Comparative efficacy and safety of four randomized regimens to treat early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in children with cystic fibrosis

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.

Brazilian guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of the pulmonary symptoms of cystic fibrosis. Official document of the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT, Brazilian Thoracic Association)

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic disease that results in dysfunction of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, which is a chloride and bicarbonate channel expressed in the apical portion of epithelial cells of various organs. Dysfunction of that protein results in diverse clinical manifestations, primarily involving the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems, impairing quality of life and reducing life expectancy. Although CF is still an incurable pathology, the therapeutic and prognostic perspectives are now totally different and much more favorable. The purpose of these guidelines is to define evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of pharmacological agents in the treatment of the pulmonary symptoms of CF in Brazil. Questions in the Patients of interest, Intervention to be studied, Comparison of interventions, and Outcome of interest (PICO) format were employed to address aspects related to the use of modulators of this protein (ivacaftor, lumacaftor+ivacaftor, and tezacaftor+ivacaftor), use of dornase alfa, eradication therapy and chronic suppression of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Burkholderia cepacia complex. To formulate the PICO questions, a group of Brazilian specialists was assembled and a systematic review was carried out on the themes, with meta-analysis when applicable. The results obtained were analyzed in terms of the strength of the evidence compiled, the recommendations being devised by employing the GRADE approach. We believe that these guidelines represent a major advance to be incorporated into the approach to patients with CF, mainly aiming to favor the management of the disease, and could become an auxiliary tool in the definition of public policies related to CF.

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for long-term therapy in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug-sensitivity reactions and survival).

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 ongoing trials registries. Date of last search: 28 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected trials where people with cystic fibrosis received inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment for at least three months, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 410 citations to 125 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 45 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One trial (18 participants) compared an antibiotic to placebo and also to a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials. Inhaled antibiotics compared to placebo We found that inhaled antibiotics may improve lung function measured in a variety of ways (4 trials, 814 participants). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics may also reduce the frequency of exacerbations (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93; 3 trials, 946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Inhaled antibiotics may lead to fewer days off school or work (quality of life measure) (mean difference (MD) -5.30 days, 95% CI -8.59 to -2.01; 1 trial, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes and there was no effect on survival. There was no effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. We are uncertain of the effect of the intervention on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), but tinnitus and voice alteration were the only events occurring more often in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall certainty of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates. Different antibiotics or regimens compared Of the eight trials comparing different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial for each unique comparison. We found no differences between groups for any outcomes except for the following. Aztreonam lysine for inhalation probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted compared to tobramycin (MD -3.40%, 95% CI -6.63 to -0.17; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. We found no differences in any measure of lung function in the remaining comparisons. Trials measured pulmonary exacerbations in different ways and showed no differences between groups except for aztreonam lysine probably leading to fewer people needing treatment with additional antibiotics than with tobramycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 1 trial, 273 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and there were fewer hospitalisations due to respiratory exacerbations with levofloxacin compared to tobramycin (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; 1 trial, 282 participants; high-certainty evidence). Important treatment-related adverse events were not very common across comparisons, but were reported less often in the tobramycin group compared to both aztreonam lysine and colistimethate. We found the certainty of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rates, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence available is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.

Safety of Quinolones in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The results of animal experiments show that quinolone antibacterial drugs may permanently damage the soft tissues of the weight-bearing joints of young animals. Out of safety concerns, using quinolones in children has always been controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of using quinolones in children and provide evidence for clinicians to support decision making.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data databases were searched from inception to 8 September 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

All types of studies that reported the safety data of quinolones in children, including clinical trials and observational studies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction and cross-checking were completed by two independent reviewers using a pilot-tested standardized data extraction form.

RESULTS

The overall incidence rate of adverse drug events (ADEs) in children using systemic quinolones was 5.39% and the most common ADEs were gastrointestinal reactions (incidence rate, 2.02%). Quinolone-induced musculoskeletal ADEs in children were uncommon (0.76%). Meta-analysis results showed that the risk of musculoskeletal ADEs in children using quinolones was higher than children in the control group (51 studies; rate ratio [RR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.26; p < 0.001; I² = 18.6%; moderate-quality evidence). However, the subgroup analysis results showed that differences might only be observed in children who were followed up for 2 months to 1 year (2-6 months: RR 2.56, 95% CI 2.26-2.89; 7 months to 1 year: RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.98-1.86). Moreover, children (adolescents) aged between 13 and 18 years might be sensitive to the musculoskeletal toxicity of quinolones (RR 2.69, 95% CI 2.37-3.05; moderate-quality evidence) and the risk of levofloxacin-induced musculoskeletal ADEs might be higher (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00-1.77; low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the existing evidence shows that quinolone-induced musculoskeletal ADEs seem to be only short-term and reversible, and no serious skeletal and muscular system damage cases have been reported in children, quinolones should be avoided unless necessary in children because the incidence rate of quinolone-related ADEs is not low and they are broad-spectrum antibiotics that will induce the emergence of resistant strains if used frequently.

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.

Treatments for preventing recurrence of infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) in cystic fibrosis (CF) is a source of much morbidity and mortality. Eradication of early PA infection is possible, but can recur in many individuals. We sought to examine strategies to delay the time to PA recurrence in people with CF.

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether secondary prevention strategies, using antibiotics or other therapies, increase the chances of people with CF remaining free from PA infection following successful eradication therapy.

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 ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 21 August 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (and quasi-randomised trials where the risk of bias was low) comparing any treatment modality aimed at preventing recurrence of PA infection with placebo, standard therapy or any other treatment modality in people with CF who have undergone successful eradication of PA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Conflicts were resolved by discussion and the opinion of a third review author was sought where necessary. Only a subset of participants in the included trial were eligible, therefore individual participant data were requested and obtained from the trial investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial (n = 306) in the review; however, only 253 participants had undergone successful eradication of PA, so fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review. Information presented relates only to the included subset of participants. The trial recruited children aged one to 12 years (mean (standard deviation (SD)) age of 5.8 (3.5) years), 129 participants (51.0%) were female and the median follow-up was 494 days. We compared cycled therapy with tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS), in which participants underwent 28 days of TIS every three months, with culture-based therapy, in which participants were only prescribed medication when a quarterly sputum sample was positive for PA. Reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence included applicability (only included children), incomplete outcome data and a small number of participants. The time to next isolation of PA was probably shorter with cycled TIS therapy than with culture-based therapy, hazard ratio (HR) 2.04 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 3.26) (moderate-quality evidence). This is in contrast to the main publication of the only included trial, which examined rate of PA positivity rather than time to PA infection and included participants not eligible for inclusion in this review. At the end of the trial, there was no difference between the cycled and culture-based groups in the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) L, mean difference (MD) 0.0 L (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) or in FEV₁ % predicted, MD 0.70% (95% CI -4.33 to 5.73) (both very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the change from baseline for FVC between the groups. There was also no difference in the frequency of pulmonary exacerbations between groups, MD -0.18 (95% CI -0.51 to 0.14) (moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, there was no difference between groups in the risk of participants developing novel resistant bacteria, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.5) (moderate-quality evidence). There were more severe adverse events in the cycled group, but the type of treatment probably makes little or no difference to the results, RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.11) (moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference between groups in the change in weight or height from baseline or in rates of adherence to tobramycin or all trial medicines. The included trial did not assess changes in quality of life, the time to chronic infection with PA or the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cycled TIS therapy may be beneficial in prolonging the time to recurrence of PA after successful eradication, but further trials are required, specifically addressing this question and in both adults and children.

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 survival.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. Date of the last search: 03 October 2018.We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and WHO ICTRP for relevant trials. Date of last search: 09 October 2018.

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 quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Authors of the included trials were contacted for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials with 167 participants are included in the review. Two trials (77 participants) compared inhaled antibiotics alone to intravenous antibiotics alone and two trials (90 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 all 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.Inhaled antibiotics alone versus intravenous antibiotics aloneOnly one trial (n = 18) reported a perceived improvement in lifestyle (quality of life) in both groups (very low-quality of 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-quality evidence). With regards to our secondary outcomes, one trial (n = 18) reported no difference in the need for additional antibiotics and the second trial (n = 59) reported on the time to next exacerbation. In neither case was a difference between treatments identified (both very low-quality evidence). The single trial (n = 18) measuring adverse events and sputum microbiology did not observe any in either treatment group for either outcome (very low-quality evidence).Inhaled antibiotics plus intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics aloneNeither trial reported on quality of life or time off work or school. Both trials measured lung function, but found no difference between groups in forced expiratory volume in one second (one trial, n = 28, very low-quality evidence) or vital capacity (one trial, n = 62). Neither trial reported on the need for additional antibiotics or the time to the next exacerbation; however, one trial (n = 28) reported on hospital admissions and found no difference between groups. Both trials reported no difference between groups in adverse events (very low-quality evidence) and one trial (n = 62) reported no difference in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant organisms (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little useful high-level 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.

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for long-term therapy in cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled antibiotics are commonly used to treat persistent airway infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa that contributes to lung damage in people with cystic fibrosis. Current guidelines recommend inhaled tobramycin for individuals with cystic fibrosis and persistent Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection who are aged six years or older. The aim is to reduce bacterial load in the lungs so as to reduce inflammation and deterioration of lung function. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects long-term inhaled antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis on clinical outcomes (lung function, frequency of exacerbations and nutrition), quality of life and adverse events (including drug sensitivity reactions and survival).

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 ongoing trials registries.Date of last search: 13 February 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected trials if inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment was used for at least three months in people with cystic fibrosis, treatment allocation was randomised or quasi-randomised, and there was a control group (either placebo, no placebo or another inhaled antibiotic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials, judged the risk of bias, extracted data from these trials and judged the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

The searches identified 333 citations to 98 trials; 18 trials (3042 participants aged between five and 56 years) met the inclusion criteria. Limited data were available for meta-analyses due to the variability of trial design and reporting of results. A total of 11 trials (1130 participants) compared an inhaled antibiotic to placebo or usual treatment for a duration between three and 33 months. Five trials (1255 participants) compared different antibiotics, two trials (585 participants) compared different regimens of tobramycin and one trial (90 participants) compared intermittent tobramycin with continuous tobramycin alternating with aztreonam. One of the trials (18 participants) compared to placebo and a different antibiotic and so fell into both groups. The most commonly studied antibiotic was tobramycin which was studied in 12 trials.We found limited evidence that inhaled antibiotics improved lung function (four of the 11 placebo-controlled trials, n = 814). Compared to placebo, inhaled antibiotics also reduced the frequency of exacerbations (three trials, n = 946), risk ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.93). There were insufficient data for us to be able to report an effect on nutritional outcomes or survival and there were insufficient data for us to ascertain the effect on quality of life. There was no significant effect on antibiotic resistance seen in the two trials that were included in meta-analyses. Tinnitus and voice alteration were the only adverse events significantly more common in the inhaled antibiotics group. The overall quality of evidence was deemed to be low for most outcomes due to risk of bias within the trials and imprecision due to low event rates.Of the eight trials that compared different inhaled antibiotics or different antibiotic regimens, there was only one trial in each comparison. Forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV₁) % predicted was only found to be significantly improved with aztreonam lysine for inhalation compared to tobramycin (n = 273), mean difference -3.40% (95% CI -6.63 to -0.17). However, the method of defining the endpoint was different to the remaining trials and the participants were exposed to tobramycin for a long period making interpretation of the results problematic. No significant differences were found in the remaining comparisons with regard to lung function. Pulmonary exacerbations were measured in different ways, but one trial (n = 273) found that the number of people treated with antibiotics was lower in those receiving aztreonam than tobramycin, risk ratio 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.86). We found the quality of evidence for these comparisons to be directly related to the risk of bias within the individual trials and varied from low to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotic treatment probably improves lung function and reduces exacerbation rate, but pooled estimates of the level of benefit were very limited. The best evidence is for inhaled tobramycin. More evidence from trials measuring similar outcomes in the same way is needed to determine a better measure of benefit. Longer-term trials are needed to look at the effect of inhaled antibiotics on quality of life, survival and nutritional outcomes.

Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs in most people with cystic fibrosis. Once chronic infection is established, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2006, 2009 and 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether antibiotic treatment of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in children and adults with cystic fibrosis eradicates the organism, delays the onset of chronic infection, and results in clinical improvement. To evaluate whether there is evidence that a particular antibiotic strategy is superior to or more cost-effective than other strategies and to compare the adverse effects of different antibiotic strategies (including respiratory infection with other micro-organisms).

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 abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 10 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of people with cystic fibrosis, in whom Pseudomonas aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics. We excluded non-randomised trials, cross-over trials, and those utilising historical controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 60 trials; seven trials (744 participants) with a duration between 28 days and 27 months were eligible for inclusion. Three of the trials are over 10 years old and their results may be less applicable today given the changes in standard treatment. Some of the trials had low numbers of participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods; however, there was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment given the interventions and comparators used. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used.Evidence from two trials (38 participants) at the two-month time-point showed treatment of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection with inhaled tobramycin results in microbiological eradication of the organism from respiratory secretions more often than placebo, odds ratio 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.65) and data from one of these trials, with longer follow up, suggested that this effect may persist for up to 12 months.One randomised controlled trial (26 participants) compared oral ciprofloxacin and nebulised colistin versus usual treatment. Results after two years suggested treatment of early infection results in microbiological eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa more often than no anti-pseudomonal treatment, odds ratio 0.12 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.79).One trial comparing 28 days to 56 days treatment with nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation in 88 participants showed that both treatments were effective and well-tolerated, with no notable additional improvement with longer over shorter duration of therapy. However, this trial was not powered to detect non-inferiority or equivalence .A trial of oral ciprofloxacin with inhaled colistin versus nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation alone (223 participants) failed to show a difference between the two strategies, although it was underpowered to show this. A further trial of inhaled colistin with oral ciprofloxacin versus nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation with oral ciprofloxacin also showed no superiority of the former, with increased isolation of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in both groups.A recent, large trial in 306 children aged between one and 12 years compared cycled nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. The primary analysis showed no difference in time to pulmonary exacerbation or proportion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa positive cultures. An analysis performed in this review (not adjusted for age) showed fewer participants in the cycled therapy group with one or more isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, odds ratio 0.51 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.28). Using GRADE, the quality of evidence for outcomes was downgraded to moderate to very low. Downgrading decisions for Pseudomonas aeruginosa eradication and lung function were based on applicability (participants mostly children) and limitations in study design, with imprecision an additional limitation for lung function, growth parameters and adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or in combination with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained for up to two years. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotic strategies for the eradication of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa 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 Pseudomonas aeruginosa. There have been no published randomised controlled trials that investigate the efficacy of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Overall, there is still insufficient evidence from this review to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis.

Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common bacterial pathogen causing lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis and appropriate antibiotic therapy is vital. Antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are usually given intravenously, and for long-term treatment, via a nebuliser. Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics with the same efficacy and safety as intravenous or nebulised antibiotics would benefit people with cystic fibrosis due to ease of treatment and avoidance of hospitalisation. This is an update of a previous review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit or harm of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for people with cystic fibrosis, colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, in the:1. treatment of a pulmonary exacerbation; and2. long-term treatment of chronic infection.

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 abstract books of conference proceedings.We contacted pharmaceutical companies and checked reference lists of identified trials.Date of last search: 08 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any dose of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics, to other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics, or to placebo or usual treatment for pulmonary exacerbations and long-term treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the trials, extracted data and assessed quality. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials examining pulmonary exacerbations (171 participants) and two trials examining long-term therapy (85 participants). We regarded the most important outcomes as quality of life and lung function. The analysis did not identify any statistically significant difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments for these outcome measures for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment. One of the included trials reported significantly better lung function when treating a pulmonary exacerbation with ciprofloxacin when compared with intravenous treatment; however, our analysis did not confirm this finding. We found no evidence of difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments regarding adverse events or development of antibiotic resistance, but trials were not adequately powered to detect this. None of the studies had a low risk of bias from blinding which may have an impact particularly on subjective outcomes such as quality of life. The risk of bias for other criteria could not be clearly stated across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence that an oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic regimen is more or less effective than an alternative treatment for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment of chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. Until results of adequately-powered future trials are available, treatment needs to be selected on a pragmatic basis, based upon any available non-randomised evidence, the clinical circumstances of the individual, the known effectiveness of drugs against local strains and upon individual preference.

Antibiotic strategies for eradicating Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs in most people with cystic fibrosis. Once chronic infection is established, Pseudomonas aeruginosa is virtually impossible to eradicate and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Early infection may be easier to eradicate.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2006 and 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether antibiotic treatment of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in children and adults with cystic fibrosis eradicates the organism, delays the onset of chronic infection, and results in clinical improvement. To evaluate whether there is evidence that a particular antibiotic strategy is superior to or more cost-effective than other strategies and to compare the adverse effects of different antibiotic strategies (including respiratory infection with other micro-organisms).

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 abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search: 08 September 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of people with cystic fibrosis, in whom Pseudomonas aeruginosa had recently been isolated from respiratory secretions. We compared combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics with placebo, usual treatment or other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics. We excluded non-randomised trials, cross-over trials, and those utilising historical controls.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 49 trials; seven trials (744 participants) with a duration between 28 days and 27 months were eligible for inclusion. Three of the trials are over 10 years old and their results may be less applicable today given the changes in standard treatment. Some of the trials had low numbers of participants and most had relatively short follow-up periods; however, there was generally a low risk of bias from missing data. In most trials it was difficult to blind participants and clinicians to treatment given the interventions and comparators used. Two trials were supported by the manufacturers of the antibiotic used.Evidence from two trials (38 participants) at the two-month time-point showed treatment of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection with inhaled tobramycin results in microbiological eradication of the organism from respiratory secretions more often than placebo, odds ratio 0.15 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.65) and data from one of these trials, with longer follow up, suggested that this effect may persist for up to 12 months.One randomised controlled trial (26 participants) compared oral ciprofloxacin and nebulised colistin versus usual treatment. Results after two years suggested treatment of early infection results in microbiological eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa more often than no anti-pseudomonal treatment, odds ratio 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.79).One trial comparing 28 days to 56 days treatment with nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation in 88 participants showed that both treatments were effective and well-tolerated, with no notable additional improvement with longer over shorter duration of therapy. However, this trial was not powered to detect non-inferiority or equivalence .A trial of oral ciprofloxacin with inhaled colistin versus nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation alone (223 participants) failed to show a difference between the two strategies, although it was underpowered to show this. A further trial of inhaled colistin with oral ciprofloxacin versus nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation with oral ciprofloxacin also showed no superiority of the former, with increased isolation of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in both groups.A recent, large trial in 306 children aged between one and 12 years compared cycled nebulised tobramycin solution for inhalation to culture-based therapy and also ciprofloxacin to placebo. The primary analysis showed no difference in time to pulmonary exacerbation or proportion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa positive cultures. An analysis performed in this review (not adjusted for age) showed fewer participants in the cycled therapy group with one or more isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, odds ratio 0.51 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.28).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that nebulised antibiotics, alone or in combination with oral antibiotics, were better than no treatment for early infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eradication may be sustained for up to two years. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotic strategies for the eradication of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa decrease mortality or morbidity, improve quality of life, or are associated with adverse effects compared to placebo or standard treatment. Four trials of two active treatments have failed to show differences in rates of eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. There have been no published randomised controlled trials that investigate the efficacy of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Overall, there is still insufficient evidence from this review to state which antibiotic strategy should be used for the eradication of early Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis.

Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common bacterial pathogen causing lung infections in people with CF and appropriate antibiotic therapy is vital. Antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are usually given intravenously, and for long-term treatment, via a nebuliser. Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics with the same efficacy and safety as intravenous or nebulised antibiotics would benefit people with CF due to ease of treatment and avoidance of hospitalisation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit or harm of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for people with CF, colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, in the:1. treatment of a pulmonary exacerbation; and 2. long-term treatment of chronic infection.

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 abstract books of conference proceedings.We contacted pharmaceutical companies and checked reference lists of identified trials.Date of last search: 28 June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any dose of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics, to other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics, or to placebo or usual treatment for pulmonary exacerbations and long-term treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the trials, extracted data and assessed quality. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials examining pulmonary exacerbations (171 participants) and two trials examining long-term therapy (85 participants). We regarded the most important outcomes as quality of life and lung function. The analysis did not identify any statistically significant difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments for these outcome measures for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment. One of the included trials reported significantly better lung function when treating a pulmonary exacerbation with ciprofloxacin when compared with intravenous treatment; however, our analysis did not confirm this finding. We found no evidence of difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments regarding adverse events or development of antibiotic resistance, but trials were not adequately powered to detect this. None of the studies had a low risk of bias from blinding which may have an impact particularly on subjective outcomes such as quality of life. The risk of bias for other criteria could not be clearly stated across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence that an oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic regimen is more or less effective than an alternative treatment for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment of chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. Until results of adequately-powered future trials are available, treatment needs to be selected on a pragmatic basis, based upon any available non-RCT evidence, the clinical circumstances of the individual, the known effectiveness of drugs against local strains and upon individual preference.

Recent advances in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in cystic fibrosis

Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients is caused by biofilm-growing mucoid strains. Biofilms can be prevented by early aggressive antibiotic prophylaxis or therapy, and they can be treated by chronic suppressive therapy. New results from one small trial suggest that addition of oral ciprofloxacin to inhaled tobramycin may reduce lung inflammation. Clinical trials with new formulations of old antibiotics for inhalation therapy (aztreonam lysine) against chronic P. aeruginosa infection improved patient-reported outcome, lung function, time to acute exacerbations and sputum density of P. aeruginosa. Other drugs such as quinolones are currently under investigation for inhalation therapy. A trial of the use of anti-Pseudomonas antibiotics for long-term prophylaxis showed no effect in patients who were not already infected. Use of azithromycin to treat CF patients without P. aeruginosa infection did not improve lung function. Here I review the recent advances in the treatment of P. aeruginosa lung infections with a focus on inhalation treatments targeted at prophylaxis and chronic suppressive therapy.