Dataset Information

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most people with cystic fibrosis (CF) (80% to 90%) need pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) to prevent malnutrition. Enzyme preparations need to be taken whenever food is taken, and the dose needs to be adjusted according to the food consumed. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of PERT is needed to guide clinical practice, as there is variability between centres with respect to assessment of pancreatic function, time of commencing treatment, dose and choice of supplements. This is an updated version of a published review.

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PERT in children and adults with CF and to compare the efficacy and safety of different formulations of PERT and their appropriateness in different age groups. Also, to compare the effects of PERT in CF according to different diagnostic subgroups (e.g. different ages at introduction of therapy and different categories of pancreatic function).

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Most recent search: 07 November 2019. We also searched an ongoing trials website and the websites of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture pancreatic enzyme replacements for any additional trials. Most recent search: 26 December 2019.

Selection criteria

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with CF and receiving PERT, at any dosage and in any formulation, for a period of not less than four weeks, compared to placebo or other PERT preparations.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently assessed trials and extracted outcome data. They also assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence (GRADE) of the trials included in the review.

Main results

14 trials were included in the review (641 children and adults with CF), two of these were parallel trials and 12 were cross-over trials. Interventions included different enteric and non-enteric-coated preparations of varying formulations in comparison to each other. The number of participants in each trial varied between 14 and 129. 13 trials were for a duration of four weeks and one trial lasted seven weeks. The majority of the trials had an unclear risk of bias from the randomisation process as the details of this were not given; they also had a high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. We mostly could not combine data from the trials as they compared different formulations and the findings from individual trials provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations.

Authors' conclusions

There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over trials is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the trials due to over-inflation of CIs from the individual trials.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with PERT. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed trial that can answer these questions.

SUBMITTER: Somaraju URR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094413 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Progressive lung damage from recurrent exacerbations is the major cause of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. Life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. One of the major reasons for this increase is the mounting use of antibiotics to treat chest exacerbations caused by bacterial infections. The optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy is not clearly defined. Individuals usually receive intravenous antibiotics for 14 days, but treatment may range from 10 to 21 days. A shorter duration of antibiotic treatment risks inadequate clearance of infection which could lead to further lung damage. Prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotics are expensive and inconvenient. The risk of systemic side effects such as allergic reactions to antibiotics also increases with prolonged courses and the use of aminoglycosides requires frequent monitoring to minimise some of their side effects. However, some organisms which infect people with cystic fibrosis are known to be multi-resistant to antibiotics, and may require a longer course of treatment. This is an update of previously published reviews. OBJECTIVES:To assess the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy for treating chest exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, abstract books and conference proceedings. Most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 30 May 2019.We also searched online trials registries. Most recent search of the ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal: 06 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic courses for acute respiratory exacerbations in people with CF, either with the same drugs at the same dosage, the same drugs at a different dosage or frequency or different antibiotics altogether, including studies with additional therapeutic agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:No eligible trials were identified for inclusion. A trial looking at the standardised treatment of pulmonary exacerbations is currently ongoing and will be included when the results are published. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible trials were included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are no clear guidelines on the optimum duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment. Duration of treatment is currently based on unit policies and response to treatment. Shorter duration of treatment should improve quality of life and adherence, result in a reduced incidence of drug reactions and be less costly. However, the shorter duration may not be sufficient to clear a chest infection and may result in an early recurrence of an exacerbation. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic treatment as it has important clinical and financial implications. The currently ongoing STOP2 trial is expected to provide some guidance on these questions when published.

Project description:BackgroundChronic infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex species remains a significant problem for clinicians treating people with cystic fibrosis. Colonisation with Burkholderia cepacia complex species is linked to a more rapid decline in lung function and increases morbidity and mortality. There remain no objective guidelines for strategies to eradicate Burkholderia cepacia complex in cystic fibrosis lung disease, as these are inherently resistant to the majority of antibiotics and there has been very little research in this area. This review aims to examine the current treatment options for people with cystic fibrosis with acute infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex and to identify an evidence-based strategy that is both safe and effective. This is an updated version of the review.ObjectivesTo identify whether treatment of Burkholderia cepacia complex infections can achieve eradication, or if treatment can prevent or delay the onset of chronic infection. To establish whether following eradication, clinical outcomes are improved and if there are any adverse effects.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Last search: 12 March 2019.We also searched electronic clinical trials registers for the USA and Europe.Date of last search: 12 March 2019.Selection criteriaRandomised or quasi-randomised studies in people with cystic fibrosis of antibiotics or alternative therapeutic agents used alone or in combination, using any method of delivery and any treatment duration, to eradicate Burkholderia cepacia complex infections compared to another antibiotic, placebo or no treatment.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed for inclusion in the review the eligibility of 52 studies (79 references) identified by the search of the Group's Trial Register and the other electronic searches.Main resultsNo studies looking at the eradication of Burkholderia cepacia complex species were identified.Authors' conclusionsThe authors have concluded that there was an extreme lack of evidence in this area of treatment management for people with cystic fibrosis. Without further comprehensive studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions about a safe and effective management strategy for Burkholderia cepacia complex eradication in cystic fibrosis. Thus, while the review could not offer clinicians evidence of an effective eradication protocol for Burkholderia cepacia complex, it has highlighted an urgent need for exploration and research in this area, specifically the need for well-designed multi-centre randomised controlled studies of a variety of (novel) antibiotic agents.