Prophylactic corticosteroids for cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Cardiac surgery triggers a strong inflammatory reaction, which carries significant clinical consequences. Corticosteroids have been suggested as a potential perioperative strategy to reduce inflammation and help prevent postoperative complications. However, the safety and effectiveness of perioperative corticosteroid use in adult cardiac surgery is uncertain. This is an update of the 2011 review with 18 studies added.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective: to estimate the effects of prophylactic corticosteroid use in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass on the: - co-primary endpoints of mortality, myocardial complications, and pulmonary complications; and - secondary outcomes including atrial fibrillation, infection, organ injury, known complications of steroid therapy, prolonged mechanical ventilation, prolonged postoperative stay, and cost-effectiveness.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

to explore the role of characteristics of the study cohort and specific features of the intervention in determining the treatment effects via a series of prespecified subgroup analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods to identify randomised studies assessing the effect of corticosteroids in adult cardiac surgery. The latest searches were performed on 14 October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults (over 18 years, either with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease or cardiac valve disease, or who were candidates for cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass), comparing corticosteroids with no treatments. There were no restrictions with respect to length of the follow-up period. All selected studies qualified for pooling of results for one or more endpoints.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, and cardiac and pulmonary complications. Secondary outcomes were infectious complications, gastrointestinal bleeding, occurrence of new post-surgery atrial fibrillation, re-thoracotomy for bleeding, neurological complications, renal failure, inotropic support, postoperative bleeding, mechanical ventilation time, length of stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, patient quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 72 randomised trials with 17,282 participants (all 72 trials with 16,962 participants were included in data synthesis). Four trials (6%) were considered at low risk of bias in all the domains. The median age of participants included in the studies was 62.9 years. Study populations consisted mainly (89%) of low-risk, first-time coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve surgery. The use of perioperative corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (risk with corticosteroids: 25 to 36 per 1000 versus 33 per 1000 with placebo or no treatment; risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.07; 25 studies, 14,940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may increase the risk of myocardial complications (68 to 86 per 1000) compared with placebo or no treatment (66 per 1000; RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; 25 studies, 14,766 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce the risk of pulmonary complications (risk with corticosteroids: 61 to 77 per 1000 versus 78 per 1000 with placebo/no treatment; RR 0.88, 0.78 to 0.99; 18 studies, 13,549 participants; low-certainty evidence). Analyses of secondary endpoints showed that corticosteroids may reduce the incidence of infectious complications (risk with corticosteroids: 94 to 113 per 1000 versus 123 per 1000 with placebo/no treatment; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92; 28 studies, 14,771 participants; low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may result in little to no difference in incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (risk with corticosteroids: 9 to 17 per 1000 versus 10 per 1000 with placebo/no treatment; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.67; 6 studies, 12,533 participants; low-certainty evidence) and renal failure (risk with corticosteroids: 23 to 35 per 1000 versus 34 per 1000 with placebo/no treatment; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 13 studies, 12,799; low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids may reduce the length of hospital stay, but the evidence is very uncertain (-0.5 days, 0.97 to 0.04 fewer days of length of hospital stay compared with placebo/no treatment; 25 studies, 1841 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results from the two largest trials included in the review possibly skew the overall findings from the meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of trials evaluating the organ protective effects of corticosteroids in cardiac surgery demonstrated little or no treatment effect on mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, and renal failure. There were opposing treatment effects on cardiac and pulmonary complications, with evidence that corticosteroids may increase cardiac complications but reduce pulmonary complications; however, the level of certainty for these estimates was low. There were minor benefits from corticosteroid therapy for infectious complications, but the evidence on hospital length of stay was very uncertain. The inconsistent treatment effects across different outcomes and the limited data on high-risk groups reduced the applicability of the findings. Further research should explore the role of these drugs in specific, vulnerable cohorts.

Vitamin D for the management of asthma

BACKGROUND

Since the previous Cochrane Review on this topic in 2016, debate has continued surrounding a potential role for vitamin D in reducing risk of asthma exacerbation and improving asthma control. We therefore conducted an updated meta-analysis to include data from new trials completed since this date.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites in reducing the risk of severe asthma exacerbations (defined as those requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids) and improving asthma symptom control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies in order to identify additional trials. Date of last search: 8 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D in children and adults with asthma evaluating exacerbation risk or asthma symptom control, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained missing data from the authors where possible. We reported results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of asthma exacerbations precipitating an emergency department visit or requiring hospital admission, or both, end-study childhood Asthma Control Test (cACT) or Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and end-study % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We performed subgroup analyses to determine whether the effect of vitamin D on risk of asthma exacerbation was modified by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, form of vitamin D given, and age of participants.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies in this review; 15 trials involving a total of 1155 children and five trials involving a total of 1070 adults contributed data to analyses. Participant ages ranged from 1 to 84 years, with two trials providing data specific to participants under five years (n = 69) and eight trials providing data specific to participants aged 5 to 16 (n = 766). Across the trials, 1245 participants were male and 1229 were female, with two studies not reporting sex distribution. Fifteen trials contributed to the primary outcome analysis of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. The duration of trials ranged from three to 40 months; all but two investigated effects of administering cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). As in the previous Cochrane Review, the majority of participants had mild to moderate asthma, and profound vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) < 25 nmol/L) at baseline was rare. Administration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites did not reduce or increase the proportion of participants experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1778 participants; high-quality evidence). This equates to an absolute risk of 226 per 1000 (95% CI 185 to 273) in the pooled vitamin D group, compared to a baseline risk of 219 participants per 1000 in the pooled placebo group. We also found no effect of vitamin D supplementation on the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; I2 = 60%; 10 studies, 1599 participants; high-quality evidence), or the time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.15; I2 = 22%; 3 studies, 850 participants; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any evidence of effect modification by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, or age. A single trial investigating administration of calcidiol reported a benefit of the intervention for the primary outcome of asthma control. Vitamin D supplementation did not influence any secondary efficacy outcome meta-analysed, which were all based on moderate- or high-quality evidence. We observed no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 1556 participants; high-quality evidence). The effect of vitamin D on fatal asthma exacerbations was not estimable, as no such events occurred in any trial. Six studies reported adverse reactions potentially attributable to vitamin D. These occurred across treatment and control arms and included hypercalciuria, hypervitaminosis D, kidney stones, gastrointestinal symptoms and mild itch. In one trial, we could not ascertain the total number of participants with hypercalciuria from the trial report. We assessed three trials as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain; none of these contributed data to the analysis of the outcomes reported above. Sensitivity analyses that excluded these trials from each outcome to which they contributed did not change the null findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to findings of our previous Cochrane Review on this topic, this updated review does not find evidence to support a role for vitamin D supplementation or its hydroxylated metabolites to reduce risk of asthma exacerbations or improve asthma control. Participants with severe asthma and those with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations < 25 nmol/L were poorly represented, so further research is warranted here. A single study investigating effects of calcidiol yielded positive results, so further studies investigating effects of this metabolite are needed.

Local corticosteroid injection versus placebo for carpal tunnel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a very common clinical syndrome manifested by signs and symptoms of irritation of the median nerve at the carpal tunnel in the wrist. Direct and indirect costs of CTS are substantial, with estimated costs of two billion US dollars for CTS surgery in the USA in 1995 alone. Local corticosteroid injection has been used as a non-surgical treatment for CTS many years, but its effectiveness is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of corticosteroids injected in or around the carpal tunnel for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome compared to no treatment or a placebo injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search Methods. The searches were 7 June 2020 and 26 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of adults with CTS that included at least one comparison group of local injection of corticosteroid (LCI) into the wrist and one group that received a placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. improvement in symptoms at up to three months of follow-up. Our secondary outcomes were 2. functional improvement, 3. improvement in symptoms at greater than three months of follow-up, 4. improvement in neurophysiological parameters, 5. improvement in imaging parameters, 6. requirement for carpal tunnel surgery, 7. improvement in quality of life and 8.

ADVERSE EVENTS

We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials with 994 participants/hands with CTS. Only nine studies (639 participants/hands) had useable data quantitatively and in general, these studies were at low risk of bias except for one quite high-risk study. The trials were conducted in hospital-based clinics across North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. All trials used participant-reported outcome measures for symptoms, function and quality of life. There is probably an improvement in symptoms measured at up to three months of follow-up favouring LCI (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to -0.59; 8 RCTs, 579 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Up to six months this was still evident favouring LCI (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.28; 4 RCTs, 234 participants/hands; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably an improvement in function measured at up to three months favouring LCI (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.38; 7 RCTs, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in median nerve DML at up to three months of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.37 ms, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.02; 6 RCTs, 359 participants/hands; very low-certainty evidence). The requirement for surgery probably reduces slightly in the LCI group at one year (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, measured at up to three months of follow-up using the Short-Form 6 Dimensions questionnaire (scale from 0.29 to 1.0; higher is better) probably improved slightly in the LCI group (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.12; 1 RCT, 111 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were uncommon (low-certainty evidence). One study reported 2/364 injections resulted in severe pain which resolved over "several weeks" and 1/364 injections caused a "sympathetic reaction" with a cool, pale hand that completely resolved in 20 minutes. One study (111 participants) reported no serious adverse events, but 65% of LCI-injected and 16% of the placebo-injected participants experienced mild-to-moderate pain lasting less than two weeks. About 9% of participants experienced localised swelling lasting less than two weeks. Four studies (229 participants) reported that they experienced no adverse events in their studies. Three studies (220 participants) did not specifically report adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Local corticosteroid injection is effective for the treatment of mild and moderate CTS with benefits lasting up to six months and a reduced need for surgery up to 12 months. Where serious adverse events were reported, they were rare.

Corticosteroids for the treatment of Kawasaki disease in children

BACKGROUND

Kawasaki disease (KD), or mucocutaneous syndrome, is the leading cause of childhood-acquired heart disease in high-income countries. There is much controversy on how best to treat children with KD and in particular who may benefit from additional treatment beyond the standard intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin, such as the addition of corticosteroids. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of corticosteroid use on the incidence of coronary artery abnormalities in KD as either first-line or second-line treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers to 8 February 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials involving children with all severities of KD who were treated with corticosteroids, including different types of corticosteroids, different durations of treatment, and where corticosteroids were used alone or in conjunction with other accepted KD treatments. We included trials using corticosteroids for both first- and second-line treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed study quality and extracted data using standard Cochrane methods. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were incidence of coronary artery abnormalities, serious adverse events, mortality, duration of acute symptoms (such as fever), time for laboratory parameters to normalise, length of hospital stay and longer-term coronary morbidity.

MAIN RESULTS

This update identified one new study, therefore the analysis included eight trials consisting of 1877 participants. Seven trials investigated the use of corticosteroids in first-line treatment and one investigated second-line treatment. The trials were all of good methodological quality. On pooled analysis, corticosteroid treatment reduced the subsequent occurrence of coronary artery abnormalities (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75; 8 studies, 986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), without resultant serious adverse events (0 events; 6 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty) and mortality (0 events; 8 studies, 1075 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, corticosteroids reduced the duration of fever (MD -1.34 days, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.45; 3 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence), time for laboratory parameters (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) to normalise (MD -2.80 days, 95% CI -4.38 to -1.22; 1 study, 178 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -1.01 days, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.30; 2 studies, 119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported long-term (greater than one year after disease onset) coronary morbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that use of steroids in the acute phase of KD can be associated with reduced coronary artery abnormalities, reduced inflammatory markers and shorter duration of hospital stay when compared to no corticosteroids. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported with or without corticosteroid use. Low-certainty evidence shows use of corticosteroids can reduce duration of clinical symptoms (fever and rash). None of the included studies reported on long-term (greater than one year after disease onset) coronary morbidity. Evidence presented in this systematic review agrees with current clinical guidelines on the use of corticosteroids in the first-line treatment in KD.

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma management guidelines recommend low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. The addition of anti-leukotriene agents to ICS offers a therapeutic option in cases of suboptimal control with daily ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotriene agents added to ICS compared with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS (in both arms) for adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older with persistent asthma. Also, to determine whether any characteristics of participants or treatments might affect the magnitude of response.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant studies from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP from inception to August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and adolescents 12 years of age and older on a maintenance dose of ICS for whom investigators added anti-leukotrienes to the ICS and compared treatment with the same dose, an increased dose or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (except when both groups tapered the dose of ICS, in which case the primary outcome was the % reduction in ICS dose from baseline with maintained asthma control). Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, lung function, asthma control, quality of life, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review 37 studies representing 6128 adult and adolescent participants (most with mild to moderate asthma). Investigators in these studies used three leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs): montelukast (n = 24), zafirlukast (n = 11) and pranlukast (n = 2); studies lasted from four weeks to five years. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus same dose of ICSOf 16 eligible studies, 10 studies, representing 2364 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Anti-leukotriene agents given as adjunct therapy to ICS reduced by half the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.86; 815 participants; four studies; moderate quality); this is equivalent to a number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) over six to 16 weeks of 22 (95% CI 16 to 75). Only one trial including 368 participants reported mortality and serious adverse events, but events were too infrequent for researchers to draw a conclusion. Four trials reported all adverse events, and the pooled result suggested little difference between groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 1024 participants; three studies; moderate quality). Investigators noted between-group differences favouring the addition of anti-leukotrienes for morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), asthma symptoms and night-time awakenings, but not for reduction in β2-agonist use or evening PEFR. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus higher dose of ICSOf 15 eligible studies, eight studies, representing 2008 adults and adolescents, contributed data. Results showed no statistically significant difference in the number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39; 1779 participants; four studies; moderate quality) nor in all adverse events between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 1899 participants; six studies; low quality). Three trials reported no deaths among 834 participants. Results showed no statistically significant differences in lung function tests including morning PEFR and FEV1 nor in asthma control measures including use of rescue β2-agonists or asthma symptom scores. Anti-leukotrienes and ICS versus tapering dose of ICSSeven studies, representing 1150 adults and adolescents, evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and tapering-dose of ICS compared with tapering-dose of ICS alone and contributed data. Investigators observed no statistically significant difference in % change from baseline ICS dose (mean difference (MD) -3.05, 95% CI -8.13 to 2.03; 930 participants; four studies; moderate quality), number of participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.04; 542 participants; five studies; low quality) or all adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 1100 participants; six studies; moderate quality). Serious adverse events occurred more frequently among those taking anti-leukotrienes plus tapering ICS than in those taking tapering doses of ICS alone (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.92; 621 participants; two studies; moderate quality), but deaths were too infrequent for researchers to draw any conclusions about mortality. Data showed no improvement in lung function nor in asthma control measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adolescents and adults with persistent asthma, with suboptimal asthma control with daily use of ICS, the addition of anti-leukotrienes is beneficial for reducing moderate and severe asthma exacerbations and for improving lung function and asthma control compared with the same dose of ICS. We cannot be certain that the addition of anti-leukotrienes is superior, inferior or equivalent to a higher dose of ICS. Scarce available evidence does not support anti-leukotrienes as an ICS sparing agent, and use of LTRAs was not associated with increased risk of withdrawals or adverse effects, with the exception of an increase in serious adverse events when the ICS dose was tapered. Information was insufficient for assessment of mortality.

Interventions for treating hyperemesis gravidarum

BACKGROUND

Hyperemesis gravidarum is a severe form of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy affecting 0.3% to 1.0% of pregnancies, and is one of the most common indications for hospitalization during pregnancy. While a previous Cochrane review examined interventions for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, there has not yet been a review examining the interventions for the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety, of all interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum in pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (20 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of any intervention for hyperemesis gravidarum. Quasi-randomized trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.We excluded trials on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy that were not specifically studying the more severe condition of hyperemesis gravidarum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (involving 2052 women) met the inclusion criteria but the majority of 18 different comparisons described in the review include data from single studies with small numbers of participants. The comparisons covered a range of interventions including acupressure/acupuncture, outpatient care, intravenous fluids, and various pharmaceutical interventions. The methodological quality of included studies was mixed. For selected important comparisons and outcomes, we graded the quality of the evidence and created 'Summary of findings' tables. For most outcomes the evidence was graded as low or very low quality mainly due to the imprecision of effect estimates. Comparisons included in the 'Summary of findings' tables are described below, the remaining comparisons are described in detail in the main text.No primary outcome data were available when acupuncture was compared with placebo, There was no clear evidence of differences between groups for anxiodepressive symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.40; one study, 36 women, very low-quality evidence), spontaneous abortion (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.03; one study, 57 women, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.26; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence), or perinatal death (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.30; one study, 36 women, low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to identify clear differences between acupuncture and metoclopramide in a study with 81 participants regarding reduction/cessation in nausea or vomiting (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.49 and RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.48, respectively; very low-quality evidence).In a study with 92 participants, women taking vitamin B6 had a slightly longer hospital stay compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in other outcomes including mean number of episodes of emesis (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.40, low-quality evidence) or side effects.A comparison between metoclopramide and ondansetron identified no clear difference in the severity of nausea or vomiting (MD 1.70, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.55, and MD -0.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 1.43; one study, 83 women, respectively, very low-quality evidence). However, more women taking metoclopramide complained of drowsiness and dry mouth (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.69, and RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.11, respectively; moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other side effects.In a single study with 146 participants comparing metoclopramide with promethazine, more women taking promethazine reported drowsiness, dizziness, and dystonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69, and RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90, respectively, moderate-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for other important outcomes including quality of life and other side effects.In a single trial with 30 women, those receiving ondansetron had no difference in duration of hospital admission compared to those receiving promethazine (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.39, very low-quality evidence), although there was increased sedation with promethazine (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) .Regarding corticosteroids, in a study with 110 participants there was no difference in days of hospital admission compared to placebo (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.10; very low-quality evidence), but there was a decreased readmission rate (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94; four studies, 269 women). For other important outcomes including pregnancy complications, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and congenital abnormalities, there was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups (very low-quality evidence for all outcomes). In other single studies there were no clear differences between groups for preterm birth or side effects (very low-quality evidence).For hydrocortisone compared with metoclopramide, no data were available for primary outcomes and there was no difference in the readmission rate (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.28;one study, 40 women).In a study with 80 women, compared to promethazine, those receiving prednisolone had increased nausea at 48 hours (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.72; low-quality evidence), but not at 17 days (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.15, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of episodes of emesis or subjective improvement in nausea/vomiting. There was insufficient evidence to identify differences between groups for stillbirth and neonatal death and preterm birth.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this review, there is little high-quality and consistent evidence supporting any one intervention, which should be taken into account when making management decisions. There was also very limited reporting on the economic impact of hyperemesis gravidarum and the impact that interventions may have.The limitations in interpreting the results of the included studies highlights the importance of consistency in the definition of hyperemesis gravidarum, the use of validated outcome measures, and the need for larger placebo-controlled trials.

Corticosteroids for treating sepsis

BACKGROUND

Sepsis occurs when an infection is complicated by organ failures as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score of two or higher. Sepsis may be complicated by impaired corticosteroid metabolism. Giving corticosteroids may benefit patients. The original review was published in 2004 and was updated in 2010 and again in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of corticosteroids on death at one month in patients with sepsis, and to examine whether dose and duration of corticosteroids influence patient response to this treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (October 2014), EMBASE (October 2014), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; October 2014) and reference lists of articles, and we contacted trial authors. The original searches were performed in August 2003 and in October 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of corticosteroids versus placebo or supportive treatment in patients with sepsis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors agreed on the eligibility of trials. One review author extracted data, which were checked by the other review authors, and by the primary author of the paper when possible. We obtained some missing data from trial authors. We assessed the methodological quality of trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine additional studies since the last update, for a total of 33 eligible trials (n = 4268 participants). Twenty-three of these 33 trials were at low risk of selection bias, 22 were at low risk of performance and detection bias, 27 were at low risk of attrition bias and 14 were at low risk of selective reporting.Corticosteroids reduced 28-day mortality (27 trials; n = 3176; risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.00; P value = 0.05, random-effects model). The quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded from high to low for imprecision (upper limit of 95% CI = 1) and for inconsistency (significant heterogeneity across trial results). Heterogeneity was related in part to the dosing strategy. Treatment with a long course of low-dose corticosteroids significantly reduced 28-day mortality (22 trials; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; P value = 0.01, fixed-effect model). The quality of evidence was downgraded from high to moderate for inconsistency (owing to non-significant effects shown by one large trial). Corticosteroids also reduced mortality rate in the intensive care unit (13 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; P value = 0.04, random-effects model) and at the hospital (17 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98; P value = 0.03, random-effects model). Quality of the evidence for in-hospital mortality was downgraded from high to moderate for inconsistency and imprecision (upper limit of 95% CI for RR approaching 1). Corticosteroids increased the proportion of shock reversal by day seven (12 trials; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.51; P value = 0.0001) and by day 28 (seven trials; n = 1013; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21; P value = 0.01) and reduced the SOFA score by day seven (eight trials; mean difference (MD) -1.53, 95% CI -2.04 to -1.03; P value < 0.00001, random-effects model) and survivors' length of stay in the intensive care unit (10 trials; MD -2.19, 95% CI -3.93 to -0.46; P value = 0.01, fixed-effect model) without inducing gastroduodenal bleeding (19 trials; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0. 92 to 1.67; P value = 0.15, fixed-effect model), superinfection (19 trials; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; P value = 0.81, fixed-effect model) or neuromuscular weakness (three trials; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; P value = 0.40, fixed-effect model). Corticosteroid increased the risk of hyperglycaemia (13 trials; RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.37; P value < 0.00001, fixed-effect model) and hypernatraemia (three trials; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.09; P value < 0.0001, fixed-effect model).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, low-quality evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality among patients with sepsis. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that a long course of low-dose corticosteroids reduced 28-day mortality without inducing major complications and led to an increase in metabolic disorders.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing budesonide plus formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality.Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I(2) = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate.There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid.Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV(1) improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations.More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.