-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent. Bronchiectasis may cause signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can also be associated with cystic fibrosis and other congenital disorders, foreign body inhalation, and other causes of lung damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with bronchiectasis but without cystic fibrosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticholinergic therapy, beta(2) agonists, bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy, corticosteroids (inhaled, oral), exercise or physical training, hyperosmolar agents (inhaled), leukotriene receptor antagonists, methyl-xanthines (oral), mucolytics (bromhexine or deoxyribonuclease), prolonged-use antibiotics, and surgery.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Lung
PubMed: 21846412
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2008Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent. Bronchiectasis may cause signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can also be associated with cystic fibrosis and other congenital disorders, foreign body inhalation, and other causes of lung damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with bronchiectasis but without cystic fibrosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to July 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticholinergic therapy, bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy, exercise or physical training, hyperosmolar agents (inhaled), leukotriene receptor antagonists, methyl-xanthines (oral), mucolytics (bromhexine or deoxyribonuclease), prolonged-use antibiotics, beta(2) agonists, steroids (inhaled, oral), and surgery.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cough; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Lung; Sputum
PubMed: 19450337
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Bronchiectasis is predominantly an acquired disease process that represents the end stage of a variety of unrelated pulmonary insults. It is defined as persistent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is predominantly an acquired disease process that represents the end stage of a variety of unrelated pulmonary insults. It is defined as persistent irreversible dilatation and distortion of medium-sized bronchi. It has been suggested that with widespread use of high-resolution computed tomography, more bronchiectasis diagnoses are being made. Patients diagnosed with bronchiectasis frequently have difficulty expectorating sputum. Sputum therefore is retained in the lungs and may become infected, leading to further lung damage. Mucolytic agents target hypersecretion or changed physiochemical properties of sputum to make it easier to clear. One drug, recombinant human DNase, breaks down the DNA that is released at the site of infection by neutrophils.Mucus clearance along with antimicrobial therapy remains an integral part of bronchiectasis management. Chest physiotherapy along with mucolytic agents is commonly used in practice without clear supportive evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether ingested or inhaled mucolytics are effective in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted experts in the field and drug companies. Searches were current as of June 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of mucolytic treatment in people with bronchiectasis but not cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction was performed independently by two review authors. Study authors were contacted for confirmation.
MAIN RESULTS
Four trials (with a combined total of 528 adult participants) were included, but almost none of the data from these studies could be aggregated in a meta-analysis.One trial (with 88 participants) compared bromhexine versus placebo. Compared with placebo, high doses of bromhexine with antibiotics eased difficulty in expectoration (mean difference (MD) -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.25 at 16 days); the quality of the evidence was rated as low. A reduction in sputum production was noted with bromhexine (MD -21.5%, 95% CI -38.9 to -4.1 at day 16); again the quality of the evidence was rated as low. No significant differences between bromhexine and placebo were observed with respect to reported adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 2.93; 95% CI 0.12 to 73.97), and again the quality of the evidence was rated as low.In a single small, blinded but not placebo-controlled trial of older (> 55 years) participants with stable bronchiectasis and mucus hypersecretion, erdosteine combined with physiotherapy over a 15-day period improved spirometry and sputum purulence more effectively compared with physiotherapy alone. The spirometric improvement was small (MD 200 mL in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and 300 mL in forced vital capacity (FVC)) and was apparent only at day 15, not at earlier time points.The remaining two studies (with a combined total of 410 participants) compared recombinant human DNase (RhDNase) versus placebo. These two studies were very different (one was a two-week study of 61 participants, and the other ran for 24 weeks and included 349 participants), and the opportunity for combining data from the two studies was very limited. Compared with placebo, recombinant human DNase showed no difference in FEV1 or FVC in the smaller study but showed a significant negative effect on FEV1 in the larger and longer study. For reported adverse events, no significant differences between recombinant human DNase and placebo were noted. In all of the above comparisons of recombinant human DNase versus placebo, the quality of the evidence was judged to be low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the harmful effects of recombinant human DNase in one trial and no evidence of benefit, this drug should be avoided in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, except in the context of clinical trials. Evidence is insufficient to permit evaluation of the routine use of other mucolytics for bronchiectasis. High doses of bromhexine coupled with antibiotics may help with sputum production and clearance, but long-term data and robust clinical outcomes are lacking. Similarly, erdosteine may be a useful adjunct to physiotherapy in stable patients with mucus hypersecretion, but robust longer-term trials are required.Generally, clinical trials in children on the use of various mucolytic agents are lacking. As the number of agents available on the market, such as RhDNase, acetylcysteine and bromhexine, is increasing, improvement of the evidence base is needed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bromhexine; Bronchiectasis; Deoxyribonucleases; Drug Therapy, Combination; Expectorants; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Thioglycolates; Thiophenes
PubMed: 24789119
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001289.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013Cystic fibrosis is an inherited condition resulting in thickened, sticky respiratory secretions. Respiratory failure, due to recurrent pulmonary infection and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cystic fibrosis is an inherited condition resulting in thickened, sticky respiratory secretions. Respiratory failure, due to recurrent pulmonary infection and inflammation, is the most common cause of mortality. Muco-active therapies (e.g. dornase alfa and nebulized hypertonic saline) may decrease sputum viscosity, increase airway clearance of sputum, reduce infection and inflammation and improve lung function. Thiol derivatives, either oral or nebulized, have shown benefit in other respiratory diseases. Their mode of action is likely to differ according to the route of administration. There are several thiol derivatives, and it is unclear which of these may be beneficial in cystic fibrosis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nebulized and oral thiol derivatives in people with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, hand searches of relevant journals, abstract books and conference proceedings.Most recent search: 13 June 2013.We also conducted a PubMed search on 26 February 2013 for relevant published articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing nebulized or oral thiol derivatives to placebo or another thiol derivative in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, analysed risk of bias and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Searches identified 23 trials; nine trials (255 participants) are included, of these seven trials are more than 10 years old. Three trials of nebulized thiol derivatives were identified (one compared 20% N-acetylcysteine to 2% N-acetylcysteine; another compared sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate to 7% hypertonic saline; and another compared glutathione to 4% hypertonic saline). Although generally well-tolerated with no significant adverse effects, there was no evidence of significant clinical benefit in our primary outcomes in participants receiving these treatments.Six trials of oral thiol derivatives were identified. Three trials compared N-acetylcysteine to placebo; one compared N-acetylcysteine, ambroxol and placebo; one compared carbocysteine to ambroxol; and one compared low and high-dose N-acetylcysteine. Oral thiol derivatives were generally well-tolerated with no significant adverse effects, however there was no evidence of significant clinical benefit in our primary outcomes in participants receiving these treatments.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence to recommend the use of either nebulized or oral thiol derivatives in people with cystic fibrosis. There are very few good quality trials investigating the effect of these medications in cystic fibrosis, and further research is required to investigate the potential role of these medications in improving the outcomes of people with cystic fibrosis.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Ambroxol; Carbocysteine; Cystic Fibrosis; Expectorants; Glutathione; Humans; Lung Diseases; Mucociliary Clearance; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 23852992
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007168.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal dilatation of the bronchi, and presents typically with a chronic productive cough (or chronic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal dilatation of the bronchi, and presents typically with a chronic productive cough (or chronic wet cough in children) and recurrent infective exacerbations. It significantly impacts daily activities and quality of life, and can lead to recurrent hospitalisations, severe lung function impairment, respiratory failure and even death.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of interventions for adults and children with bronchiectasis from Cochrane reviews.To identify gaps in the evidence base that will inform recommendations for new research and reviews, and to summarise information on reported outcomes and make recommendations for the reporting of standard outcomes in future trials and reviews.
METHODS
We included Cochrane reviews of non-cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search is current to 11 February 2015. We also identified trials that were potentially eligible for, but not currently included in, published reviews to make recommendations for new Cochrane reviews. We assessed the quality of included reviews using the AMSTAR criteria. We presented an evidence synthesis of data from reviews alongside an evidence map of clinical trials and guideline data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, lung function and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 reviews but extracted data from, and rated the quality of, only nine reviews that reported results for people with bronchiectasis alone. Of the reviews with no usable data, two reviews included studies with mixed clinical populations where data were not reported separately for people with bronchiectasis and 10 reviews did not contain any trials. Of the 40 studies included across the nine reviews, three (number of participants nine to 34) included children. The studies ranged from single session to year-long studies. Each review included from one to 11 trials and 28 (70%) trials in the overview included 40 or fewer participants. The total number of participants included in reviews ranged from 40 to 1040. The age range of adult participants was from 36 to 73 years and children ranged from six to 16 years. The proportion of male participants ranged from 21% to 72%. Where reported, mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 1.17 L to 1.66 L and from 47% to 88% predicted. Most of the reviews had search dates older than two years.We have summarised the published evidence as outlined in Cochrane reviews, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions. There was inconclusive evidence on the use of long-term antibiotics and nebulised hypertonic saline for reducing exacerbation frequency and evidence that human deoxyribonuclease (RhDNase) increases exacerbation frequency. Improvements in lung function were reported for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) though this was small and not clinically relevant. Evidence of benefit for hyperosmolar agents and mucolytics was inconclusive. There was limited evidence of improvements in quality of life with airway clearance techniques and physical therapy but evidence of benefit for hyperosmolar agents was inconclusive. Secondary outcomes were not clearly reported in all trials in the included reviews. Improvements in dyspnoea, wheeze and cough-free days were reported for small trials of ICS and LABA (long-acting beta2-agonsts)/ICS and cough reduction was also reported for a small bromhexine trial. Reduction in sputum production was reported for long-term antibiotics and airway clearance techniques but evidence of benefit for hyperosmolar agents was inconclusive.Adverse events were included as outcomes in seven reviews. The review of long-term (four weeks to one year) prophylactic courses of antibiotics reported significantly more cases of wheeze (Peto odd ratio (OR) 8.56, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.63 to 44.93), dyspnoea (12 versus three, P value = 0.01) and chest pain (seven versus zero, P value = 0.01) from the same trial (74 participants) but no differences in occurrence of diarrhoea, rash or number of withdrawals. In the review of mucolytics versus placebo, relevant outcomes were not reported for erdosteine comparisons and no significant adverse effects were reported for bromhexine, though adverse events were associated with RhDNase (OR 28.19, 95% CI 3.77 to 210.85, 1 study). Of the remaining five reviews, adverse events were not reported in the single trials included in the ICS review or the physical therapy review and the impact of adverse events in the single trial included in the inhaled LABA/ICS combination versus ICS review were unclear. The reviews of short-term courses of antibiotics and inhaled hyperosmolar agents reported no significant differences in occurrence of adverse events. Fewer admissions to hospital were reported for long-term antibiotics, but this outcome was not reported in all reviews. No reviews reported differences in mortality, but again this outcome was not included in all reviews.We did not explicitly include antibiotic resistance as an outcome in the review, but this was unclear in the Cochrane reviews and evidence from other trials should be considered.We rated all reviews as high quality (AMSTAR), though opportunities for improved reporting (e.g. summary of findings and GRADE evaluation of the evidence) were identified for inclusion in future updates of the reviews. However, the majority of trials were not high quality and confidence in the effects of treatments, therefore, requires additional evidence from larger and more methodologically robust trials. We evaluated the overall coverage of important topics in bronchiectasis by mapping the quality of the current evidence base against published guidelines and identifying high priority areas for new research on; use of short-course and long-term antibiotics, ICS and oral corticosteroids, inhaled hyperosmolars, mucolytics, and use of airway clearance techniques.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This overview clearly points to significant opportunities for further research aimed at improving outcomes for people with bronchiectasis. We have highlighted important endpoints for studies (particularly exacerbations, quality of life and lung function), and areas of clinical practice that are in most urgent need of evidence-based support (including long-term antibiotics, ICSs and mucolytics).As the evidence is confined to small trials of short duration, it is not currently possible to assess the balance between the benefits and potential harms of treatments for bronchiectasis.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Child; Deoxyribonucleases; Expectorants; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Review Literature as Topic; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 26171905
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010337.pub2 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Mar 2021Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to...
Effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment and prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. A systematic review was conducted to identify clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 published between 1 December 2019 and 14 October 2020. Data regarding efficacy of interventions, in terms of mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation, were extracted from identified studies and synthesised qualitatively. In total, 42 clinical trials were included. Interventions assessed included antiviral, mucolytic, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory therapies. Some reductions in mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation were seen with interferons and remdesivir, particularly when administered early, and with the mucolytic drug, bromhexine. Most studies of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine did not show significant efficacy over standard care/placebo. Dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality, hospitalisation and need for ventilation standard care, particularly in patients with severe disease. Evidence for other classes of interventions was limited. Many trials had a moderate-to-high risk of bias, particularly in terms of blinding; most were short-term and some included low patient numbers.This review highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials of therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 to increase the quality of available evidence. It also emphasises the importance of tailoring interventions to disease stage and severity for maximum efficacy.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Clinical Trials as Topic; Hospitalization; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 33731328
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0384-2020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID-19 infection. Although self-limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can...
BACKGROUND
Olfactory dysfunction is an early and sensitive marker of COVID-19 infection. Although self-limiting in the majority of cases, when hyposmia or anosmia persists it can have a profound effect on quality of life. Little guidance exists on the treatment of post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction, however several strategies have been proposed from the evidence relating to the treatment of post-viral anosmia (such as medication or olfactory training).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to treat persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Only individuals who had symptoms for at least four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were the recovery of sense of smell, disease-related quality of life and serious adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were the change in sense of smell, general quality of life, prevalence of parosmia and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one study with 18 participants, which compared the use of a 15-day course of oral steroids combined with nasal irrigation (consisting of an intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant solution) with no intervention. Psychophysical testing was used to assess olfactory function at baseline, 20 and 40 days. Systemic corticosteroids plus intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant compared to no intervention Recovery of sense of smell was assessed after 40 days (25 days after cessation of treatment) using the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) score. This tool has a range of 0 to 100, and a score of ≥ 90 represents normal olfactory function. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this intervention on recovery of the sense of smell at one to three months (5/9 participants in the intervention group scored ≥ 90 compared to 0/9 in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 11.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 173.66; 1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Change in sense of smell was assessed using the CCCRC score at 40 days. This study reported an improvement in sense of smell in the intervention group from baseline (median improvement in CCCRC score 60, interquartile range (IQR) 40) compared to the control group (median improvement in CCCRC score 30, IQR 25) (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events andother adverse events were not identified in any participants of this study; however, it is unclear how these outcomes were assessed and recorded (1 study; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on the efficacy and harms of treatments for persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified other ongoing trials in this area. As this is a living systematic review we will update the data regularly, as new results become available. For this (first) version of the living review we identified only one study with a small sample size, which assessed systemic steroids and nasal irrigation (intranasal steroid/mucolytic/decongestant). However, the evidence regarding the benefits and harms from this intervention to treat persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction is very uncertain.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Ambroxol; Betamethasone; Bias; COVID-19; Expectorants; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Lavage; Olfaction Disorders; Prednisone; Prevalence; Quality of Life; Recovery of Function; Smell; Time Factors
PubMed: 34291813
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013876.pub2 -
Scientific Reports Dec 2023Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a severe condition that leads to premature mortality and places a significant financial burden on healthcare systems. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a severe condition that leads to premature mortality and places a significant financial burden on healthcare systems. An adjunctive therapy in COPD includes the simultaneous administration of astragalus injection and ambroxol hydrochloride. Despite its widespread use, the effectiveness of this combined approach in COPD treatment has not been systematically evaluated. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of combining astragalus injection with ambroxol hydrochloride as an adjuvant treatment for COPD. Six electronic databases were used to search for relevant randomized controlled trials, and data analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 1070 patients who met the criteria. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the combination of astragalus injection with ambroxol hydrochloride as an adjuvant treatment can improve various clinical parameters in patients with COPD compared to conventional treatment alone. These parameters include the clinical effective rate (OR = 5.44, 95% CI 3.51-8.43, I = 0%), partial pressure of oxygen in artery (MD = 1.12, 95% CI 0.87-1.36, I = 5%), partial pressure of carbon dioxide in artery (MD = - 1.43, 95% CI - 1.65 to - 1.21, I = 0%), forced expiratory volume in one second (MD = 0.30, 95% CI 0.18-0.42, I = 0%), percentage of forced expiratory volume in one second (MD = 16.18, 95% CI 12.60-19.76, I = 82%), forced vital capacity (MD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.45, I = 36%), hemoglobin (MD = - 16.17, 95% CI - 20.84 to - 11.51, I = 29%), and the ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second to forced vital capacity (MD = 2.51, 95% CI - 0.05 to 5.06, I = 0%). The combination of astragalus injection and ambroxol hydrochloride could be a selection of COPD patients as an adjuvant treatment. However, further validation is required to evaluate the effectiveness of combining astragalus injection and ambroxol hydrochloride as an adjunctive treatment for patients with COPD.
Topics: Humans; Ambroxol; Quality of Life; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 38087032
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-49421-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014Cough is often distressing for patients with pneumonia. Accordingly they often use over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications (mucolytics or cough suppressants). These... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cough is often distressing for patients with pneumonia. Accordingly they often use over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications (mucolytics or cough suppressants). These might provide relief in reducing cough severity, but suppression of the cough mechanism might impede airway clearance and cause harm.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of OTC cough medications as an adjunct to antibiotics in children and adults with pneumonia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 12, MEDLINE (January 1966 to January week 2, 2014), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1980 to January 2014), CINAHL (2009 to January 2014), LILACS (2009 to January 2014) and Web of Science (2009 to January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children and adults comparing any type of OTC cough medication with placebo, or control medication, with cough as an outcome and where the cough is secondary to acute pneumonia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials for inclusion. We extracted data from these studies, assessed them for methodological quality without disagreement and analyzed them using standard methods.
MAIN RESULTS
There are no new trials to include in this review update. Previously, four studies with a total of 224 participants were included; one was performed exclusively in children and three in adolescents or adults. One using an antitussive had no extractable pneumonia-specific data. Three different mucolytics (bromhexine, ambroxol, neltenexine) were used in the remaining studies, of which only two had extractable data. They demonstrated no significant difference for the primary outcome of 'not cured or not improved' for mucolytics. A secondary outcome of 'not cured' was reduced (odds ratio (OR) for children 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.77; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) at day 10 = 5 (95% CI 3 to 16) and OR 0.32 for adults (95% CI 0.13 to 0.75); NNTB at day 10 = 5 (95% CI 3 to 19)). In a post hoc analysis combining data for children and adults, again there was no difference in the primary outcome of 'not cured or not improved' (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.80) although mucolytics reduced the secondary outcome 'not cured' (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.60; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 8). The risk of bias was low or unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to decide whether OTC medications for cough associated with acute pneumonia are beneficial. Mucolytics may be beneficial but there is insufficient evidence to recommend them as an adjunctive treatment for acute pneumonia. This leaves only theoretical recommendations that OTC medications containing codeine and antihistamines should not be used in young children.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antitussive Agents; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Child; Cough; Drug Therapy, Combination; Expectorants; Humans; Nonprescription Drugs; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24615334
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006088.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is caused by a deficiency of pulmonary surfactant (an active agent that keeps pulmonary alveoli open and facilitates the entry of air... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is caused by a deficiency of pulmonary surfactant (an active agent that keeps pulmonary alveoli open and facilitates the entry of air to the lungs, thus improving the oxygenation of the newborn).A number of interventions such as pulmonary surfactant and prenatal corticosteroids are used to prevent RDS. Ambroxol has been studied as a potential agent to prevent RDS, but effectiveness and safety has yet to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of giving ambroxol to pregnant women who are at risk of preterm birth, for preventing neonatal RDS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 November 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 11),Embase (1988 to November 2013), MEDLINE (PubMed 1970 to November 2013), LILACS (1982 to November 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (November 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration of ambroxol given to pregnant women at risk of preterm birth versus placebo, antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone or dexamethasone), or no treatment.We did not identify any trials comparing ambroxol with dexamethasone (corticosteroid) in this review. Nor did we identify any trials comparing ambroxol combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid alone, or placebo/no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (in 18 trial reports), involving 1047 pregnant women at risk of preterm birth with 1077 newborns. However, three of the included studies did not report on this review's outcomes of interest. We carried out two main comparisons: ambroxol versus antenatal corticosteroids (betamethasone); and ambroxol versus placebo or no treatment. Seven RCTs provided data for our comparison of ambroxol versus corticosteroid (betamethasone) and two trials contributed data to our comparison of ambroxol compared to placebo or no treatment.The included studies were generally judged as having either 'low' risk of bias or 'unclear' risk of bias (because the trial reports provided insufficient details about methods of sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding). Primary outcomesThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the incidence of RDS among newborns born to women who received ambroxol when compared to newborns of women who were given the corticosteroid, betamethasone (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.07, seven RCTs, 728 women/758 newborns, moderate quality evidence) or placebo/no treatment (average RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20, two studies, 204 women/204 newborns,T2= 0.07; I(2)= 53%, low-quality evidence). Results were imprecise and consistent with appreciable benefit as well as negligible effect.Similarly, there was no clear evidence of a difference in the rates of perinatal mortality between the group of women who received ambroxol and women in the corticosteroid (betamethasone) group (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.12, six studies, 648 women/657 newborns, moderate quality evidence) or the placebo/no treatment group (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.98, one study, 116 women/116 newborns, low-quality evidence).In terms of maternal adverse effects, there was no clear differences (in nausea or vomiting) between those women who received ambroxol compared to either those women who received corticosteroids (betamethasone) (average RR 3.45; 95% CI 0.34 to 35.51, three studies, 305 women, T(2)= 2.82; I(2)= 67%, very low-quality evidence), or women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 1.79; 95% CI 0.45 to 7.13, one study, 116 women, low-quality evidence). No other adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, gastric irritation and headache) were reported in the included studies. Secondary outcomesFor the review's secondary outcomes, none of the included studies reported on the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, periventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis or rate of maternal mortality.One small trial (involving 88 women) comparing ambroxol with placebo or no treatment, reported no difference between groups in terms of the need for mechanical ventilation in the neonate (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.21, 88 women/88 babies, low-quality evidence) or the administration of pulmonary surfactant (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.30, one RCT, 88 women/88 babies, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review is based on very low to moderate quality evidence from 14 small trials (many are published in the form of conference abstracts with minimal methodological details provided). There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the practice of giving ambroxol to women at risk of preterm birth for preventing neonatal RDS, perinatal mortality and adverse effects. More research is needed in order to fully evaluate the benefits and risks of this intervention.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Ambroxol; Betamethasone; Expectorants; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 25361381
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009708.pub2