Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.

Adverse drug reactions associated with amitriptyline - protocol for a systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-the-counter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals.

METHODS

A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using meta-regression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment.

DISCUSSION

We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Submitted to PROSPERO; assignment is in progress.

Estimating the magnitude of cancer overdiagnosis in Australia

Objectives

To estimate the proportion of cancer diagnoses in Australia that might reasonably be attributed to overdiagnosis by comparing current and past lifetime risks of cancer.

Design, setting, and participants

Routinely collected Australian Institute of Health and Welfare national data were analysed to estimate recent (2012) and historical (1982) lifetime risks (adjusted for competing risk of death and changes in risk factors) of diagnoses with five cancers: prostate, breast, renal, thyroid cancers, and melanoma.

Main outcome measure

Difference in lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis between 1982 and 2012, interpreted as probable overdiagnosis.

Results

For women, absolute lifetime risk increased by 3.4 percentage points for breast cancer (invasive cancers, 1.7 percentage points), 0.6 percentage point for renal cancer, 1.0 percentage point for thyroid cancer, and 5.1 percentage points for melanoma (invasive melanoma, 0.7 percentage point). An estimated 22% of breast cancers (invasive cancers, 13%), 58% of renal cancers, 73% of thyroid cancers, and 54% of melanomas (invasive melanoma, 15%) were overdiagnosed, or 18% of all cancer diagnoses (8% of invasive cancer diagnoses). For men, absolute lifetime risk increased by 8.2 percentage points for prostate cancer, 0.8 percentage point for renal cancer, 0.4 percentage point for thyroid cancer, and 8.0 percentage points for melanoma (invasive melanoma, 1.5 percentage points). An estimated 42% of prostate cancers, 42% of renal cancers, 73% of thyroid cancers, and 58% of melanomas (invasive melanomas, 22%) were overdiagnosed, or 24% of all cancer diagnoses (16% of invasive cancer diagnoses). Alternative assumptions slightly modified the estimates for overdiagnosis of breast cancer and melanoma.

Conclusions

About 11 000 cancers in women and 18 000 in men may be overdiagnosed each year. Rates of overdiagnosis need to be reduced and health services should monitor emerging areas of overdiagnosis.

Is the risk of cancer in Australia overstated? The importance of competing mortality for estimating lifetime risk

OBJECTIVES

To calculate lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis and cancer-specific death, adjusted for competing mortality, and to compare these estimates with the corresponding risks published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

DESIGN, SETTING

Analysis of publicly available annual AIHW data on age-specific cancer incidence and mortality - for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma of the skin, and lung cancer - and all-cause mortality in Australia, 1982-2013.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis and mortality (to age 85), adjusted for competing mortality.

RESULTS

During 1982-2013, AIHW estimates were consistently higher than our competing mortality-adjusted estimates of lifetime risks of diagnosis and death for all five cancers. Differences between AIHW and adjusted estimates declined with time for breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer (for men only), but remained steady for lung cancer (women only) and melanoma of the skin. In 2013, the respective estimated lifetime risks of diagnosis (AIHW and adjusted) were 12.7% and 12.1% for breast cancer, 18.7% and 16.2% for prostate cancer, 9.0% and 7.0% (men) and 6.4% and 5.5% (women) for colorectal cancer, 7.5% and 6.0% (men) and 4.4% and 4.0% (women) for melanoma of the skin, and 7.6% and 5.8% (men) and 4.5% and 3.9% (women) for lung cancer.

CONCLUSION

The method employed in Australia to calculate the lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis and mortality overestimates these risks, especially for men.

D-Dimer Predicts Long-Term Cause-Specific Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, and Cancer in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease: LIPID Study

BACKGROUND

D-dimer, a degradation product of cross-linked fibrin, is a marker for hypercoagulability and thrombotic events. Moderately elevated levels of D-dimer are associated with the risk of venous and arterial events in patients with vascular disease. We assessed the role of D-dimer levels in predicting long-term vascular outcomes, cause-specific mortality, and new cancers in the LIPID trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) in the context of other risk factors.

METHODS

LIPID randomized patients to placebo or pravastatin 40 mg/d 5 to 38 months after myocardial infarction or unstable angina. D-dimer levels were measured at baseline and at 1 year. Median follow-up was 6.0 years during the trial and 16 years in total.

RESULTS

Baseline D-dimer levels for 7863 patients were grouped by quartile (≤112, 112-173, 173-273, >273 ng/mL). Higher levels were associated with older age, female sex, history of hypertension, poor renal function, and elevated levels of B-natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and sensitive troponin I (each P<0.001). During the first 6 years, after adjustment for up to 30 additional risk factors, higher D-dimer was associated with a significantly increased risk of a major coronary event (quartile 4 versus 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.74), major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event (HR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.71) and venous thromboembolism (HR, 4.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-7.03; each P<0.001). During the 16 years overall, higher D-dimer was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.59), CVD mortality (HR, 1.61), cancer mortality (HR, 1.54), and non-CVD noncancer mortality (HR, 1.57; each P<0.001), remaining significant for deaths resulting from each cause occurring beyond 10 years of follow-up (each P≤0.01). Higher D-dimer also independently predicted an increase in cancer incidence (HR, 1.16; P=0.02).The D-dimer level increased the net reclassification index for all-cause mortality by 4.0 and venous thromboembolism by 13.6.

CONCLUSIONS

D-dimer levels predict long-term risk of arterial and venous events, CVD mortality, and non-CVD noncancer mortality independent of other risk factors. D-dimer is also a significant predictor of cancer incidence and mortality. These results support an association of D-dimer with fatal events across multiple diseases and demonstrate that this link extends beyond 10 years' follow-up.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Sustaining knowledge translation interventions for chronic disease management in older adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective.

METHODS

For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

DISCUSSION

Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Reducing antibiotic prescribing in Australian general practice: time for a national strategy

In Australia, the antibiotic resistance crisis may be partly alleviated by reducing antibiotic use in general practice, which has relatively high prescribing rates - antibiotics are mostly prescribed for acute respiratory infections, for which they provide only minor benefits. Current surveillance is inadequate for monitoring community antibiotic resistance rates, prescribing rates by indication, and serious complications of acute respiratory infections (which antibiotic use earlier in the infection may have averted), making target setting difficult. Categories of interventions that may support general practitioners to reduce prescribing antibiotics are: regulatory (eg, changing the default to "no repeats" in electronic prescribing, changing the packaging of antibiotics to facilitate tailored amounts of antibiotics for the right indication and restricting access to prescribing selected antibiotics to conserve them), externally administered (eg, academic detailing and audit and feedback on total antibiotic use for individual GPs), interventions that GPs can individually implement (eg, delayed prescribing, shared decision making, public declarations in the practice about conserving antibiotics, and self-administered audit), supporting GPs' access to near-patient diagnostic testing, and public awareness campaigns. Many unanswered clinical research questions remain, including research into optimal implementation methods. Reducing antibiotic use in Australian general practice will require a range of approaches (with various intervention categories), a sustained effort over many years and a commitment of appropriate resources and support.

Antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in general practice: comparison of prescribing rates with guideline recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To compare the current rate of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in Australian general practice with the recommendations in the most widely consulted therapeutic guidelines in Australia (Therapeutic Guidelines).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Comparison of general practice activity data for April 2010 - March 2015 (derived from Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health [BEACH] study) with estimated rates of prescribing recommended by Therapeutic Guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Antibiotic prescribing rates and estimated guideline-recommended rates per 100 encounters and per full-time equivalent (FTE) GP per year for eight ARIs; number of prescriptions nationally per year.

RESULTS

An estimated mean 5.97 million (95% CI, 5.69-6.24 million) ARI cases per year were managed in Australian general practice with at least one antibiotic, equivalent to an estimated 230 cases per FTE GP/year (95% CI, 219-240 cases/FTE/year). Antibiotics are not recommended by the guidelines for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis (current prescribing rate, 85%) or influenza (11%); they are always recommended for community-acquired pneumonia (current prescribing rate, 72%) and pertussis (71%); and they are recommended for 0.5-8% of cases of acute rhinosinusitis (current prescribing rate, 41%), 20-31% of cases of acute otitis media (89%), and 19-40% cases of acute pharyngitis or tonsillitis (94%). Had GPs adhered to the guidelines, they would have prescribed antibiotics for 0.65-1.36 million ARIs per year nationally, or at 11-23% of the current prescribing rate. Antibiotics were prescribed more frequently than recommended for acute rhinosinusitis, acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis, acute otitis media, and acute pharyngitis/tonsillitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics are prescribed for ARIs at rates 4-9 times as high as those recommended by Therapeutic Guidelines. Our data provide the basis for setting absolute targets for reducing antibiotic prescribing in Australian general practice.

Systematic review of the effects of care provided with and without diagnostic clinical prediction rules

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are worthwhile if they improve patient outcomes or provide benefits such as reduced resource use, without harming patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effects of diagnostic CPRs on patient and process of care outcomes.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and a trial registry and performed citation and reference checks, for randomised trials comparing a diagnostic strategy with and without a CPR. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and similar studies meta-analysed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies evaluating diagnostic CPRs for 14 conditions were included. A clinical management decision was the primary outcome in the majority of studies. Most studies were judged to be at high or uncertain risk of bias on ≥3 of 6 domains. Details of study interventions and implementation were infrequently reported.For suspected Group A Streptococcus throat infection, diagnostic CPRs reduced symptoms (1 study) and antibiotic prescriptions (5 studies, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). For suspected cardiac chest pain, diagnostic strategies incorporating a CPR improved early discharge rates (1 study), decreased objective cardiac testing (1 study) and decreased hospitalisations (1 study). For ankle injuries, Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced radiography when used with clinical examination (1 study) but had no effect on length of stay as a triage test (1 study). For suspected acute appendicitis, CPRs had no effect on rates of perforated appendix (1 study) or the number of non-therapeutic operations (5 studies, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.08). For suspected pneumonia, CPRs reduced antibiotic prescribing without unfavourable outcomes (3 studies). For children with possible serious bacterial infection, diagnostic CPRs did not improve process of care outcomes (3 studies).

CONCLUSION

There are few randomised trials of diagnostic CPRs, and patient outcomes are infrequently reported. Diagnostic CPRs had a positive effect on process outcomes in some clinical conditions; however, many studies were at unclear or high risk of bias and the results may be context specific. Future studies should seek to detail how the CPR might alter the diagnostic pathway, report effects on both patient and process outcomes, and improve reporting of the study interventions and implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this review was not registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic review protocols. The review was conceived and protocol prepared prior to the launch of PROSPERO in February 2011.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are frequently managed in primary care settings. Although many are viral, and there is an increasing problem with antibiotic resistance, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for URTIs. Written patient information may be a simple way to reduce antibiotic use for acute URTIs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if written information for patients (or parents of child patients) reduces the use of antibiotics for acute URTIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials registry up to July 2016 without language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients (or parents of child patients) with acute URTIs, that compared written patient information delivered immediately before or during prescribing, with no information. RCTs needed to have measured our primary outcome (antibiotic use) to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We could not meta-analyse included studies due to significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity; we summarised the data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 827 participants. Both studies only recruited children with acute URTIs (adults were not involved in either study): 558 children from 61 general practices in England and Wales; and 269 primary care doctors who provided data on 33,792 patient-doctor consultations in Kentucky, USA. The UK study had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and the US cluster-randomised study had a high risk of bias because the methods to allocate participants to treatment groups was not clear, and there was evidence of baseline imbalance.In both studies, clinicians provided written information to parents of child patients during primary care consultations: one trained general practitioners (GPs) to discuss an eight-page booklet with parents; the other conducted a factorial trial with two comparison groups (written information compared to usual care and written information plus prescribing feedback to clinicians compared to prescribing feedback alone). Doctors in the written information arms received 25 copies of two-page government-sponsored pamphlets to distribute to parents.Compared to usual care, we found moderate quality evidence (one study) that written information significantly reduced the number of antibiotics used by patients (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.80; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 20% (22% versus 42%)) and had no significant effect on reconsultation rates (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.32), or parent satisfaction with consultation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). Low quality evidence (two studies) demonstrated that written information also reduced antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; ARR 21% (20% versus 41%); and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86; 9% ARR (45% versus 54%)). Neither study measured resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or complications for this comparison.Compared to prescribing feedback, we found low quality evidence that written information plus prescribing feedback significantly increased the number of antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; absolute risk increase 6% (50% versus 44%)). Neither study measured reconsultation rate, resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, patient satisfaction with consultation or complications for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, moderate quality evidence from one study showed that trained GPs providing written information to parents of children with acute URTIs in primary care can reduce the number of antibiotics used by patients without any negative impact on reconsultation rates or parental satisfaction with consultation. Low quality evidence from two studies shows that, compared to usual care, GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics for acute URTIs but prescribe more antibiotics when written information is provided alongside prescribing feedback (compared to prescribing feedback alone). There was no evidence addressing resolution of patients' symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or frequency of complications.To fill evidence gaps, future studies should consider testing written information on antibiotic use for adults with acute URTIs in high- and low-income settings provided without clinician training and presented in different formats (such as electronic). Future study designs should endeavour to ensure blinded outcome assessors. Study aims should include measurement of the effect of written information on the number of antibiotics used by patients and prescribed by clinicians, patient satisfaction, reconsultation, patients' knowledge about antibiotics, resolution of symptoms, and complications.