Macrolide antibiotics (including azithromycin) for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition, affecting over 90,000 people worldwide. CF affects several organs in the body, but airway damage has the most profound impact on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Causes of lower airway infection in people with CF are, most notably, Staphylococcus aureus in the early course of the disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a later stage. Macrolide antibiotics, e.g. azithromycin and clarithromycin, are usually taken orally, have a broad spectrum of action against gram-positive (e.g. S aureus) and some gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Haemophilus influenzae), and may have a modifying role in diseases involving airway infection and inflammation such as CF. They are well-tolerated and relatively inexpensive, but widespread use has resulted in the emergence of resistant bacteria. This is an updated review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the potential effects of macrolide antibiotics on clinical status in terms of benefit and harm in people with CF. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. We last searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 2 November 2022. We last searched the trial registries WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov on 9 November 2022. We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adults and children with CF. We compared them to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose or type of administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies (1467 participants) lasting 28 days to 36 months. All the studies assessed azithromycin: 11 compared oral azithromycin to placebo (1167 participants); one compared a high dose to a low dose (47 participants); one compared nebulised to oral azithromycin (45 participants); and one looked at weekly versus daily dose (208 participants). Oral azithromycin versus placebo There is a slight improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1 % predicted) in one second in the azithromycin group at up to six months compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74 to 6.19; high-certainty evidence), although there is probably no difference at three months, (MD 2.70%, 95% CI -0.12 to 5.52), or 12 months (MD -0.13, 95% CI -4.96 to 4.70). Participants in the azithromycin group are probably at a decreased risk of pulmonary exacerbation with a longer time to exacerbation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence). Mild side effects were common, but there was no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no difference in hospital admissions at six months (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence), or in new acquisition of P aeruginosa at 12 months (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose azithromycin We are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted at six months between the two groups (no data available) or in the rate of exacerbations per child per month (MD -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.10)); very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes. Only children were included in the study and the study did not report on any of our other clinically important outcomes. Nebulised azithromycin versus oral azithromycin We were unable to include any of the data into our analyses and have reported findings directly from the paper; we graded all evidence as being of very low certainty. The authors reported that there was a greater mean change in FEV1 % predicted at one month in the nebulised azithromycin group (P < 0.001). We are uncertain whether there was a change in P aeruginosa count. Weekly azithromycin versus daily azithromycin There is probably a lower mean change in FEV1 % predicted at six months in the weekly group compared to the daily group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45) and probably also a longer period of time until first exacerbation in the weekly group (MD 17.30 days, 95% CI 4.32 days to 30.28 days). Gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common in the weekly group and there is likely no difference in admissions to hospital or QoL. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Azithromycin therapy is associated with a small but consistent improvement in respiratory function, a decreased risk of exacerbation and longer time to exacerbation at six months; but evidence for treatment efficacy beyond six months remains limited. Azithromycin appears to have a good safety profile (although a weekly dose was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects, which makes it less acceptable for long-term therapy), with a relatively minimal treatment burden for people with CF, and it is inexpensive. A wider concern may be the emergence of macrolide resistance reported in the most recent study which, combined with the lack of long-term data, means we do not feel that the current evidence is strong enough to support azithromycin therapy for all people with CF. Future research should report over longer time frames using validated tools and consistent reporting, to allow for easier synthesis of data. In particular, future trials should report important adverse events such as hearing impairment or liver disease. More data on the effects of azithromycin given in different ways and reporting on our primary outcomes would benefit decision-making on whether and how to give macrolide antibiotics. Finally, it is important to assess azithromycin therapy for people with CF who are established on the relatively new cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies which correct the underlying molecular defect associated with CF (none of the trials included in the review are relevant to this population).

Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occur in most people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Established chronic P aeruginosa infection is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate. This is an updated review.

OBJECTIVES

Does giving antibiotics for P aeruginosa infection in people with CF at the time of new isolation improve clinical outcomes (e.g. mortality, quality of life and morbidity), eradicate P aeruginosa infection, and delay the onset of chronic infection, but without adverse effects, compared to usual treatment or an alternative antibiotic regimen? We also assessed cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Latest search: 24 March 2022. We searched ongoing trials registries. Latest search: 6 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with CF, in whom P aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous (IV) antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other antibiotic combinations. We excluded non-randomised trials and cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (1449 participants) lasting between 28 days and 27 months; some had few participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods. Antibiotics in this review are: oral - ciprofloxacin and azithromycin; inhaled - tobramycin nebuliser solution for inhalation (TNS), aztreonam lysine (AZLI) and colistin; IV - ceftazidime and tobramycin. There was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used. TNS versus placebo TNS may improve eradication; fewer participants were still positive for P aeruginosa at one month (odds ratio (OR) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.18; 3 trials, 89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and two months (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.65; 2 trials, 38 participants). We are uncertain whether the odds of a positive culture decrease at 12 months (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.67; 1 trial, 12 participants). TNS (28 days) versus TNS (56 days) One trial (88 participants) comparing 28 days to 56 days TNS treatment found duration of treatment may make little or no difference in time to next isolation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). Cycled TNS versus culture-based TNS One trial (304 children, one to 12 years old) compared cycled TNS to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. We found moderate-certainty evidence of an effect favouring cycled TNS therapy (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82), although the trial publication reported age-adjusted OR and no difference between groups. Ciprofloxacin versus placebo added to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy One trial (296 participants) examined the effect of adding ciprofloxacin versus placebo to cycled and culture-based TNS therapy. There is probably no difference between ciprofloxacin and placebo in eradicating P aeruginosa (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus TNS We are uncertain whether there is any difference between groups in eradication of P aeruginosa at up to six months (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.23; 1 trial, 58 participants) or up to 24 months (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.42; 1 trial, 47 participants); there was a low rate of short-term eradication in both groups. Ciprofloxacin plus colistin versus ciprofloxacin plus TNS One trial (223 participants) found there may be no difference in positive respiratory cultures at 16 months between ciprofloxacin with colistin versus TNS with ciprofloxacin (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.29; low-certainty evidence). TNS plus azithromycin compared to TNS plus oral placebo Adding azithromycin may make no difference to the number of participants eradicating P aeruginosa after a three-month treatment phase (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.35; 1 trial, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); there was also no evidence of any difference in the time to recurrence. Ciprofloxacin and colistin versus no treatment A single trial only reported one of our planned outcomes; there were no adverse effects in either group. AZLI for 14 days plus placebo for 14 days compared to AZLI for 28 days We are uncertain whether giving 14 or 28 days of AZLI makes any difference to the proportion of participants having a negative respiratory culture at 28 days (mean difference (MD) -7.50, 95% CI -24.80 to 9.80; 1 trial, 139 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ceftazidime with IV tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin (both regimens in conjunction with three months colistin) IV ceftazidime with tobramycin compared with ciprofloxacin may make little or no difference to eradication of P aeruginosa at three months, sustained to 15 months, provided that inhaled antibiotics are also used (RR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.65 to 1.09; P = 0.18; 1 trial, 255 participants; high-certainty evidence). The results do not support using IV antibiotics over oral therapy to eradicate P aeruginosa, based on both eradication rate and financial cost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with P aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained in the short term. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether these antibiotic strategies decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials comparing two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of P aeruginosa. One large trial showed that intravenous ceftazidime with tobramycin is not superior to oral ciprofloxacin when inhaled antibiotics are also used. There is still insufficient evidence to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early P aeruginosa infection in CF, but there is now evidence that intravenous therapy is not superior to oral antibiotics.

Conventional chest physiotherapy compared to other airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited life-limiting disorder. Over time persistent infection and inflammation within the lungs contribute to severe airway damage and loss of respiratory function. Chest physiotherapy, or airway clearance techniques (ACTs), are integral in removing airway secretions and initiated shortly after CF diagnosis. Conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT) generally requires assistance, while alternative ACTs can be self-administered, facilitating independence and flexibility. This is an updated review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness (in terms of respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, exercise capacity) and acceptability (in terms of individual preference, adherence, quality of life) of CCPT for people with CF compared to alternative ACTs.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 26 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over design) lasting at least seven days and comparing CCPT with alternative ACTs in people with CF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary function tests and 2. number of respiratory exacerbations per year. Our secondary outcomes were 3. quality of life, 4. adherence to therapy, 5. cost-benefit analysis, 6. objective change in exercise capacity, 7. additional lung function tests, 8. ventilation scanning, 9. blood oxygen levels, 10. nutritional status, 11. mortality, 12. mucus transport rate and 13. mucus wet or dry weight. We reported outcomes as short-term (seven to 20 days), medium-term (more than 20 days to up to one year) and long-term (over one year).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies (778 participants) comprising seven short-term, eight medium-term and six long-term studies. Studies were conducted in the USA (10), Canada (five), Australia (two), the UK (two), Denmark (one) and Italy (one) with a median of 23 participants per study (range 13 to 166). Participant ages ranged from newborns to 45 years; most studies only recruited children and young people. Sixteen studies reported the sex of participants (375 males; 296 females). Most studies compared modifications of CCPT with a single comparator, but two studies compared three interventions and another compared four interventions. The interventions varied in the duration of treatments, times per day and periods of comparison making meta-analysis challenging. All evidence was very low certainty. Nineteen studies reported the primary outcomes forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)and forced vital capacity (FVC), and found no difference in change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted or rate of decline between groups for either measure. Most studies suggested equivalence between CCPT and alternative ACTs, including positive expiratory pressure (PEP), extrapulmonary mechanical percussion, active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT), oscillating PEP devices (O-PEP), autogenic drainage (AD) and exercise. Where single studies suggested superiority of one ACT, these findings were not corroborated in similar studies; pooled data generally concluded that effects of CCPT were comparable to those of alternative ACTs. CCPT versus PEP We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function or has an impact on the number of respiratory exacerbations per year compared with PEP (both very low-certainty evidence). There were no analysable data for our secondary outcomes, but many studies provided favourable narrative reports on the independence achieved with PEP mask therapy. CCPT versus extrapulmonary mechanical percussion We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared with extrapulmonary mechanical percussions (very low-certainty evidence). The annual rate of decline in average forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF25-75) was greater with high-frequency chest compression compared to CCPT in medium- to long-term studies, but there was no difference in any other outcome. CCPT versus ACBT We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to ACBT (very low-certainty evidence). Annual decline in FEF25-75 was worse in participants using the FET component of ACBT only (mean difference (MD) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 11.45; 1 study, 63 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One short-term study reported that directed coughing was as effective as CCPT for all lung function outcomes, but with no analysable data. One study found no difference in hospital admissions and days in hospital for exacerbations. CCPT versus O-PEP We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to O-PEP devices (Flutter device and intrapulmonary percussive ventilation); however, only one study provided analysable data (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for number of exacerbations. There was no difference in results for number of days in hospital for an exacerbation, number of hospital admissions and number of days of intravenous antibiotics; this was also true for other secondary outcomes. CCPT versus AD We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to AD (very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported the number of exacerbations per year; however, one study reported more hospital admissions for exacerbations in the CCPT group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; 33 participants). One study provided a narrative report of a preference for AD. CCPT versus exercise We are uncertain whether CCPT improves lung function compared to exercise (very low-certainty evidence). Analysis of original data from one study demonstrated a higher FEV1 % predicted (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004), FVC (MD 7.83, 95% CI 2.48 to 13.18; P = 0.004) and FEF25-75 (MD 7.05, 95% CI 3.15 to 10.95; P = 0.0004) in the CCPT group; however, the study reported no difference between groups (likely because the original analysis accounted for baseline differences).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether CCPT has a more positive impact on respiratory function, respiratory exacerbations, individual preference, adherence, quality of life, exercise capacity and other outcomes when compared to alternative ACTs as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was no advantage in respiratory function of CCPT over alternative ACTs, but this may reflect insufficient evidence rather than real equivalence. Narrative reports indicated that participants prefer self-administered ACTs. This review is limited by a paucity of well-designed, adequately powered, long-term studies. This review cannot yet recommend any single ACT above others; physiotherapists and people with CF may wish to try different ACTs until they find an ACT that suits them best.

Digital technology for early identification of exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition affecting various organ systems including the gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system and especially the respiratory tract. Pulmonary exacerbations in CF result in increased symptoms, an acceleration in the rate of lung decline and an increased need for treatment. Early detection of infections or clinical worsening provides an opportunity for proactive treatment that may affect clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether digital technology can effectively predict pulmonary exacerbations to allow earlier intervention and improved health outcomes without increasing the burden of treatment in people with CF.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews on 13 October 2022. We searched Embase and the clinical trial registries on 3 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in people with CF looking at whether digital technology can effectively predict pulmonary exacerbations to allow earlier intervention and improved health outcomes without increasing the burden of treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary exacerbations and 2. quality of life (QoL). Our secondary outcomes were 3. lung function, 4. hospitalisations, 5. intravenous (IV) antibiotics, 6. microbiology, 7. cost-effectiveness and 8.

ADVERSE EVENTS

We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies (415 participants) in people with CF aged 15 to 41 years over a 12-month period. One was a multicentre RCT, whilst two were single-centre RCTs.  The three studies were mostly similar in their risk of bias, having low or unclear risk of selection bias but a high risk of detection bias, due to the unblinded design of these studies. The studies used a variety of digital technologies to monitor symptoms such as a digital symptom diary either with or without home spirometry monitoring. As the trials only included adults and older children, we are not certain that the results would apply to younger children. One of our primary outcomes was to assess time to detection of pulmonary exacerbation and number of pulmonary exacerbations identified between the intervention and routine care groups. We were largely unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to the variety of methodologies and ways of reporting data. Two studies noted a shorter time to detection of exacerbations in the intervention group and one of these also reported that the intervention group had a shorter time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.93), whilst a further study reported a shorter time to detection of exacerbations in the intervention group requiring oral or IV antibiotics compared to the control group (median: 70 (interquartile range (IQR) 123) days with intervention versus 141 (IQR 140) days with control; P = 0.02). However, all three studies were concordant in finding no probable effect on spirometry in the intervention groups when compared with their routine care groups over a 12-month period.  We found that there is probably no difference between groups with regard to QoL scores across most domains except for Weight and Body Image, which favoured the usual care group. There is also probably no difference in the number of days of additional IV antibiotics needed or newly detected pathogens. No studies reported serious adverse events directly linked to the intervention and one study reported their smartphone application was generally well received.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary exacerbations are universally accepted to be detrimental to progression of CF-related lung disease, therefore, it is intuitive that early detection and intervention would help to improve outcomes. Digital technology provides an opportunity to detect physiological and symptomatic changes to identify exacerbations early.  Our review found that digital technologies based on recording physiological change (spirometry) and symptoms probably allow earlier identification of exacerbations as a group. However, this may not reduce the number of exacerbations warranting IV antibiotics and there is probably no effect on lung function. This may be partly due to inconsistent definitions of pulmonary exacerbations and discrepancy in the management strategies for pulmonary exacerbations. Overall, the intervention may make little or no difference to QoL scores.  The adherence to and uptake of digital technologies, especially those which include physiological measurements, are not well sustained and the costs of these need to be balanced against the clinical efficacy.

Airway clearance techniques compared to no airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited progressive life-limiting disease characterised by the build-up of abnormally thick, sticky mucus affecting mostly the lungs, pancreas, and digestive system. Airway clearance techniques (ACTs), traditionally referred to as chest physiotherapy, are recommended as part of a complex treatment programme for people with CF. The aim of an ACTs is to enhance mucociliary clearance and remove viscous secretions from the airways within the lung to prevent distal airway obstruction. This reduces the infective burden and associated inflammatory effects on the airway epithelia.  There are a number of recognised ACTs, none of which have shown superiority in improving short-term outcomes related to mucus transport. This systematic review, which has been updated regularly since it was first published in 2000, considers the efficacy of ACTs compared to not performing any ACT in adults and children with CF. It is important to continue to review this evidence, particularly the long-term outcomes, given the recent introduction of highly effective modulator therapies and the improved health outcomes and potential changes to CF management associated with these drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of airway clearance techniques compared to no airway clearance techniques or cough alone in people with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings, to 17 October 2022. We searched ongoing trials registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) to 7 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised studies that compared airway clearance techniques (chest physiotherapy) with no airway clearance techniques or spontaneous cough alone in people with CF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 cross-over studies (153 participants) and one parallel study (41 participants). There were differences between studies in how the interventions were delivered, with several intervention groups combining more than one ACT. One study used autogenic drainage; five used conventional chest physiotherapy; nine used positive expiratory pressure (PEP), with one study varying the water pressure between arms; three studies used oscillating PEP; two used exercise; and two used high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). Of the 12 included studies, 10 were single-treatment studies, and two delivered the intervention over two consecutive days (once daily in one study, twice daily in the second). This substantial heterogeneity in the treatment interventions precluded pooling of data for meta-analysis. Blinding of participants, caregivers, and clinicians is impossible in airway clearance studies; we therefore judged all studies at unclear risk of performance bias. Lack of information in eight studies made assessment of risk of bias unclear for most other domains.  We rated the certainty of evidence as low or very low due to the short-term cross-over trial design, small numbers of participants, and uncertain risk of bias across most or all domains. Six studies (84 participants) reported no effect on pulmonary function variables following intervention; but one study (14 participants) reported an improvement in pulmonary function following the intervention in some of the treatment groups. Two studies reported lung clearance index: one (41 participants) found a variable response to treatment with HFCWO, whilst another (15 participants) found no effect on lung clearance index with PEP therapy (low-certainty evidence). Five studies (55 participants) reported that ACTs, including coughing, increased radioactive tracer clearance compared to control, while a further study (eight participants) reported no improvement in radioactive tracer clearance when comparing PEP to control, although coughing was discouraged during the PEP intervention. We rated the certainty of evidence on the effect of ACTs on radioactive tracer clearance as very low. Four studies (46 participants) investigated the weight of mucus cleared from the lungs and reported greater secretions during chest physiotherapy compared to a control. One study (18 participants) reported no differences in sputum weight (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from this review shows that ACTs may have short-term effects on increasing mucus transport in people with CF. All included studies had short-term follow-up; consequently, we were unable to draw any conclusions on the long-term effects of ACTs compared to no ACTs in people with CF. The evidence in this review represents the use of airway clearance techniques in a CF population before widespread use of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness and acceptability of airway clearance in those treated with highly effective CFTR modulators.

Inhaled antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disorder in which abnormal mucus in the lungs is associated with susceptibility to persistent infection. Pulmonary exacerbations are when symptoms of infection become more severe. Antibiotics are an essential part of treatment for exacerbations and inhaled antibiotics may be used alone or in conjunction with oral antibiotics for milder exacerbations or with intravenous antibiotics for more severe infections. Inhaled antibiotics do not cause the same adverse effects as intravenous antibiotics and may prove an alternative in people with poor access to their veins. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if treatment of pulmonary exacerbations with inhaled antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis improves their quality of life, reduces time off school or work, and improves their long-term lung function.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. Date of the last search: 7 March 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and WHO ICTRP for relevant trials. Date of last search: 3 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with cystic fibrosis with a pulmonary exacerbation in whom treatment with inhaled antibiotics was compared to placebo, standard treatment or another inhaled antibiotic for between one and four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed the risk of bias in each trial and extracted data. They assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Authors of the included trials were contacted for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials with 183 participants are included in the review. Two trials (77 participants) compared inhaled antibiotics alone to intravenous antibiotics alone and three trials (106 participants) compared a combination of inhaled and intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone. Trials were heterogenous in design and two were only available in abstract form. Risk of bias was difficult to assess in most trials but, for four out of five trials, we judged there to be a high risk from lack of blinding and an unclear risk with regards to randomisation. Results were not fully reported and only limited data were available for analysis. One trial was a cross-over design and we only included data from the first intervention arm. Inhaled antibiotics alone versus intravenous antibiotics alone Only one trial (18 participants) reported a perceived improvement in lifestyle (quality of life) in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Neither trial reported on time off work or school. Both trials measured lung function, but there was no difference reported between treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). With regards to our secondary outcomes, one trial (18 participants) reported no difference in the need for additional antibiotics and the second trial (59 participants) reported on the time to next exacerbation. In neither case was a difference between treatments identified (both very low-certainty evidence). The single trial (18 participants) measuring adverse events and sputum microbiology did not observe any in either treatment group for either outcome (very low-certainty  evidence). Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics alone Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics may make little or no difference to quality of life compared to intravenous antibiotics alone. None of the trials reported time off work or school. All three trials measured lung function, but found no difference between groups in forced expiratory volume in one second (two trials; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or vital capacity (one trial; 62 participants). None of the trials reported on the need for additional antibiotics. Inhaled plus intravenous antibiotics may make little difference to the time to next exacerbation; however, one trial (28 participants) reported on hospital admissions and found no difference between groups. There is likely no difference between groups in adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and one trial (62 participants) reported no difference in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified only low- or very low-certainty evidence to judge the effectiveness of inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. The included trials were not sufficiently powered to achieve their goals. Hence, we are unable to demonstrate whether one treatment was superior to the other or not. Further research is needed to establish whether inhaled tobramycin may be used as an alternative to intravenous tobramycin for some pulmonary exacerbations.

Interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive inherited defect in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene resulting in abnormal regulation of salt and water movement across the membranes. In the liver this leads to focal biliary fibrosis resulting in progressive portal hypertension and end-stage liver disease in some individuals. This can be asymptomatic, but may lead to splenomegaly and hypersplenism, development of varices and variceal bleeding, and ascites; it has negative impact on overall nutritional status and respiratory function in this population. Prognosis is poor once significant portal hypertension is established. The role and outcome of various interventions for managing advanced liver disease (non-malignant end stage disease) in people with cystic fibrosis is currently unidentified.

OBJECTIVES

To review and assess the efficacy of currently available treatment options for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search: 06 April 2017.We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and online trials registries. Date of last search: 04 January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of advanced liver disease in cystic fibrosis with cirrhosis or liver failure, portal hypertension or variceal bleeding (or both).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently examined titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant trials, but none were eligible for inclusion in this review.

MAIN RESULTS

A comprehensive search of the literature did not identify any published eligible randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In order to develop the best source of evidence, there is a need to undertake randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing and managing advanced liver disease in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.

Oscillating devices for airway clearance in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Chest physiotherapy is widely prescribed to assist the clearance of airway secretions in people with cystic fibrosis. Oscillating devices generate intra- or extra-thoracic oscillations orally or external to the chest wall. Internally they create variable resistances within the airways, generating controlled oscillating positive pressure which mobilises mucus. Extra-thoracic oscillations are generated by forces outside the respiratory system, e.g. high frequency chest wall oscillation. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether oscillatory devices, oral or chest wall, are effective for mucociliary clearance and whether they are equivalent or superior to other forms of airway clearance in the successful management of secretions in people with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and hand searches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Latest search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 27 April 2017.In addition we searched the trials databases ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Latest search of trials databases: 26 April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled studies and controlled clinical studies of oscillating devices compared with any other form of physiotherapy in people with cystic fibrosis. Single-treatment interventions (therapy technique used only once in the comparison) were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to publications and assessed the quality of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 76 studies (302 references); 35 studies (total of 1138 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied in duration from up to one week to one year; 20 of the studies were cross-over in design. The studies also varied in type of intervention and the outcomes measured, data were not published in sufficient detail in most of these studies, so meta-analysis was limited. Few studies were considered to have a low risk of bias in any domain. It is not possible to blind participants and clinicians to physiotherapy interventions, but 11 studies did blind the outcome assessors.Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently measured outcome. One long-term study (seven months) compared oscillatory devices with either conventional physiotherapy or breathing techniques and found statistically significant differences in some lung function parameters in favour of oscillating devices. One study identified an increase in frequency of exacerbations requiring antibiotics whilst using high frequency chest wall oscillation when compared to positive expiratory pressure. There were some small but significant changes in secondary outcome variables such as sputum volume or weight, but not wholly in favour of oscillating devices. Participant satisfaction was reported in 15 studies but this was not specifically in favour of an oscillating device, as some participants preferred breathing techniques or techniques used prior to the study interventions. The results for the remaining outcome measures were not examined or reported in sufficient detail to provide any high level evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear evidence that oscillation was a more or less effective intervention overall than other forms of physiotherapy; furthermore there was no evidence that one device is superior to another. The findings from one study showing an increase in frequency of exacerbations requiring antibiotics whilst using an oscillating device compared to positive expiratory pressure may have significant resource implications. More adequately-powered long-term randomised controlled trials are necessary and outcomes measured should include frequency of exacerbations, individual preference, adherence to therapy and general satisfaction with treatment. Increased adherence to therapy may then lead to improvements in other parameters, such as exercise tolerance and respiratory function. Additional evidence is needed to evaluate whether oscillating devices combined with other forms of airway clearance is efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis.There may also be a requirement to consider the cost implication of devices over other forms of equally advantageous airway clearance techniques. Using the GRADE method to assess the quality of the evidence, we judged this to be low or very low quality, which suggests that further research is very likely to have an impact on confidence in any estimate of effect generated by future interventions.

Once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing with intravenous aminoglycosides for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

People with cystic fibrosis, who are chronically colonised with the organism Pseudomonas aeruginosa, often require multiple courses of intravenous aminoglycoside antibiotics for the management of pulmonary exacerbations. The properties of aminoglycosides suggest that they could be given in higher doses less often. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing of intravenous aminoglycoside antibiotics for the management of pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cystic Fibrosis Specialist Register held at the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's editorial base, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and handsearching abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 24 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials, whether published or unpublished, in which once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides has been compared with multiple-daily dosing in terms of efficacy or toxicity or both, in people with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review and assessed the risk of bias of each study; authors also assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Data were independently extracted by each author. Authors of the included studies were contacted for further information. As yet unpublished data were obtained for one of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review. Four studies reporting results from a total of 328 participants (aged 5 to 50 years) were included in this review. All studies compared once-daily dosing with thrice-daily dosing. One study had a low risk of bias for all criteria assessed; the remaining three included studies had a high risk of bias from blinding, but for other criteria were judged to have either an unclear or a low risk of bias.There was no significant difference between treatment groups in: forced expiratory volume in one second, mean difference 0.33 (95% confidence interval -2.81 to 3.48, moderate quality evidence); forced vital capacity, mean difference 0.29 (95% confidence interval -6.58 to 7.16, low quality evidence); % weight for height, mean difference -0.82 (95% confidence interval -3.77 to 2.13, low quality evidence); body mass index, mean difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.42, low quality evidence); or in the incidence of ototoxicity, relative risk 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 7.96, moderate quality evidence). The percentage change in creatinine significantly favoured once-daily treatment in children, mean difference -8.20 (95% confidence interval -15.32 to -1.08, moderate quality evidence), but showed no difference in adults, mean difference 3.25 (95% confidence interval -1.82 to 8.33, moderate quality evidence). The included trials did not report antibiotic resistance patterns or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Once- and three-times daily aminoglycoside antibiotics appear to be equally effective in the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis. There is evidence of less nephrotoxicity in children.

Duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory disease is the major cause of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. Life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. One of the major reasons for this increase is the mounting use of antibiotics to treat chest exacerbations caused by bacterial infections. The optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy is not clearly defined. Individuals usually receive intravenous antibiotics for 14 days, but treatment may range from 10 to 21 days. A shorter duration of antibiotic treatment risks inadequate clearance of infection which could lead to further lung damage. Prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotics are expensive and inconvenient and the incidence of allergic reactions to antibiotics also increases with prolonged courses. The use of aminoglycosides requires frequent monitoring to avoid some of their side effects. However, some organisms which infect people with cystic fibrosis are known to be multi-resistant to antibiotics, and may require a longer course of treatment. This is an update of previously published reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy for treating chest exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, abstract books and conference proceedings.Most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 05 May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic courses for acute respiratory exacerbations in people with CF, either with the same drugs at the same dosage, the same drugs at a different dosage or frequency or different antibiotics altogether, including studies with additional therapeutic agents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No eligible trials were identified.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible trials were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no clear guidelines on the optimum duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment. Duration of treatment is currently based on unit policies and response to treatment. Shorter duration of treatment should improve quality of life and compliance; result in a reduced incidence of drug reactions; and be less costly. However, this may not be sufficient to clear a chest infection and may result in an early recurrence of an exacerbation. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic treatment as it has important clinical and financial implications.

Palivizumab for prophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus infection in children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus infection causes acute lung infection in infants and young children worldwide, resulting in considerable morbidity and mortality. Children with cystic fibrosis are prone to recurrent lung inflammation, bacterial colonisation and subsequent chronic airway disease, putting them at risk for severe respiratory syncytial virus infections requiring intensive care and respiratory support. No treatment currently exists, hence prevention is important. Palivizumab is effective in reducing respiratory syncytial virus hospitalisation rates and is recommended for prophylaxis in high-risk children with other conditions. It is unclear if palivizumab can prevent respiratory syncytial virus hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions in children with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of palivizumab (Synagis(®)) compared with placebo, no prophylaxis or other prophylaxis, in preventing hospitalisation and mortality from respiratory syncytial virus infection in children with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register and scanned references of the eligible study and related reviews.Date of last search: 05 May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

One study (186 infants up to two years old) comparing five monthly doses of palivizumab (N = 92) to placebo (N = 94) over one respiratory syncytial virus season was identified and met our inclusion criteria. We judged there to be a low risk of bias with respect to the concealment of the randomization schedule (although it was not clear how this was generated) and to blinding of participants and study personnel. There is also a low risk of bias with regards to incomplete outcome data. However, we judged there to be a high risk of bias from selective reporting (summary statements presented but no data) and the fact that this industry-supported study has not been published as a full report in a peer-reviewed journal.At six months follow-up, one participant in each group was hospitalised due to respiratory syncytial virus; there were no deaths in either group. In the palivizumab and placebo groups, 86 and 90 children experienced any adverse event, while five and four children had related adverse events respectively. Nineteeen children receiving palivizumab and 16 receiving placebo suffered serious adverse events; one participant receiving palivizumab discontinued due to this. At 12 months follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups in number of Pseudomonas bacterial colonisations or change in weight-to-height ratio.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified one randomised controlled trial comparing five monthly doses of palivizumab to placebo in infants up to two years old with cystic fibrosis. While the overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the safety and tolerability of respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis with palivizumab in infants with cystic fibrosis. Six months after treatment, the authors reported no clinically meaningful differences in outcomes. Additional randomised studies are needed to establish the safety and efficacy of palivizumab in children with cystic fibrosis.

Antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is one of the most common emerging multi-drug resistant organisms found in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis and its prevalence is increasing. Chronic infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has recently been shown to be an independent predictor of pulmonary exacerbation requiring hospitalization and antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis is still unclear. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our review is to assess the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective is to assess this in relation to lung function and pulmonary exacerbations in the setting of acute pulmonary exacerbations. The secondary objective is to assess this in relation to the eradication of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of latest search: 27 May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomized controlled trial of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia mono-infection or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia co-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in either the setting of an acute pulmonary exacerbation or a chronic infection treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search strategy identified only one trial of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations that included people with cystic fibrosis with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. However, this trial had to be excluded because data was not available per pathogen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review did not identify any evidence regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement as to whether or not to treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address these unanswered clinical questions.

Standard (head-down tilt) versus modified (without head-down tilt) postural drainage in infants and young children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Postural drainage is used primarily in infants with cystic fibrosis from diagnosis up to the moment when they are mature enough to actively participate in self-administered treatments. However, there is a risk of gastroesophageal reflux associated with this technique.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of standard postural drainage (greater (30° to 45° head-down tilt) and lesser (15° to 20° head-down tilt)) with modified postural drainage (greater (30º head-up tilt) or lesser (15º to 20º head-up tilt)) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children up to six years old with cystic fibrosis in terms of safety and efficacy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Additional searches were conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov and on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for any planned, ongoing and unpublished studies.The date of the most recent literature searches: 20 January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled studies that compared two postural drainage regimens (standard and modified postural drainage) with regard to gastroesophageal reflux in infants and young children (up to and including six years old) with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies, including 40 participants, were eligible for inclusion in the review. The studies were different in terms of the age of participants, the angle of tilt, the reported outcomes, the number of sessions and the study duration. The following outcomes were measured: appearance or exacerbation of gastroesophageal reflux episodes; percentage of peripheral oxygen saturation; number of exacerbations of upper respiratory tract symptoms; number of days on antibiotics for acute exacerbations; chest X-ray scores; and pulmonary function tests. One study reported that postural drainage with a 20° head-down position did not appear to exacerbate gastroesophageal reflux. However, the majority of the reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus. The second included study reported that modified postural drainage (30º head-up tilt) was associated with fewer number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications than standard postural drainage (30º head-down tilt). The included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Data were not able to be pooled by meta-analysis due to differences in the statistical presentation of the data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence regarding the comparison between the two regimens of postural drainage is still weak due to the small number of included studies, the small number of participants assessed, the inability to perform any meta-analyses and some methodological issues with the studies. However, it may be inferred that the use of a postural regimen with a 30° head-up tilt is associated with a lower number of gastroesophageal reflux episodes and fewer respiratory complications in the long term. The 20º head-down postural drainage position was not found to be significantly different from the 20º head-up tilt modified position. Nevertheless, the fact that the majority of reflux episodes reached the upper oesophagus should make physiotherapists carefully consider their treatment strategy.

Nebulized and oral thiol derivatives for pulmonary disease in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited condition resulting in thickened, sticky respiratory secretions. Respiratory failure, due to recurrent pulmonary infection and inflammation, is the most common cause of mortality. Muco-active therapies (e.g. dornase alfa and nebulized hypertonic saline) may decrease sputum viscosity, increase airway clearance of sputum, reduce infection and inflammation and improve lung function. Thiol derivatives, either oral or nebulized, have shown benefit in other respiratory diseases. Their mode of action is likely to differ according to the route of administration. There are several thiol derivatives, and it is unclear which of these may be beneficial in cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nebulized and oral thiol derivatives in people with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, hand searches of relevant journals, abstract books and conference proceedings.Most recent search: 13 June 2013.We also conducted a PubMed search on 26 February 2013 for relevant published articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing nebulized or oral thiol derivatives to placebo or another thiol derivative in people with cystic fibrosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, analysed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified 23 trials; nine trials (255 participants) are included, of these seven trials are more than 10 years old. Three trials of nebulized thiol derivatives were identified (one compared 20% N-acetylcysteine to 2% N-acetylcysteine; another compared sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate to 7% hypertonic saline; and another compared glutathione to 4% hypertonic saline). Although generally well-tolerated with no significant adverse effects, there was no evidence of significant clinical benefit in our primary outcomes in participants receiving these treatments.Six trials of oral thiol derivatives were identified. Three trials compared N-acetylcysteine to placebo; one compared N-acetylcysteine, ambroxol and placebo; one compared carbocysteine to ambroxol; and one compared low and high-dose N-acetylcysteine. Oral thiol derivatives were generally well-tolerated with no significant adverse effects, however there was no evidence of significant clinical benefit in our primary outcomes in participants receiving these treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to recommend the use of either nebulized or oral thiol derivatives in people with cystic fibrosis. There are very few good quality trials investigating the effect of these medications in cystic fibrosis, and further research is required to investigate the potential role of these medications in improving the outcomes of people with cystic fibrosis.