-
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Oct 2021Asthma is one of the commonest respiratory illnesses among elderly patients undergoing surgery. Detailed preoperative assessment, pharmacotherapy and safe anaesthetic... (Review)
Review
Asthma is one of the commonest respiratory illnesses among elderly patients undergoing surgery. Detailed preoperative assessment, pharmacotherapy and safe anaesthetic measures throughout perioperative period are the keys to decrease complications. Resistance to expiratory airflow results in positive alveolar pressures at the end of expiration, which causes air-trapping and hyperinflation of the lungs and thorax, increased work of breathing, and alteration of respiratory muscle function. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for systematic review and metanalysis (PRISMA) statement. Search engines like PubMed through HINARI, Cochrane database and Google Scholars were used to find evidences. Low-dose IV ketamine, midazolam, IV lidocaine or combined with salbutamol are recommended to be used as premedication before induction. Propofol, ketamine, halothane, isoflurane and sevoflurane are best induction agents and maintenance for asthmatic surgical patients respectively. Among the muscle relaxants, vecuronium is safe for use in asthmatics. In addition, Succinylcholine and pancronium which releases low levels of histamine has been used safely in asthmatics with little morbidity.
PubMed: 34603720
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102874 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2013In acute asthma inhaled beta(2)-agonists are often administered by nebuliser to relieve bronchospasm, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In acute asthma inhaled beta(2)-agonists are often administered by nebuliser to relieve bronchospasm, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of holding chambers (spacers) compared to nebulisers for the delivery of beta(2)-agonists for acute asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies to identify additional trials. Date of last search: February 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials in adults and children (from two years of age) with asthma, where spacer beta(2)-agonist delivery was compared with wet nebulisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria (one review author for the first version of the review), extracted the data and assessed risks of bias. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes a total of 1897 children and 729 adults in 39 trials. Thirty-three trials were conducted in the emergency room and equivalent community settings, and six trials were on inpatients with acute asthma (207 children and 28 adults). The method of delivery of beta(2)-agonist did not show a significant difference in hospital admission rates. In adults, the risk ratio (RR) of admission for spacer versus nebuliser was 0.94 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.43). The risk ratio for children was 0.71 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.08, moderate quality evidence). In children, length of stay in the emergency department was significantly shorter when the spacer was used. The mean duration in the emergency department for children given nebulised treatment was 103 minutes, and for children given treatment via spacers 33 minutes less (95% CI -43 to -24 minutes, moderate quality evidence). Length of stay in the emergency department for adults was similar for the two delivery methods. Peak flow and forced expiratory volume were also similar for the two delivery methods. Pulse rate was lower for spacer in children, mean difference -5% baseline (95% CI -8% to -2%, moderate quality evidence), as was the risk of developing tremor (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nebuliser delivery produced outcomes that were not significantly better than metered-dose inhalers delivered by spacer in adults or children, in trials where treatments were repeated and titrated to the response of the participant. Spacers may have some advantages compared to nebulisers for children with acute asthma.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Child, Preschool; Emergency Service, Hospital; Equipment Design; Humans; Inhalation Spacers; Length of Stay; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24037768
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000052.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥ 3%) may reduce these pathological changes and decrease airway obstruction. This is an update of a review first published in 2008, and updated in 2010, 2013, and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of nebulised hypertonic (≥ 3%) saline solution in infants with acute bronchiolitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science on 13 January 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using nebulised hypertonic saline alone or in conjunction with bronchodilators as an active intervention and nebulised 0.9% saline or standard treatment as a comparator in children under 24 months with acute bronchiolitis. The primary outcome for inpatient trials was length of hospital stay, and the primary outcome for outpatients or emergency department (ED) trials was rate of hospitalisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We used mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) as effect size metrics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six new trials (N = 1010) in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 34, involving 5205 infants with acute bronchiolitis, of whom 2727 infants received hypertonic saline. Eleven trials await classification due to insufficient data for eligibility assessment. All included trials were randomised, parallel-group, controlled trials, of which 30 were double-blinded. Twelve trials were conducted in Asia, five in North America, one in South America, seven in Europe, and nine in Mediterranean and Middle East regions. The concentration of hypertonic saline was defined as 3% in all but six trials, in which 5% to 7% saline was used. Nine trials had no funding, and five trials were funded by sources from government or academic agencies. The remaining 20 trials did not provide funding sources. Hospitalised infants treated with nebulised hypertonic saline may have a shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those treated with nebulised normal (0.9%) saline or standard care (mean difference (MD) -0.40 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to -0.11; 21 trials, 2479 infants; low-certainty evidence). Infants who received hypertonic saline may also have lower postinhalation clinical scores than infants who received normal saline in the first three days of treatment (day 1: MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.21; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 893 infants; day 2: MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.53; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 907 infants; day 3: MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.34; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 9 inpatient trials), 785 infants; low-certainty evidence). Nebulised hypertonic saline may reduce the risk of hospitalisation by 13% compared with nebulised normal saline amongst infants who were outpatients and those treated in the ED (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; 8 trials, 1760 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertonic saline may not reduce the risk of readmission to hospital up to 28 days after discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; 6 trials, 1084 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether infants who received hypertonic saline have a lower number of days to resolution of wheezing compared to those who received normal saline (MD -1.16 days, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.89; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence), cough (MD -0.87 days, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.44; 3 trials, 363 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and pulmonary moist crackles (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Twenty-seven trials presented safety data: 14 trials (1624 infants; 767 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 735 (96%) co-administered with bronchodilators) did not report any adverse events, and 13 trials (2792 infants; 1479 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 416 (28%) co-administered with bronchodilators and 1063 (72%) hypertonic saline alone) reported at least one adverse event such as worsening cough, agitation, bronchospasm, bradycardia, desaturation, vomiting and diarrhoea, most of which were mild and resolved spontaneously (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nebulised hypertonic saline may modestly reduce length of stay amongst infants hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis and may slightly improve clinical severity score. Treatment with nebulised hypertonic saline may also reduce the risk of hospitalisation amongst outpatients and ED patients. Nebulised hypertonic saline seems to be a safe treatment in infants with bronchiolitis with only minor and spontaneously resolved adverse events, especially when administered in conjunction with a bronchodilator. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes, mainly due to inconsistency and risk of bias.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Cough; Saline Solution; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 37014057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006458.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Beclomethasone; Budesonide; Child; Disease Progression; Drug Combinations; Formoterol Fumarate; Hospitalization; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Prednisolone; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terbutaline
PubMed: 33945639
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013518.pub2 -
Presse Medicale (Paris, France : 1983) 2017Heroin use can be responsible for many respiratory complications including asthma. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heroin use can be responsible for many respiratory complications including asthma.
OBJECTIVES
Systematic literature review of data on asthma in heroin users.
DOCUMENTARY SOURCES
Medline, on the period 1980-2017 with the following keywords: keywords: "asthma" or "bronchospasm" and "heroin" or "opiate" or "opiates", limits "title/abstract"; the selected languages were English or French. Among 97 articles, 67 abstracts have given use to a dual reading to select 23 studies.
RESULTS
The seven case reports included 21 patients (mean age: 28 years [19-46 years]; sex-ratio: 2.5 [males: 71.5%]). Heroin was inhaled (71.4%), sniffed (19%) or injected by intravenous route (9.5%). Associated addictive substances were tobacco (81%), cannabis (38%), alcohol (4.7%) and cocaine (4.7%). Outcome was fatal in 3 subjects (14.3%). Other studies included one cross-sectional study, 3 case-control studies and 12 longitudinal studies (11 retrospective studies and one prospective study). The proportion of heroin users was higher in asthmatic subjects and the prevalence of asthma and bronchial hyperreactivity was higher in heroin users. Heroin use can be responsible for asthma onset, with a temporal relationship between the onset of heroin use and asthma onset in 28 to 31% of subjects. A positive association between inhaled heroin use and acute asthma exacerbation was observed. Asthma treatment observance was lower in heroin users. In case of asthma exacerbation, heroin users were more likely to seek care in the emergency department, to be admitted in intensive care units and to require intubation and invasive ventilation. Asthma deaths related to heroin use mainly occurred following an intravenous injection (especially in the case of overdose), but also following heroin use by nasal (sniff) or pulmonary route.
CONCLUSION
Heroin use may be responsible for asthma onset, acute asthma exacerbations (which may require intubation and invasive ventilation) or deaths related to asthma. Heroin use must be sought in case of asthma exacerbation in young persons and practitioners must help heroin users to stop their consumption.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Asthma; Bronchial Hyperreactivity; Heroin Dependence; Humans
PubMed: 28734637
DOI: 10.1016/j.lpm.2017.06.002 -
European Journal of Clinical... Oct 2022Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range of symptoms. Severe asthma exacerbations (SAEs) are characterized by worsening symptoms and bronchospasm requiring... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range of symptoms. Severe asthma exacerbations (SAEs) are characterized by worsening symptoms and bronchospasm requiring emergency department visits. In addition to conventional strategies for SAEs (inhaled β-agonists, anticholinergics, and systemic corticosteroids), another pharmacological option is represented by ketamine. We performed a systematic review to explore the role of ketamine in refractory SAEs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search on PubMed and EMBASE up to August 12th, 2021. We selected prospective studies only, and outcomes of interest were oxygenation/respiratory parameters, clinical status, need for invasive ventilation and effects on weaning.
RESULTS
We included a total of seven studies, five being randomized controlled trials (RCTs, population range 44-92 patients). The two small prospective studies (n = 10 and n = 11) did not have a control group. Four studies focused on adults, and three enrolled a pediatric population. We found a large heterogeneity regarding sample size, age and gender distribution, inclusion criteria (different severity scores, if any) and ketamine dosing (bolus and/or continuous infusion). Of the five RCTs, three compared ketamine to placebo, while one used fentanyl and the other aminophylline. The outcomes evaluated by the included studies were highly variable. Despite paucity of data and large heterogeneity, an overview of the included studies suggests absence of clear benefit produced by ketamine in patients with refractory SAE, and some signals towards side effects.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review does not support the use of ketamine in refractory SAE. A limited number of prospective studies with large heterogeneity was found. Well-designed multicenter RCTs are desirable.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aminophylline; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Cholinergic Antagonists; Fentanyl; Humans; Ketamine; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 36008492
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-022-03374-3 -
Journal of Critical Care Oct 2023Nebulized colistin (NC) is a potential therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); however, the clinical efficacy and safety of NC remain unclear. This study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Nebulized colistin (NC) is a potential therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); however, the clinical efficacy and safety of NC remain unclear. This study investigated whether NC is an effective therapy for patients with VAP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a search in Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published at any time until February 6, 2023. The primary outcome was clinical response. Secondary outcomes included microbiological eradication, overall mortality, length of mechanical ventilation (MV), length of intensive care unit stay (ICU-LOS), nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and bronchospasm.
RESULTS
Seven observational studies and three RCTs were included. Despite exhibiting a higher microbiological eradication rate (OR,2.21; 95%CI, 1.25-3.92) and the same nephrotoxicity risk (OR,0.86; 95%CI, 0.60-1.23), NC was not significantly different in clinical response (OR,1.39; 95%CI, 0.87-2.20), overall mortality (OR,0.74; 95%CI, 0.50-1.12), MV length (mean difference (MD),-2.5; 95%CI, -5.20-0.19), and the ICU-LOS (MD,-1.91; 95%CI, -6.66-2.84) than by the intravenous antibiotic. Besides, the risk of bronchospasm raised significantly (OR, 5.19; 95%CI, 1.05-25.52) among NC.
CONCLUSION
NC was associated with better microbiological outcomes but did not result in any remarkable changes in the prognosis of patients with VAP.
Topics: Humans; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Colistin; Bronchial Spasm; Respiration, Artificial; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37120926
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154315 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Asthma is the common chronic inflammatory disease affecting children. It is usually associated with airway hyper-responsiveness. Globally, the prevalence of asthma among... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is the common chronic inflammatory disease affecting children. It is usually associated with airway hyper-responsiveness. Globally, the prevalence of asthma among pediatrics population varies from 10% to 30%. Its symptoms range from chronic cough to life-threatening bronchospasm. At emergency department, all patients with acute severe asthma should initially receive oxygen, nebulized β2-agonists, nebulized anticholinergic agent, and corticosteroids. Though bronchodilators act within minutes, corticosteroids may require hours. Magnesium sulphate (MgSO) was first considered for treating asthma about 60 years ago. Several case reports were published on its usefulness in decreasing admission and endotracheal intubation. So far, evidence is conflicting to fully employ MgSO for asthma management in children under five.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MgSO in the treatment of severe acute asthmatic attacks in children.
METHODS
A systematic and comprehensive search of literature was performed to identify controlled clinical trials conducted on IV and nebulized MgSO in pediatric patients with acute asthma.
RESULTS
Data generated from three randomized clinical trials were included in the final analysis. In this analysis, intravenous MgSO did not improve respiratory function (RR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.81-1.45) and not safer than conventional treatment (RR=0.38, 95%CI: 0.08-1.67). Similarly, use of nebulized MgSO showed no significant effect on respiratory function (RR=1.05, 95%CI: 0.68-1.64) and more tolerable (RR=0.31, 95%CI: 0.14-0.68).
CONCLUSION
Intravenous MgSO may not be superior to conventional treatment in moderate to severe acute asthma among children and neither have significant adverse effects. Similarly, nebulized MgSO showed no significant effect on respiratory function in moderate to severe acute asthma in children under five but it seems a safer alternative.
PubMed: 36895494
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S390389 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 2017To determine if beta-(β)-blockers improve outcomes after acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine if beta-(β)-blockers improve outcomes after acute traumatic brain injury (TBI).
BACKGROUND
There have been no new inpatient pharmacologic therapies to improve TBI outcomes in a half-century. Treatment of TBI patients with β-blockers offers a potentially beneficial approach.
METHODS
Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, eligible articles for our systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42016048547) included adult (age ≥ 16 years) blunt trauma patients admitted with TBI. The exposure of interest was β-blocker administration initiated during the hospitalization. Outcomes were mortality, functional measures, quality of life, cardiopulmonary morbidity (e.g., hypotension, bradycardia, bronchospasm, and/or congestive heart failure). Data were analyzed using a random-effects model, and represented by pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and statistical heterogeneity (I).
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 9 included studies encompassing 2005 unique TBI patients with β-blocker treatment and 6240 unique controls. Exposure to β-blockers after TBI was associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (pooled OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27-0.56; I = 65%, P < 0.00001). None of the included studies examined functional outcome or quality of life measures, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were rarely reported. No clear evidence of reporting bias was identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In adults with acute TBI, observational studies reveal a significant mortality advantage with β-blockers; however, quality of evidence is very low. We conditionally recommend the use of in-hospital β-blockers. However, we recommend further high-quality trials to answer questions about the mechanisms of action, effectiveness on subgroups, dose-response, length of therapy, functional outcome, and quality of life after β-blocker use for TBI.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Brain Injuries; Bronchial Spasm; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28525411
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002286 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several agents are used to clear secretions from the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Mannitol increases mucociliary clearance, but its exact mechanism of action is unknown. The dry powder formulation of mannitol may be more convenient and easier to use compared with established agents which require delivery via a nebuliser. Phase III trials of inhaled dry powder mannitol for the treatment of cystic fibrosis have been completed and it is now available in Australia and some countries in Europe. This is an update of a previous review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether inhaled dry powder mannitol is well tolerated, whether it improves the quality of life and respiratory function in people with cystic fibrosis and which adverse events are associated with the treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic databases, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences.Date of last search: 28 September 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled studies comparing mannitol with placebo, active inhaled comparators (for example, hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, carried out data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies (reported in 50 publications) were included with a total of 784 participants.Duration of treatment in the included studies ranged from 12 days to six months, with open-label treatment for an additional six months in two of the studies. Five studies compared mannitol with control (a very low dose of mannitol or non-respirable mannitol) and the final study compared mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa. Two large studies had a similar parallel design and provided data for 600 participants, which could be pooled where data for a particular outcome and time point were available. The remaining studies had much smaller sample sizes (ranging from 22 to 95) and data could not be pooled due to differences in design, interventions and population.Pooled evidence from the two large parallel studies was judged to be of low to moderate quality and from the smaller studies was judged to be of low to very low quality. In all studies, there was an initial test to see if participants tolerated mannitol, with only those who could tolerate the drug being randomised; therefore, the study results are not applicable to the cystic fibrosis population as a whole.While the published papers did not provide all the data required for our analysis, additional unpublished data were provided by the drug's manufacturer and the author of one of the studies.Pooling the large parallel studies comparing mannitol to control, up to and including six months, lung function (forced expiratory volume at one second) measured in both mL and % predicted was significantly improved in the mannitol group compared to the control group (moderate-quality evidence). Beneficial results were observed in these studies in adults and in both concomitant dornase alfa users and non-users in these studies. In the smaller studies, statistically significant improvements in lung function were also observed in the mannitol groups compared to the non-respirable mannitol groups; however, we judged this evidence to be of low to very low quality.For the comparisons of mannitol and control, we found no consistent differences in health-related quality of life in any of the domains except for burden of treatment, which was less for mannitol up to four months in the two pooled studies of a similar design; this difference was not maintained at six months. It should be noted that the tool used to measure health-related quality of life was not designed to assess mucolytics and pooling of the age-appropriate tools (as done in some of the included studies) may not be valid so results were judged to be low to very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. Cough, haemoptysis, bronchospasm, pharyngolaryngeal pain and post-tussive vomiting were the most commonly reported side effects in both treatment groups. Where rates of adverse events could be compared, statistically no significant differences were found between mannitol and control groups; although some of these events may have clinical relevance for people with CF.For the comparisons of mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa, very low-quality evidence from a 12-week cross-over study of 28 participants showed no statistically significant differences in the recorded domains of health-related quality of life or measures of lung function. Cough was the most common side effect in the mannitol alone arm but there was no occurrence of cough in the dornase alfa alone arm and the most commonly reported reason of withdrawal from the mannitol plus dornase alfa arm was pulmonary exacerbations.In terms of secondary outcomes of the review (pulmonary exacerbations, hospitalisations, symptoms, sputum microbiology), evidence provided by the included studies was more limited. For all comparisons, no consistent statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences were observed between mannitol and control treatments (including dornase alfa).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence to show that treatment with mannitol over a six-month period is associated with an improvement in some measures of lung function in people with cystic fibrosis compared to control. There is low to very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in quality of life for participants taking mannitol compared to control. This review provides very low-quality evidence suggesting no difference in lung function or quality of life comparing mannitol to dornase alfa alone and to mannitol plus dornase alfa.The clinical implications from this review suggest that mannitol could be considered as a treatment in cystic fibrosis; but further research is required in order to establish who may benefit most and whether this benefit is sustained in the longer term. Furthermore, studies comparing its efficacy against other (established) mucolytic therapies need to be undertaken before it can be considered for mainstream practice.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Deoxyribonuclease I; Humans; Mannitol; Mucociliary Clearance; Powders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Respiratory Function Tests
PubMed: 29424930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub3