Network Meta-Analysis Comparing the Efficacy of Therapeutic Treatments for Bronchiolitis in Children

Effects of nebulized epinephrine in association with hypertonic saline for infants with acute bronchiolitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background

Nebulized epinephrine and hypertonic saline have been extensively studied in infants with acute bronchiolitis, with conflicting results.

Aims

To evaluate the efficacy on length of stay (LOS), clinical severity scores (CSS), oxygen saturation (SaO₂), and safety profile of nebulized epinephrine plus hypertonic saline (HS) in infants with acute bronchiolitis.

Materials & Methods

This is a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Outcomes were represented by mean differences (MD) or standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized.

Results

Eighteen trials were systematically selected and 16 of them contributed to the meta‐analysis (1756 patients). Overall, a modest but significant positive impact was observed of the combination therapy on LOS (MD of –0.35 days, 95% CI −0.62 to −0.08, p = 0.01, I² = 91%). Stratification by time of CSS assessment unveiled positive results in favor of the combination therapy in CSS assessed 48 and 72 h after the admission (SMD of −0.35, 95% CI −0.62 to −0.09, p = 0.008, I² = 41% and SMD of −0.27, 95% CI −0.50 to −0.04, p = 0.02, I² = 0%, respectively). No difference in SaO₂ was observed. Additional data showed a consistent safety profile, with a low rate of adverse events (1%), most of them mild and transient.

Conclusion

Low‐quality evidence from this systematic review suggests that nebulized epinephrine plus HS may be considered as a safe and efficient therapy for decreasing LOS and CSS in infants with acute bronchiolitis, especially in those who require hospitalization for more than 48 h.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute bronchiolitis in children

BACKGROUND

Acute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children up to three years of age. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 and updated in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of CENTRAL (2021, Issue 7), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to August 2021), Embase (1974 to August 2021), CINAHL (1981 to August 2021), and LILACS (1982 to August 2021) in August 2021. We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for completed and ongoing trials on 26 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies. We created a summary of the findings table employing GRADEpro GDT software.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months investigating nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or 'standard') therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) in the 2019 update that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and the need for mechanical ventilation for this update. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in the current update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs, and one study was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was of low certainty; we made an assessment of high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide. The effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to risk of bias and imprecision around the effect estimate (risk difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.08; 3 RCTs, 122 children; low certainty evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low certainty evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (decreased respiratory rate is better) (mean difference (MD) -3.81, 95% CI -5.78 to -1.84; 2 RCTs, 91 children; low certainty evidence). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation (increased oxygen saturation is better), and the results were imprecise (MD -1.70%, 95% CI -3.76 to 0.36; 1 RCT, 19 children; low certainty evidence). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) (decrease in pCO₂ is better) was imprecise (MD -2.62 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.05; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both the CPAP and supportive care groups (MD 0.07 days, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.50; 2 RCTs, 50 children; low certainty evidence). Two studies did not report pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from the emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of CPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in children with bronchiolitis, although the evidence was of low certainty. Limited, low certainty evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review and 2019 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for our other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute bronchiolitis in children

BACKGROUND

Acute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of CENTRAL (2017, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to December, 2017), Embase (1974 to December 2017), CINAHL (1981 to December 2017), and LILACS (1982 to December 2017) in January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months that investigated nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or "standard") therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and need for mechanical ventilation for this update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and one was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was low quality; we assessed high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide.The effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to imprecision around the effect estimate (3 RCTs, 122 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 3.36; low-quality evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low-quality evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (2 RCTs, 91 children; mean difference (MD) -3.81, 95% CI -5.78 to -1.84). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation, and the results were imprecise (19 children; MD -1.70%, 95% CI -3.76 to 0.36). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) was imprecise (2 RCTs, 50 children; MD -2.62 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.05; low-quality evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both CPAP and supportive care groups (2 RCTs, 50 children; MD 0.07 days, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.50; low-quality evidence). Two studies did not report about pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited, low-quality evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review. Further evidence for this outcome was provided by the inclusion of a low-quality study for the 2018 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.

Network meta-analysis: users' guide for pediatricians

Background

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a powerful analytic tool that allows simultaneous comparison between several management/treatment alternatives even when direct comparisons of the alternatives (such as the case in which treatments are compared against placebo and have not been compared against each other) are unavailable. Though there are still a limited number of pediatric NMAs published, the rapid increase in NMAs in other areas suggests pediatricians will soon be frequently facing this new form of evidence summary.

Discussion

Evaluating the NMA evidence requires serial judgments on the creditability of the process of NMA conduct, and evidence quality assessment. First clinicians need to evaluate the basic standards applicable to any meta-analysis (e.g. comprehensive search, duplicate assessment of eligibility, risk of bias, and data abstraction). Then evaluate specific issues related to NMA including precision, transitivity, coherence, and rankings.

Conclusions

In this article we discuss how clinicians can evaluate the credibility of NMA methods, and how they can make judgments regarding the quality (certainty) of the evidence. We illustrate the concepts using recent pediatric NMA publications.