-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2017To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries up to May 2017, reference lists of eligible trials, related reviews. Randomised controlled trials of the addition of corticosteroids to standard clinical care for patients aged 5 or older in emergency department and primary care settings with clinical signs of acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, or the clinical syndrome of sore throat. Trials were included irrespective of language or publication status. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence, independently and in duplicate. A parallel guideline committee ( Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. 10 eligible trials enrolled 1426 individuals. Patients who received single low dose corticosteroids (the most common intervention was oral dexamethasone with a maximum dose of 10 mg) were twice as likely to experience pain relief after 24 hours (relative risk 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 4.3; risk difference 12.4%; moderate quality evidence) and 1.5 times more likely to have no pain at 48 hours (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8; risk difference 18.3%; high quality). The mean time to onset of pain relief in patients treated with corticosteroids was 4.8 hours earlier (95% confidence interval -1.9 to -7.8; moderate quality) and the mean time to complete resolution of pain was 11.1 hours earlier (-0.4 to -21.8; low quality) than in those treated with placebo. The absolute pain reduction at 24 hours (visual analogue scale 0-10) was greater in patients treated with corticosteroids (mean difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.9; moderate quality). Nine of the 10 trials sought information regarding adverse events. Six studies reported no adverse effects, and three studies reported few adverse events, which were mostly complications related to disease, with a similar incidence in both groups. Single low dose corticosteroids can provide pain relief in patients with sore throat, with no increase in serious adverse effects. Included trials did not assess the potential risks of larger cumulative doses in patients with recurrent episodes of acute sore throat. PROSPERO CRD42017067808.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Pharyngitis; Tonsillitis
PubMed: 28931508
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3887 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), including the common cold and rhinosinusitis, are common afflictions that cause discomfort and debilitation and contribute significantly to workplace absenteeism. Treatment is generally by antipyretic and decongestant drugs and sometimes antibiotics, even though most infections are viral. Nasal irrigation with saline is often employed as an adjunct treatment for URTI symptoms despite a relative lack of evidence for benefit in this clinical setting. This review is an update of the Cochrane review by Kassel et al, which found that saline was probably effective in reducing the severity of some symptoms associated with acute URTIs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of saline nasal irrigation for treating the symptoms of acute URTIs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July week 5, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to August 2014), CINAHL (1982 to August 2014), AMED (1985 to August 2014) and LILACS (1982 to August 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical nasal saline treatment to other interventions in adults and children with clinically diagnosed acute URTIs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (DK, BM) independently assessed trial quality with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and extracted data. We analysed all data using the Cochrane Review Manager software. Due to the large variability of outcome measures only a small number of outcomes could be pooled for statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five RCTs that randomised 544 children (three studies) and 205 adults (exclusively from two studies). They all compared saline irrigation to routine care or other nose sprays, rather than placebo. We included two new trials in this update, which did not contribute data of sufficient size or quality to materially change the original findings. Most trials were small and we judged them to be of low quality, contributing to an unclear risk of bias. Most outcome measures differed greatly between included studies and therefore could not be pooled. Most results showed no difference between nasal saline treatment and control. However, one larger trial, conducted with children, did show a significant reduction in nasal secretion score (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.48 to -0.14) and nasal breathing (obstruction) score (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.19) in the saline group. However, a MD of -0.33 on a four-point symptom scale may have minimal clinical significance. The trial also showed a significant reduction in the use of decongestant medication by the saline group. Minor nasal discomfort and/or irritation was the only side effect reported by a minority of participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nasal saline irrigation possibly has benefits for relieving the symptoms of acute URTIs. However, the included trials were generally too small and had a high risk of bias, reducing confidence in the evidence supporting this. Future trials should involve larger numbers of participants and report standardised and clinically meaningful outcome measures.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Laryngitis; Nasal Lavage; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Rhinitis; Sinusitis; Sodium Chloride
PubMed: 25892369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006821.pub3 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jul 2020To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical care.
METHODS
We searched electronic literature for randomised and quasi-randomised trials and bibliography lists of included studies to March 2020. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis used fixed effects modelling. The systematic review protocol is registered and published.
RESULTS
We identified 22 studies (19 stroke, 2 intensive care stroke and 1 general intensive care) testing 9 interventions and representing 1700 patients. Swallowing treatment showed no evidence of a difference in the time to return to oral intake (n = 33, MD (days) - 4.5, 95% CI - 10.6 to 1.6, 1 study, P = 0.15) (very low certainty) or in aspiration following treatment (n = 113, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45, 4 studies, I = 0%, P = 0.45) (low certainty). Swallowing treatment showed evidence of a reduced risk of pneumonia (n = 719, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, 8 studies, I = 15%, P = 0.004) (low certainty) but no evidence of a difference in swallowing quality of life scores (n = 239, MD - 11.38, 95% CI - 23.83 to 1.08, I = 78%, P = 0.07) (very low certainty).
CONCLUSION
There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of swallowing treatments in the acute and critical care setting. Clinical trials consistently measuring patient-centred outcomes are needed.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Pneumonia; Quality of Life; Stroke
PubMed: 32514597
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06126-y -
BMC Geriatrics Jul 2021Dysphagia is highly prevalent condition in older adults living in nursing homes. There is also evidence indicating that aspiration is one of the major health risks for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia is highly prevalent condition in older adults living in nursing homes. There is also evidence indicating that aspiration is one of the major health risks for these older adults, which is more likely to result in respiratory infections, aspiration pneumonia and sudden bolus death. Evidence syntheses have demonstrated the effectiveness of interventions for prevention of aspiration among hospitalized older people. The aim of this scoping review is to describe the current spread of interventions to prevent or reduce aspiration in older adults with dysphagia with a specific focus on those who reside in nursing homes.
METHODS
The Joanna Briggs Institute methods and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were used to inform this review. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database and Web of Science were searched for related articles from 2010 to 2020 as well as Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG DATA and VIP) and databases for unpublished material. A three-step search strategy was utilized, including the use of citation software to manage search results and de-duplication, abstract review and full-text review by two reviewers. Details of included studies were then extracted using a prepared data extraction tool. The resulting map was displayed in tabular form along with a narrative summary.
RESULTS
Although 637 articles were located, 19 papers were included in the final analysis. Interventions to prevent aspiration in older adults with dysphagia living in nursing homes included: more bedside evaluation, modification of dietary, creating an appropriate environment for swallowing, providing appropriate feeding assistance, appropriate posture or maneuver for swallowing, appropriate rehabilitation program, medication treatment, and stimulation treatment.
CONCLUSION
Nursing homes, particularly those in developing countries, require more support for staff training and necessary equipment. Professional interventions provided by speech and language therapists are still limited in the setting of nursing homes. Modification of dietary was the most frequently used intervention to prevent or reduce aspiration. Multi-disciplinary interventions had the best results for aspiration management, but for many nursing homes, access to such teams is limited. Nursing home residents respond well to person-centered interventions that have a comprehensive consideration of their degree of aspiration risk, health condition, individual feelings and cognitive state.
Topics: Aged; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Nursing Homes
PubMed: 34273953
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02366-9 -
Cells Jul 2022Studies investigating the associations of oral function and dysphagia with frailty and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults are increasing; however, they have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Studies investigating the associations of oral function and dysphagia with frailty and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults are increasing; however, they have not been systematically summarized. We conducted a systematic review to investigate these associations. We searched electronic databases and synthesized relevant data using conventional (frequentist-style) and Bayesian meta-analyses. Twenty-four studies were found to be eligible for our review, including 20 cross-sectional and four prospective cohort studies. Older adults with frailty or sarcopenia had lower tongue pressure, according to the results of conventional meta-analysis (mean difference [95% confidence interval or credible interval]: -6.80 kPa [-10.22 to -3.38] for frailty and -5.40 kPa [-6.62 to -4.17] for sarcopenia) and Bayesian meta-analysis (-6.90 kPa [-9.0 to -4.8] for frailty, -5.35 kPa [-6.78 to -3.89] for sarcopenia). People with frailty had a higher odds ratio (OR) for dysphagia according to the results of conventional meta-analysis (3.99 [2.17 to 7.32]) and Bayesian meta-analysis (1.38 [0.77 to 1.98]). However, the results were inconclusive for people with sarcopenia. A prospective association could not be determined because of the lack of information and the limited number of studies. Decreased oral function and dysphagia can be important characteristics of frailty and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.
Topics: Aged; Bayes Theorem; Cross-Sectional Studies; Deglutition Disorders; Frailty; Humans; Independent Living; Pressure; Prospective Studies; Sarcopenia; Tongue
PubMed: 35883642
DOI: 10.3390/cells11142199 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Jun 2022It is well known that oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) challenges eating, drinking, and swallowing by penetration to the airway. In clinical practice, thickening agents in...
Second update of a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations on texture modified foods and thickened liquids for adults (above 17 years) with oropharyngeal dysphagia.
BACKGROUND & AIMS
It is well known that oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) challenges eating, drinking, and swallowing by penetration to the airway. In clinical practice, thickening agents in liquid and texture modified diets are used to reduce pneumonia and secure nutritional status. The scientific evidence on this OD management is, however, limited. In 2016 we updated an original clinical guideline on OD in adults. Based on the strength of the evidence of two randomized control trials (RCTs), we provided a weak clinical recommendation against the use of thickening agents for liquid and none for diet. In the hope of finding new scientific evidence, we aimed to update the clinical guideline by examining the evidence if thickening of liquid and diet 1) improve survival and quality of life, 2) reduce the occurrence of aspiration risk and pneumonia, 3) improve dehydration, nutritional status, and mealtime performance, and 4) relate to patient preferences and intervention adherence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. We first searched systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and secondly, the primary literature of RCTs. We undertook the search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 2015, to May 19, 2021. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
RESULTS
One new study was included, resulting in a total of three RCTs, of which two were already included in our former guideline. The three studies focused on the thickening of liquid, but no change of the former weak recommendation against the thickening of liquid could be made due to the quality of evidence evaluation.
CONCLUSION
There is no convincing evidence that thickened liquid or texture modified diet prevents death or pneumonia nor improves the quality of life, nutritional status, or oral intake in individuals with OD. There is a need for future studies to examine the effect and discuss outcome measures in OD management with thickening agents.
Topics: Adult; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Diet; Humans; Meals; Pneumonia
PubMed: 35623866
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2022.03.039 -
Archives of Physical Medicine and... Jun 2022To investigate whether respiratory muscle training is capable of reducing the occurrence of respiratory complications and improving dysphagia (swallowing or cough... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether respiratory muscle training is capable of reducing the occurrence of respiratory complications and improving dysphagia (swallowing or cough function) after stroke.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), PUBMED, and Web of Science were searched for studies published in English; the China Biology Medicine (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database were searched for studies published in Chinese up to August 10, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Eleven randomized control trials (RCTs) (N=523) met the inclusion criteria were included in this systematic review.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data and information were extracted by two reviewers independently and disagreements was resolved by consensus with a third coauthor. Primary outcome was the occurrence of respiratory complications, secondary outcomes would be represented by swallowing and cough function. The quality of each included RCT were assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria and the GRADE evidence profile was provided to present information about the body of evidence and judgments about the certainty of underlying evidence for each outcome.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Respiratory muscle training reduced the risk of respiratory complications (relative risk, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.93; I=0%; P=.03; absolute risk difference, 0.068; number need to treat, 14.71) compared with no or sham respiratory intervention. It also decreased the liquid-type Penetration-Aspiration Scale scores by 0.81 (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.43; I=39%; P<.0001). There was no significant association between respiratory muscle training and Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) scores, cough function: increased FOIS scores by 0.47 (95% CI, -0.45 to 1.39; I=55%; P=.32), decreased peak expiratory cough flow of voluntary cough by 18.70 L per minute (95% CI, -59.74 to 22.33; I=19%; P=.37) and increased peak expiratory cough flow of reflex cough by 0.05 L per minute (95% CI, -40.78 to 40.87; I=0%; P>.99).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provided evidence that respiratory muscle training is effective in reducing the risk of respiratory complications and improving dysphagia by reducing penetration or aspiration during swallowing liquid bolus after stroke. However, there was no sufficient evidence to determine that respiratory muscle training improves cough function. Additional multicenter studies using larger patient cohorts are required to validate and support these findings. Furthermore, long-term follow-up studies should be performed to measure outcomes, while avoiding bias due to confounding factors such as heterogeneity of the etiologies of dysphagia.
Topics: Breathing Exercises; Cough; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Humans; Respiration Disorders; Stroke
PubMed: 34780729
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.10.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias. For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 34929047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006386.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amoxicillin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Cephalosporins; Child; Child, Preschool; Clindamycin; Humans; Infant; Macrolides; Middle Aged; Penicillins; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus pyogenes; Sulfonamides; Young Adult
PubMed: 33728634
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004406.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dysphagia (swallowing problems), which is common after stroke, is associated with increased risk of death or dependency, occurrence of pneumonia, poor quality of life, and longer hospital stay. Treatments provided to improve dysphagia are aimed at accelerating recovery of swallowing function and reducing these risks. This is an update of the review first published in 1999 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of swallowing therapy on death or dependency among stroke survivors with dysphagia within six months of stroke onset.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (26 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 26 June 2018), MEDLINE (26 June 2018), Embase (26 June 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (26 June 2018), Web of Science Core Collection (26 June 2018), SpeechBITE (28 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.Gov (26 June 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 June 2018). We also searched Google Scholar (7 June 2018) and the reference lists of relevant trials and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for people with dysphagia and recent stroke (within six months).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence, and resolved disagreements through discussion with the third review author (PB). We used random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs), and provided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each.The primary outcome was functional outcome, defined as death or dependency (or death or disability), at the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes were case fatality at the end of the trial, length of inpatient stay, proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial, swallowing ability, penetration aspiration score, or pneumonia, pharyngeal transit time, institutionalisation, and nutrition.
MAIN RESULTS
We added 27 new studies (1777 participants) to this update to include a total of 41 trials (2660 participants).We assessed the efficacy of swallowing therapy overall and in subgroups by type of intervention: acupuncture (11 studies), behavioural interventions (nine studies), drug therapy (three studies), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; six studies), pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES; four studies), physical stimulation (three studies), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS; two studies), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; nine studies).Swallowing therapy had no effect on the primary outcome (death or dependency/disability at the end of the trial) based on data from one trial (two data sets) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.75; 306 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.86; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy had no effect on case fatality at the end of the trial (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; 766 participants; 14 studies; I² = 6%; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy probably reduced length of inpatient stay (MD -2.9, 95% CI -5.65 to -0.15; 577 participants; 8 studies; I² = 11%; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.54). Swallowing therapy may have reduced the proportion of participants with dysphagia at the end of the trial (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; 1487 participants; 23 studies; I² = 0%; P = 0.00001; low-quality evidence). Trial results show no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.91). Swallowing therapy may improve swallowing ability (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.32; 1173 participants; 26 studies; I² = 86%; P = 0.0002; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a subgroup effect based on testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.09). We noted moderate to substantial heterogeneity between trials for these interventions. Swallowing therapy did not reduce the penetration aspiration score (i.e. it did not reduce radiological aspiration) (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.00; 303 participants; 11 studies; I² = 46%; P = 0.05; low-quality evidence). Swallowing therapy may reduce the incidence of chest infection or pneumonia (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; 618 participants; 9 studies; I² = 59%; P = 0.009; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- and low-quality evidence suggests that swallowing therapy did not have a significant effect on the outcomes of death or dependency/disability, case fatality at the end of the trial, or penetration aspiration score. However, swallowing therapy may have reduced length of hospital stay, dysphagia, and chest infections, and may have improved swallowing ability. However, these results are based on evidence of variable quality, involving a variety of interventions. Further high-quality trials are needed to test whether specific interventions are effective.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Acute Disease; Deglutition; Deglutition Disorders; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Length of Stay; Lisinopril; Metoclopramide; Nifedipine; Physical Stimulation; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Time Factors; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 30376602
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000323.pub3