experts in the field. Manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results.
RESULTS
One RCT comparing moderately potent corticosteroids, eight RCTs comparing potent corticosteroids and one RCT comparing very potent corticosteroids were included. No RCTs or CCTs of mild corticosteroids were eligible. Most RCTs were of poor methodological quality, although two were judged to be of good quality. The only study that compared moderately potent corticosteroids found no significant difference between once- and twice-daily application. For potent corticosteroids, some statistically significant differences in numbers of patients responding to treatment were identified favouring twice-daily treatment, but these were inconsistent between physician and patient assessment and outcomes selected for analysis. Two studies found a significant improvement in some symptoms with once-daily mometasone furoate compared with twice-daily application of a different active compound, while a third study found no significant differences. One good-quality study favoured twice-daily application of fluticasone propionate ointment, while other studies found no significant difference or an improvement in one symptom but not others. The only study comparing very potent corticosteroids found a statistically significant difference in comparative clinical response in favour of three-times daily treatment, but no difference in number of patients with at least a good response. There appears to be little difference in the frequency or severity of short-term events, however data are limited. No published economic evaluations were identified. Given findings on clinical effectiveness, where outcomes from the comparators are similar, the relative cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent application of topical corticosteroids becomes a case of cost-minimisation, where the least-cost alternative should be favoured, all else being equal. Topical corticosteroid products included in this review have a wide variation in price; the cost per 30 g/30 ml varies between GBP0.60 and GBP4.88. Specific decisions on the least-cost alternative, between once-daily and more frequent application of products, will be determined by the relative price of the products being compared. Where patients can be appropriately prescribed once-daily treatment of a similarly priced product, a reduction in the quantity of topical corticosteroid used will be expected. However, issues related to pack size for prescribed products and subsequent waste (unused product) could easily erode any potential saving. The potential cost-savings on prescribed products are very small at a patient level; although given the large numbers of patients with atopic eczema, cost savings in theory could be substantial. The presence of specifically marketed 'once-daily' topical corticosteroids, which are relatively expensive (per unit price), may result in additional costs should there be a general recommendation in favour of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids, compared to more frequent use.
CONCLUSIONS
The literature is very limited; that available indicates the clinical effectiveness of once-daily and more frequent application of potent topical corticosteroids is very similar, but it does not offer a basis for favouring either option. The cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use will depend on the generalisability of the findings to the specific treatment decision and the relative product prices. The trials included in this review generally refer to moderate to severe atopic eczema, whereas most patients have mild disease, and furthermore most of the included trials report on potent topical corticosteroids (eight of 10 RCTs); therefore the generalisability of the findings is limited. Further research is required on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency corticosteroids, specifically on mild potency products for mild to moderate atopic eczema. Outcomes should include quality of life and compliance.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermatitis, Atopic; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infant; Prevalence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 15527669
DOI: 10.3310/hta8470 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Cholinergic Antagonists; DNA-Binding Proteins; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nuclear Proteins; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcription Factors
PubMed: 24671923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010844.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition among children and is one of the most common causes of hospitalisation and medical visits. Poorly controlled asthma... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition among children and is one of the most common causes of hospitalisation and medical visits. Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, hospital stays, or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for children with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The US Food and Drug Administration has issued a 'black box' warning for LABA in asthma, and now recommends that they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect on asthma control and adverse effects of stepping down to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-only therapy versus continuing ICS plus LABA in children whose asthma is well controlled on combined ICS and LABA therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, and also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to the present, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. The most recent search was done in April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials of at least eight weeks' duration, available as published full text, abstract only, or unpublished data. We excluded studies including participants with other chronic respiratory comorbidities (for example bronchiectasis).We looked for studies in which children (18 years or younger) whose asthma was well controlled on any dose of ICS and LABA combination therapy were randomised to: a) step-down therapy to ICS alone or b) continued use of ICS and LABA.We included any dose of LABA (formoterol, salmeterol, vilanterol) and any dose of ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, triamcinolone) delivered in a combination inhaler or in separate inhalers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all records identified in the searches. We used a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel to manage searches and document reasons for inclusion and exclusion, and to extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting the inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral steroids, asthma control, and all-cause serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Despite conducting extensive searches of electronic databases, trial registries and manufacturers' websites we identified no trials matching the inclusion criteria.After removing duplicates, we screened 1031 abstracts, and assessed 43 full-text articles for inclusion. We identified several adult studies, which will be summarised in a separate review (Ahmad 2014). The most common reasons for exclusion after viewing full texts were 'wrong comparison' (n = 22) and 'adult population' (n = 18).Some adult studies recruited adolescents from age 15, but none reported data separately for those under 18.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence from randomised trials to inform the discontinuation of LABAs in children once asthma control is achieved with ICS plus LABA. It is disappointing that such an important issue has not been studied, and a randomised double-blind trial recruiting children who are controlled on ICS plus LABA is warranted. The study should be large enough to assess children of different ages, and to measure the important safety and efficacy outcomes suggested in this review over at least six months.The only randomised evidence for stopping LABA has been conducted in adults; it will be summarised in a separate review.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Asthma; Child; Humans; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 25997166
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011316.pub2