Azithromycin for Indigenous children with bronchiectasis: study protocol for a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

Long-term Azithromycin in Children With Bronchiectasis Unrelated to Cystic Fibrosis: Treatment Effects Over Time

BACKGROUND

Following evidence from randomized controlled trials, patients with bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis receive long-term azithromycin to reduce acute respiratory exacerbations. However, the period when azithromycin is effective and which patients are likely to most benefit remain unknown.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(i) What is the period after its commencement when azithromycin is most effective? and (ii) Which factors may modify azithromycin effects?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A secondary analysis was conducted of our previous randomized controlled trial involving 89 indigenous children with bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis. Semi-parametric Poisson regression identified the azithromycin efficacy period. Multivariable Poisson regression identified factors that modify azithromycin effect.

RESULTS

Azithromycin was associated with fewer exacerbations per child-week during weeks 4 through 96, with the most effective period observed between weeks 17 and 62. Eleven factors were associated with different azithromycin effects; four were significant at the P < .05 level. Compared with their counterparts, higher reduction in exacerbations was observed in children with nasopharyngeal carriage of bacterial pathogens (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.57-1.14] vs 0.29 [0.20-0.44]; P < .001); New Zealand children (IRR = 0.73 [0.51-1.03] vs 0.39 [0.28-0.55]; P = .012); and those with higher weight-for-height z scores (interaction IRR = 0.82 [0.67-0.99]; P = .044). Compared with their counterparts, lower reduction was observed in those born preterm (IRR = 0.41 [0.30-0.55] vs 0.74 [0.49-1.10]; P = .012).

INTERPRETATION

Regular azithromycin is best used for at least 17 weeks and up to 62 weeks, as these periods provide maximum benefit for indigenous children with bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis. Several factors modified azithromycin benefits; however, these traits need confirmation in larger studies before being adopted into clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12610000383066.

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.

Head-to-head trials of antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of bronchiectasis is defined by abnormal dilation of the airways related to a pathological mechanism of progressive airway destruction that is due to a 'vicious cycle' of recurrent bacterial infection, inflammatory mediator release, airway damage, and subsequent further infection. Antibiotics are the main treatment option for reducing bacterial burden in people with exacerbations of bronchiectasis and for longer-term eradication, but their use is tempered against potential adverse effects and concerns regarding antibiotic resistance. The comparative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of different antibiotics have been highlighted as important issues, but currently little evidence is available to help resolve uncertainty on these questions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative effects of different antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials and online trials registries, run 30 April 2018. We augmented these with searches of the reference lists of published studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data. We included adults and children (younger than 18 years) with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis by bronchography or high-resolution computed tomography who reported daily signs and symptoms, such as cough, sputum production, or haemoptysis, and those with recurrent episodes of chest infection; we included studies that compared one antibiotic versus another when they were administered by the same delivery method.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial selection, data extraction, and risk of bias. We assessed overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We made efforts to collect missing data from trial authors. We have presented results with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs).

MAIN RESULTS

Four randomised trials were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review - two studies with 83 adults comparing fluoroquinolones with β-lactams and two studies with 55 adults comparing aminoglycosides with polymyxins.None of the included studies reported information on exacerbations - one of our primary outcomes. Included studies reported no serious adverse events - another of our primary outcomes - and no deaths. We graded this evidence as low or very low quality. Included studies did not report quality of life. Comparison between fluoroquinolones and β-lactams (amoxicillin) showed fewer treatment failures in the fluoroquinolone group than in the amoxicillin group (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.32; low-quality evidence) after 7 to 10 days of therapy. Researchers reported that Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection was eradicated in more participants treated with fluoroquinolones (Peto OR 20.09, 95% CI 2.83 to 142.59; low-quality evidence) but provided no evidence of differences in the numbers of participants showing improvement in sputum purulence (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.96 to 5.72; very low-quality evidence). Study authors presented no evidence of benefit in relation to forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). The two studies that compared polymyxins versus aminoglycosides described no clear differences between groups in the proportion of participants with P aeruginosa eradication (OR 1.40. 95% CI 0.36 to 5.35; very low-quality evidence) or improvement in sputum purulence (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.85; very low-quality evidence). The evidence for changes in FEV₁ was inconclusive. Two of three trials reported adverse events but did not report the proportion of participants experiencing one or more adverse events, so we were unable to interpret the information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited low-quality evidence favours short-term oral fluoroquinolones over beta-lactam antibiotics for patients hospitalised with exacerbations. Very low-quality evidence suggests no benefit from inhaled aminoglycosides verus polymyxins. RCTs have presented no evidence comparing other modes of delivery for each of these comparisons, and no RCTs have included children. Overall, current evidence from a limited number of head-to-head trials in adults or children with bronchiectasis is insufficient to guide the selection of antibiotics for short-term or long-term therapy. More research on this topic is needed.

Dual antibiotics for bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal and irreversible dilatation of the smaller airways and associated with a mortality rate greater than twice that of the general population. Antibiotics serve as front-line therapy for managing bacterial load, but their use is weighed against the development of antibiotic resistance. Dual antibiotic therapy has the potential to suppress infection from multiple strains of bacteria, leading to more successful treatment of exacerbations, reduced symptoms, and improved quality of life. Further evidence is required on the efficacy of dual antibiotics in terms of management of exacerbations and extent of antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dual antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and PsycINFO, as well as studies obtained by handsearching of journals/abstracts. We also searched the following trial registries: US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We imposed no restriction on language of publication. We conducted our search in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing dual antibiotics versus a single antibiotic for short-term (< 4 weeks) or long-term management of bronchiectasis diagnosed in adults and/or children by bronchography, plain film chest radiography, or high-resolution computed tomography. Primary outcomes included exacerbations, length of hospitalisation, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were response rates, emergence of resistance to antibiotics, systemic markers of infection, sputum volume and purulence, measures of lung function, adverse events/effects, deaths, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. We did not apply outcome measures as selection criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of 287 records, along with the full text of seven reports. Two studies met review inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently extracted outcome data and assessed risk of bias. We extracted data from only one study and conducted GRADE assessments for the following outcomes: successful treatment of exacerbation; response rates; and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomised trials assessed the effectiveness of oral plus inhaled dual therapy versus oral monotherapy in a total of 118 adults with a mean age of 62.8 years. One multi-centre trial compared inhaled tobramycin plus oral ciprofloxacin versus ciprofloxacin alone, and one single-centre trial compared nebulised gentamicin plus systemic antibiotics versus a systemic antibiotic alone. Published papers did not report study funding sources.Effect estimates from one small study with 53 adults showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy for the following primary outcomes at the end of the study: successful management of exacerbation - cure at day 42 (odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.01; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); number of participants with Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication at day 21 (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.24; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and serious adverse events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.87; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, researchers provided no evidence of treatment benefit for the following secondary outcomes: clinical response rates - relapse at day 42 (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.69; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); microbiological response rate at day 21 - eradicated (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.65; 53 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence); and adverse events - incidence of wheeze (OR 5.75, 95% CI 1.55 to 21.33). Data show no evidence of benefit in terms of sputum volume, lung function, or antibiotic resistance. Outcomes from a second small study with 65 adults, available only as an abstract, were not included in the quantitative data synthesis. The included studies did not report our other primary outcomes: duration; frequency; and time to next exacerbation; nor our secondary outcomes: systemic markers of infection; exercise capacity; and quality of life. We did not identify any trials that included children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A small number of studies in adults have generated high-quality evidence that is insufficient to inform robust conclusions, and studies in children have provided no evidence. We identified only one dual-therapy combination of oral and inhaled antibiotics. Results from this single trial of 53 adults that we were able to include in the quantitative synthesis showed no evidence of treatment benefit with oral plus inhaled dual therapy in terms of successful treatment of exacerbations, serious adverse events, sputum volume, lung function, and antibiotic resistance. Further high-quality research is required to determine the efficacy and safety of other combinations of dual antibiotics for both adults and children with bronchiectasis, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance.

The Saudi Thoracic Society guidelines for diagnosis and management of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

This is the first guideline developed by the Saudi Thoracic Society for the diagnosis and management of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Local experts including pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, thoracic surgeons, respiratory therapists, and others from adult and pediatric departments provided the best practice evidence recommendations based on the available international and local literature. The main objective of this guideline is to utilize the current published evidence to develop recommendations about management of bronchiectasis suitable to our local health-care system and available resources. We aim to provide clinicians with tools to standardize the diagnosis and management of bronchiectasis. This guideline targets primary care physicians, family medicine practitioners, practicing internists and respiratory physicians, and all other health-care providers involved in the care of the patients with bronchiectasis.

The Likelihood of Preventing Respiratory Exacerbations in Children and Adolescents with either Chronic Suppurative Lung Disease or Bronchiectasis

Chronic suppurative lung disease (CSLD) and bronchiectasis in children and adolescents are important causes of respiratory morbidity and reduced quality of life (QoL), also leading to subsequent premature death during adulthood. Acute respiratory exacerbations in pediatric CSLD and bronchiectasis are important markers of disease control clinically, given that they impact upon QoL and increase health-care-associated costs and can adversely affect future lung functioning. Preventing exacerbations in this population is, therefore, likely to have significant individual, familial, societal, and health-sector benefits. In this review, we focus on therapeutic interventions, such as drugs (antibiotics, mucolytics, hyperosmolar agents, bronchodilators, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents), vaccines and physiotherapy, and care-planning, such as post-hospitalization management and health promotion strategies, including exercise, diet, and reducing exposure to environmental toxicants. The review identified a conspicuous lack of moderate or high-quality evidence for preventing respiratory exacerbations in children and adolescents with CSLD or bronchiectasis. Given the short- and long-term impact of exacerbations upon individuals, their families, and society as a whole, large studies addressing interventions at the primary and tertiary prevention phases are required. This research must include children and adolescents in both developing and developed countries and address long-term health outcomes.

Use of macrolides in lung diseases: recent literature controversies

OBJECTIVE

To review the mechanisms of action of macrolides in pediatric respiratory diseases and their clinical indications.

SOURCES

Review in the PubMed database, comprising the following terms in English: "macrolide and asthma"; "macrolide and cystic fibrosis"; "macrolide bronchiolitis and viral acute"; "macrolide and bronchiolitis obliterans" and "macrolide and non-CF bronchiectasis".

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

The spectrum of action of macrolides includes production of inflammatory mediators, control of mucus hypersecretion, and modulation of host-defense mechanisms. The potential benefit of macrolide antibiotics has been studied in a variety of lung diseases, such as cystic fibrosis (CF), bronchiectasis, asthma, acute bronchiolitis, and non-CF bronchiectasis. Several studies have evaluated the benefits of macrolides in asthma refractory to therapy, but the results are controversial and indications should be limited to specific phenotypes. In viral bronchiolitis, there is no consistent benefit in acute conditions, although recent data have shown an effect in recurrent wheezing prevention. In patients with CF results are also contradictory, but the consensus states there is a small clinical benefit, especially for patients infected with P. aeruginosa. There was also no positive action of macrolides in patients with post-infectious bronchiolitis obliterans. Children with non-CF bronchiectasis seem to have clear benefits regarding the use of macrolides, which showed clinical advantages in parenchyma protection and lung function.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term use of macrolides should be limited to highly selected situations, especially in patients with bronchiectasis. Careful evaluation of the benefits and potential damage are tools for their indication in specific groups.

Prolonged antibiotics for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adults

BACKGROUND

The vicious cycle hypothesis for bronchiectasis predicts that bacterial colonisation of the respiratory tract perpetuates inflammatory change. This damages the mucociliary escalator, preventing bacterial clearance and allowing persistence of pro-inflammatory mediators. Conventional treatment with physiotherapy and intermittent antibiotics is believed to improve the condition of people with bronchiectasis, although no conclusive data show that these interventions influence the natural history of the condition. Various strategies have been tried to interrupt this cycle of infection and inflammation, including prolonging antibiotic treatment with the goal of allowing the airway mucosa to heal.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits of prolonged antibiotic therapy in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and reference lists of identified articles. Searches were current as of February 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials examining the use of prolonged antibiotic therapy (for four or more weeks) in the treatment of bronchiectasis compared with placebo or usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning a total of 1157 participants. Antibiotics were given for between four weeks and 83 weeks. Limited meta-analysis was possible because of the diversity of outcomes reported in these trials. Based on the number of participants with at least one exacerbation, the meta-analysis showed significant effects in favour of the intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.52; P value < 0.00001), with events occurring in 271 per 1000 people in the intervention arm (95% CI 126 to 385) and in 546 per 1000 in the control population, based on evidence of moderate quality. A non-statistically significant reduction in hospitalisation favoured the use of prolonged antibiotics with a moderate quality grade of supporting evidence (37 per 1000 in the intervention arm (95% CI 13 to 96) and 87 per 1000 in control (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11; P value = 0.08). Drug resistance developed in 36 of 220 participants taking antibiotics compared with 10 of 211 participants given placebo or standard therapy (OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.20 to 10.07; P value = 0.02), translating to natural frequencies of 155 per 1000 in the intervention arm (95% CI 59 to 346) and 50 per 1000 in the control arm. The intervention was well tolerated with no overall significant difference in withdrawal between treatment and placebo groups (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49). Diarrhoea was commonly reported as an adverse event, particularly with an oral intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence shows benefit associated with use of prolonged antibiotics in the treatment of patients with bronchiectasis, at least halving the odds of exacerbation (with 275 fewer exacerbations per every 1000 people treated in the antibiotic arm compared with the control arm) and hospitalisation (50 fewer hospitalisations per 1000 people in the antibiotic arm compared with the control arm). However, the risk of emerging drug resistance is increased more than threefold. This review is limited by diversity of trials and by evidence of moderate to low quality. Further randomised controlled trials with adequate power and standardised end points are required.

Respiratory exacerbations in indigenous children from two countries with non-cystic fibrosis chronic suppurative lung disease/bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory exacerbations (AREs) cause morbidity and lung function decline in children with chronic suppurative lung disease (CSLD) and bronchiectasis. In a prospective longitudinal cohort study, we determined the patterns of AREs and factors related to increased risks for AREs in children with CSLD/bronchiectasis.

METHODS

Ninety-three indigenous children aged 0.5 to 8 years with CSLD/bronchiectasis in Australia (n = 57) and Alaska (n = 36) during 2004 to 2009 were followed for > 3 years. Standardized parent interviews, physical examinations, and medical record reviews were undertaken at enrollment and every 3 to 6 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Ninety-three children experienced 280 AREs (median = 2, range = 0-11 per child) during the 3-year period; 91 (32%) were associated with pneumonia, and 43 (15%) resulted in hospitalization. Of the 93 children, 69 (74%) experienced more than two AREs over the 3-year period, and 28 (30%) had more than one ARE in each study year. The frequency of AREs declined significantly over each year of follow-up. Factors associated with recurrent (two or more) AREs included age < 3 years, ARE-related hospitalization in the first year of life, and pneumonia or hospitalization for ARE in the year preceding enrollment. Factors associated with hospitalizations for AREs in the first year of study included age < 3 years, female caregiver education, and regular use of bronchodilators.

CONCLUSIONS

AREs are common in children with CSLD/bronchiectasis, but with clinical care and time AREs occur less frequently. All children with CSLD/bronchiectasis require comprehensive care; however, treatment strategies may differ for these patients based on their changing risks for AREs during each year of care.

Long-term macrolide maintenance therapy in non-CF bronchiectasis: evidence and questions

Macrolide antibiotics have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties in addition to antibacterial activity. Until recently, only a small number of studies evaluating macrolides in patients with non-cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis had been published. These were open-label, uncontrolled, short-duration studies that included small numbers of patients. However, these studies suggested that macrolides can reduce exacerbation frequency, reduce sputum volume, and improve lung function in patients with non-CF bronchiectasis. Three recently published randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies showed that macrolides (azithromycin or erythromycin) taken for between 6 and 12 months led to significant reductions in exacerbation rate and reduced the decline in lung function. In all studies, macrolides were generally well tolerated. The advantages of macrolide maintenance therapy need to be balanced against the risks, which include emergence of bacterial resistance, cardiotoxicity and ototoxicity. In addition, a key need is the consistent definition of endpoints for studies in non-CF bronchiectasis, particularly the definition of exacerbation, to allow systematic data analysis. Existing studies on the use of low-dose macrolides in non-CF bronchiectasis are encouraging, but further studies are needed to define the optimal agent, dose, duration for treatment, and the patients likely to benefit and long-term safety.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric pulmonology (excluding cystic fibrosis): which indications for rotating (or alternating) antibiotics and prolonged antibiotic therapy?]

Some children with chronic lung disease associated with mucociliary clearance impairment and chronic bronchial congestion develop, during their evolution, bronchial bacterial colonization and recurrent infections. Therefore, antibioprophylaxis (ABP) is proposed by pediatric pulmonology specialists. Although some children seem improved by this strategy, it is worthy to note that no pediatric study supports its effectiveness, and no guidelines from society currently recommend its prescription. Demonstrated clinical benefits of ABP involve rare and highly targeted diseases. These children require a specialized assessment before any decision of ABP. Cystic fibrosis is definitely a situation where the interest of ABP is well established. By extension of the data obtained in adults, children with bronchiectasis (DDB) could potentially benefit from prolonged antibiotic therapy. In recurrent bacterial infections of the airways without DDB, ABP should be limited and restricted to most severe cases. In the absence of data on the benefit of alternate antibiotic treatment, we propose to focus on a single-molecule antibiotic prescribed for long periods. It may be amoxicillin, macrolides or cotrimoxazole. Furthermore, there is currently no data justifying the prescription of long-term macrolides in childhood asthma.

Indigenous children from three countries with non-cystic fibrosis chronic suppurative lung disease/bronchiectasis

OBJECTIVE

Indigenous children in developed countries are at increased risk of chronic suppurative lung disease (CSLD), including bronchiectasis. We evaluated sociodemographic and medical factors in indigenous children with CSLD/bronchiectasis from Australia, United States (US), and New Zealand (NZ).

METHODS

Indigenous children aged 0.5-8 years with CSLD/bronchiectasis were enrolled from specialist clinics in Australia (n = 97), Alaska (n = 41), and NZ (n = 42) during 2004-2009, and followed for 1-5 years. Research staff administered standardized parent interviews, reviewed medical histories and performed physical examinations at enrollment.

RESULTS

Study children in all three countries had poor housing and sociodemographic circumstances at enrollment. Except for increased household crowding, most poverty indices in study participants were similar to those reported for their respective local indigenous populations. However, compared to their local indigenous populations, study children were more often born prematurely and had both an increased frequency and earlier onset of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRIs). Most (95%) study participants had prior ALRI hospitalizations and 77% reported a chronic cough in the past year. Significant differences (wheeze, ear disease and plumbed water) between countries were present.

DISCUSSION

Indigenous children with CSLD/bronchiectasis from three developed countries experience significant disparities in poverty indices in common with their respective indigenous population; however, household crowding, prematurity and early ALRIs were more common in study children than their local indigenous population. Addressing equity, especially by preventing prematurity and ALRIs, should reduce risk of CSLD/bronchiectasis in indigenous children.

Surgical treatment of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in Brazilian children

PURPOSE

To determine the clinical characteristics of patients submitted to surgical treatment for non-cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis, the indications for surgery, and the results obtained at a referral facility for pediatric thoracic surgery.

METHODS

Between January 1998 and December 2009, we retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 109 pediatric patients with non-CF bronchiectasis who underwent surgical treatment. These findings were subsequently analyzed by focusing on postoperative complications and long-term results.

RESULTS

Of the 109 patients undergoing pulmonary resection, the mean age was 7.6 years (ranging from 1 to 15.5 y-o) with male predominance (59 %). The most common procedure was segmentectomy (43 %) followed by left lower lobectomy (38 %). Minor postoperative complications occurred in 36 % of the patients; the most common was transient atelectasis (26 %), followed by air leak (6 %), and postoperative pain (4 %). There was one death within the 30-day postoperative period, but it was unrelated to the procedure. Eighty-three children were followed after discharge, with a mean follow-up period of 667 days. Sixty-five (76 %) patients showed improvement of clinical symptoms after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung resection for the treatment of non-CF bronchiectasis in children is a safe procedure, with no life-treating morbidity and low mortality. This procedure also leads to significant improvements in symptoms and quality of life.

Effectiveness and safety of macrolides in bronchiectasis patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Macrolides has been studied as a potential therapeutic anti-inflammatory agent for bronchiectasis patients, which has used as an immunoregulation agent. However, the efficacy and safety results of macrolides across available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolides in bronchiectasis.

METHODS

RCTs of macrolides treatment for the patients of bronchiectasis published in PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched. Two authors independently extracted data and assessment the methodological quality. The primary efficacy outcome was the impact on the number of pulmonary exacerbation. Safety outcomes included adverse events and mortality.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were found in the systematic review and six studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Macrolides treatment showed a significant reduced rate of pulmonary exacerbation (RR = 0.55, 95%CI = 0.43-0.70) compared with control groups. However, subgroup analysis failed to find any significant changes in total 46 patients (RR = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.03-1.58) for treatment not more than 3 months. The incidence rates of total adverse events showed no significant difference among the macrolides group and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment of bronchiectasis with macrolides can reduce incidence of pulmonary exacerbation, especially in the subgroup treatment 6 months or more. There was no evidence of increased adverse events with macrolides. However, to verify the best macrolides regimen, more studies based on larger sample size and stratified by ethnicity are still needed.

CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS STUDIED IN THIS ARTICLE

Erythromycin (PubChem CID 12560); Azithromycin (PubChem CID: 447043); Clarithromycin (PubChem CID: 84029); Roxithromycin (PubChem CID: 5480431).

Bronchiectasis exacerbation study on azithromycin and amoxycillin-clavulanate for respiratory exacerbations in children (BEST-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis unrelated to cystic fibrosis (CF) is being increasingly recognized in children and adults globally, both in resource-poor and in affluent countries. However, high-quality evidence to inform management is scarce. Oral amoxycillin-clavulanate is often the first antibiotic chosen for non-severe respiratory exacerbations, because of the antibiotic-susceptibility patterns detected in the respiratory pathogens commonly associated with bronchiectasis. Azithromycin has a prolonged half-life, and with its unique anti-bacterial, immunomodulatory, and anti-inflammatory properties, presents an attractive alternative. Our proposed study will test the hypothesis that oral azithromycin is non-inferior (within a 20% margin) to amoxycillin-clavulanate at achieving resolution of non-severe respiratory exacerbations by day 21 of treatment in children with non-CF bronchiectasis.

METHODS

This will be a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial involving six Australian and New Zealand centers. In total, 170 eligible children will be stratified by site and bronchiectasis etiology, and randomized (allocation concealed) to receive: 1) azithromycin (5 mg/kg daily) with placebo amoxycillin-clavulanate or 2) amoxycillin-clavulanate (22.5 mg/kg twice daily) with placebo azithromycin for 21 days as treatment for non-severe respiratory exacerbations. Clinical data and a parent-proxy cough-specific quality of life (PC-QOL) score will be obtained at baseline, at the start and resolution of exacerbations, and on day 21. In most children, blood and deep-nasal swabs will also be collected at the same time points. The primary outcome is the proportion of children whose exacerbations have resolved at day 21. The main secondary outcome is the PC-QOL score. Other outcomes are: time to next exacerbation; requirement for hospitalization; duration of exacerbation, and spirometry data. Descriptive viral and bacteriological data from nasal samples and blood inflammatory markers will be reported where available.

DISCUSSION

Currently, there are no published randomized controlled trials (RCT) to underpin effective, evidence-based management of acute respiratory exacerbations in children with non-CF bronchiectasis. To help address this information gap, we are conducting two RCTs. The first (bronchiectasis exacerbation study; BEST-1) evaluates the efficacy of azithromycin and amoxycillin-clavulanate compared with placebo, and the second RCT (BEST-2), described here, is designed to determine if azithromycin is non-inferior to amoxycillin-clavulanate in achieving symptom resolution by day 21 of treatment in children with acute respiratory exacerbations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR) number http://ACTRN12612000010897. http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=347879.