Dataset Information

Azithromycin as an add-on treatment for persistent uncontrolled asthma in adults: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Clinical management of asthma remains a public challenge. Despite standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), asthma remains uncontrolled in a substantial number of chronic asthma patients who risk reduced lung function and severe exacerbations. Azithromycin could have add-on effects for these patients. This study is proposed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of azithromycin as an add-on treatment for adults with persistent uncontrolled symptomatic asthma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Two reviewers will perform a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and four Chinese electronic databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), WanFang Data and VIP Database from inception to May 2019. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. There is no restriction on language or publication status. Combined oral azithromycin and an ICS or/and a LABA will be compared with standard treatment alone or with a placebo. The primary outcomes are the number or frequency of asthma exacerbations, changes in asthma symptoms and lung function. Secondary outcomes include the number or frequency of inhalations of beta-agonists with or without corticosteroids for rescue use, eosinophil counts in blood or sputum, adverse events and others. A meta-analysis will be attempted to provide an estimate of the pooled treatment effect. Otherwise, qualitative descriptions of individual studies will be given. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required because no primary data will be collected. Study findings will be presented at scientific conferences or published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019117272.

SUBMITTER: Liu W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6955491 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Azithromycin as an add-on treatment for persistent uncontrolled asthma in adults: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Wei W Mu Wei W Zhang Huiting H Zhai Jingbo J Li Xiaodan X Guan Peng P Lian Fu F Feng Jihong J Yu Shuangjiang S Wang Xuepin X Si Jinhua J Sun Zengtao Z Huang Yuhong Y

BMJ open 20200102 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Clinical management of asthma remains a public challenge. Despite standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), asthma remains uncontrolled in a substantial number of chronic asthma patients who risk reduced lung function and severe exacerbations. Azithromycin could have add-on effects for these patients. This study is proposed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of azithromycin as an add-on treatment for adults with persist ...[more]

PMID: 31900271

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a potential adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of persistent asthma. Objective:To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects associated with LAMA vs placebo or vs other controllers as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and the use of a LAMA as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs; hereafter referred to as triple therapy) vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma. Data Sources:MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries (earliest date through November 28, 2017). Study Selection:Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating a LAMA vs placebo or vs another controller as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids or triple therapy vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma reporting on an outcome of interest. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Meta-analyses using a random-effects model was conducted to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength-of-evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures:Asthma exacerbations. Results:Of 1326 records identified, 15 randomized clinical trials (N = 7122 patients) were included. Most trials assessed adding LAMA vs placebo or LAMA vs LABA to inhaled corticosteroids. Adding LAMA vs placebo to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a significantly reduced risk of exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92]; RD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.00]). Compared with adding LABA, adding LAMA to inhaled corticosteroids was not associated with significant improvements in exacerbation risk (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.42]; RD, 0.00 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02]), or any other outcomes of interest. Triple therapy was not significantly associated with improved exacerbation risk vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.22]; RD, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.08 to 0.07]). Conclusions and Relevance:In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of LAMA compared with placebo as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations; however, the association of LAMA with benefit may not be greater than that with LABA. Triple therapy was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations.

Project description:ImportancePersistent (>4 weeks) postconcussion symptoms (PPCS) are challenging for both patients and clinicians. There is uncertainty about the effect of commonly applied nonpharmacological treatments for the management of PPCS.ObjectiveTo systematically assess and summarize evidence for outcomes related to 7 nonpharmacological interventions for PPCS in adults (aged >18 years) and provide recommendations for clinical practice.Data sourcesSystematic literature searches were performed via Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PEDro, OTseeker, and Cochrane Reviews (via MEDLINE and Embase) from earliest possible publication year to March 3, 2020. The literature was searched for prior systematic reviews and primary studies. To be included, studies had to be intervention studies with a control group and focus on PPCS.Study selectionA multidisciplinary guideline panel selected interventions based on frequency of use and need for decision support among clinicians, including early information and advice, graded physical exercise, vestibular rehabilitation, manual treatment of neck and back, oculomotor vision treatment, psychological treatment, and interdisciplinary coordinated rehabilitative treatment. To be included, studies had to be intervention studies within the areas of the predefined clinical questions, include a control group, and focus on symptoms after concussion or mild traumatic brain injury.Data extraction and synthesisExtraction was performed independently by multiple observers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for data abstraction and data quality assessment. Included studies were assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (randomized clinical trials) tool. Meta-analysis was performed for all interventions where possible. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled estimates of effects. The level and certainty of evidence was rated and recommendations formulated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.Main outcomes and measuresAll outcomes were planned before data collection began according to a specified protocol. The primary outcomes were the collective burden of PPCS and another outcome reflecting the focus of a particular intervention (eg, physical functioning after graded exercise intervention).ResultsEleven systematic reviews were identified but did not contribute any primary studies; 19 randomized clinical trials comprising 2007 participants (1064 women [53.0%]) were separately identified and included. Evidence for the 7 interventions ranged from no evidence meeting the inclusion criteria to very low and low levels of evidence. Recommendations were weak for early information and advice, graded physical exercise, vestibular rehabilitation, manual treatment of the neck and back, psychological treatment, and interdisciplinary coordinated rehabilitative treatment. No relevant evidence was identified for oculomotor vision treatment, so the panel provided a good clinical practice recommendation based on consensus.Conclusions and relevanceBased on very low to low certainty of evidence or based on consensus, the guideline panel found weak scientific support for commonly applied nonpharmacological interventions to treat PPCS. Results align with recommendations in international guidelines. Intensified research into all types of intervention for PPCS is needed.

Dataset Information

Azithromycin as an add-on treatment for persistent uncontrolled asthma in adults: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Azithromycin as an add-on treatment for persistent uncontrolled asthma in adults: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets