Inhaled bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Chronic lung disease (CLD) occurs frequently in preterm infants and is associated with respiratory morbidity. Bronchodilators have the potential effect of dilating small airways with muscle hypertrophy. Increased compliance and tidal volume, and decreased airway resistance, have been documented with the use of bronchodilators in infants with CLD. Therefore, bronchodilators are widely considered to have a role in the prevention and treatment of CLD, but there remains uncertainty as to whether they improve clinical outcomes. This is an update of the 2016 Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of inhaled bronchodilators given as prophylaxis or as treatment for chronic lung disease (CLD) on mortality and other complications of preterm birth in infants at risk for or identified as having CLD.

SEARCH METHODS

An Information Specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and three trials registers from 2016 to May 2023. In addition, the review authors undertook reference checking, citation searching and contact with trial authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving preterm infants less than 32 weeks old that compared bronchodilators to no intervention or placebo. CLD was defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days of life or at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Initiation of bronchodilator therapy for the prevention of CLD had to occur within two weeks of birth. Treatment of infants with CLD had to be initiated before discharge from the neonatal unit. The intervention had to include administration of a bronchodilator by nebulisation or metered dose inhaler. The comparator was no intervention or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Critical outcomes included: mortality within the trial period; CLD (defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days of life or at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age); adverse effects of bronchodilators, including hypokalaemia (low potassium levels in the blood), tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmia, tremor, hypertension and hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar); and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two randomised controlled trials in this review update. Only one trial provided useable outcome data. This trial was conducted in six neonatal intensive care units in France and Portugal, and involved 173 participants with a gestational age of less than 31 weeks. The infants in the intervention group received salbutamol for the prevention of CLD. The evidence suggests that salbutamol may result in little to no difference in mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 2.31; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence) or CLD at 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17; low-certainty evidence), when compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of salbutamol on pneumothorax. The one trial with usable data reported that there were no relevant differences between groups, without providing the number of events (very low-certainty evidence). Investigators in this study did not report if side effects occurred. We found no eligible trials that evaluated the use of bronchodilator therapy for the treatment of infants with CLD. We identified no ongoing studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from one trial showed that inhaled bronchodilator prophylaxis may result in little or no difference in the incidence of mortality or CLD in preterm infants, when compared to placebo. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of salbutamol on pneumothorax, and neither included study reported on the incidence of serious adverse effects. We identified no trials that studied the use of bronchodilator therapy for the treatment of CLD. Additional clinical trials are necessary to assess the role of bronchodilator agents in the prophylaxis or treatment of CLD. Researchers studying the effects of inhaled bronchodilators in preterm infants should include relevant clinical outcomes in addition to pulmonary mechanical outcomes.

Interventions for treating lymphocytic colitis

BACKGROUND

Lymphocytic colitis is a cause of chronic diarrhea. It is a subtype of microscopic colitis characterized by chronic, watery, non-bloody diarrhea and normal endoscopic and radiologic findings. The etiology of this disorder is unknown.Therapy is based mainly on case series and uncontrolled trials, or by extrapolation of data for treating collagenous colitis, a related disorder. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments for clinically active lymphocytic colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The MEDLINE, PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to 11 August 2016 to identify relevant papers. Manual searches from the references of included studies and relevant review articles were performed.Abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings were also searched to identify research submitted in abstract form only. The trial registry web site www.ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify registered but unpublished trials. Finally, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Group Specialized Trials Register were searched for other studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials assessing medical therapy for patients with biopsy-proven lymphocytic colitis were considered for inclusion DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was independently extracted by at least two authors. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. The primary outcome was clinical response as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcome measures included histological response as defined by the included studies, quality of life as measured by a validated instrument and the occurrence of adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments. Dichotomous data were combined using a pooled RR along with corresponding 95% CI. A fixed-effect model was used for the pooled analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (149 participants) met the inclusion criteria. These studies assessed bismuth subsalicylate versus placebo, budesonide versus placebo, mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine and beclometasone dipropionate versus mesalazine. The study which assessed mesalazine versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine and the study which assessed beclometasone dipropionate versus mesalazine were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The study which compared bismuth subsalicylate versus us placebo was judged as low quality due to a very small sample size and limited data. The other 3 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. Budesonide (9 mg/day for 6 to 8 weeks) was significantly more effective than placebo for induction of clinical and histological response. Clinical response was noted in 88% of budesonide patients compared to 38% of placebo patients (2 studies; 57 participants; RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.33; GRADE = low). Histological response was noted in 78% of budesonide patients compared to 33% of placebo patients (2 studies; 39 patients; RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.28; GRADE = low). Forty-one patients were enrolled in the study assessing mesalazine (2.4 g/day) versus mesalazine plus cholestyramine (4 g/day). Clinical response was noted in 85% of patients in the mesalazine group compared to 86% of patients in the mesalazine plus cholestyramine group (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; GRADE = low). Five patients were enrolled in the trial studying bismuth subsalicylate (nine 262 mg tablets daily for 8 weeks versus placebo). There were no differences in clinical (P=0.10) or histological responses (P=0.71) in patients treated with bismuth subsalicylate compared with placebo (GRADE = very low). Forty-six patients were enrolled in the trial studying beclometasone dipropionate (5 mg/day or 10 mg/day) versus mesalazine (2.4 g/day). There were no differences in clinical remission at 8 weeks (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24; GRADE = low) and 12 months of treatment (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.40 to 4.18; GRADE = very low). Although patients receiving beclometasone dipropionate (84%) and mesalazine (86%) achieved clinical remission at 8 weeks, it was not maintained at 12 months (26% and 20%, respectively). Adverse events reported in the budesonide studies include nausea, vomiting, neck pain, abdominal pain, hyperhidrosis and headache. Nausea and skin rash were reported as adverse events in the mesalazine study. Adverse events in the beclometasone dipropionate trial include nausea, sleepiness and change of mood. No adverse events were reported in the bismuth subsalicylate study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low quality evidence suggests that budesonide may be effective for the treatment of active lymphocytic colitis. This benefit needs to be confirmed by a large placebo -controlled trial. Low quality evidence also suggests that mesalazine with or without cholestyramine and beclometasone dipropionate may be effective for the treatment of lymphocytic colitis, however this needs to be confirmed by large placebo-controlled studies. No conclusions can be made regarding bismuth subsalicylate due to the very small number of patients in the study, Further trials studying interventions for lymphocytic colitis are warranted.

Interventions for managing asthma in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common respiratory disorder complicating pregnancy, and is associated with a range of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. There is strong evidence however, that the adequate control of asthma can improve health outcomes for mothers and their babies. Despite known risks of poorly controlled asthma during pregnancy, a large proportion of women have sub-optimal asthma control, due to concerns surrounding risks of pharmacological agents, and uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and safety of different management strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic) for managing women's asthma in pregnancy on maternal and fetal/infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (2 June 2014) and the Cochrane Airways Group's Trials Register (4 June 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention used to manage asthma in pregnancy, with placebo, no intervention, or an alternative intervention. We included pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions (including combined interventions). Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion (but none were identified). Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.We included multi-armed trials along with two-armed trials. We also included studies published as abstracts only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials in this review, involving 1181 women and their babies. Overall we judged two trials to be at low risk of bias, two to be of unclear risk of bias, and four to be at moderate risk of bias.Five trials assessed pharmacological agents, including inhaled corticosteroids (beclomethasone or budesonide), inhaled magnesium sulphate, intravenous theophylline, and inhaled beclomethasone verus oral theophylline. Three trials assessed non-pharmacological interventions, including a fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO)-based algorithm versus a clinical guideline-based algorithm to adjust inhaled corticosteroid therapy, a pharmacist-led multi-disciplinary approach to management versus standard care, and progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) versus sham training.The eight included trials were assessed under seven separate comparisons. Pharmacological interventionsPrimary outcomes: one trial suggested that inhaled magnesium sulphate in addition to usual treatment could reduce exacerbation frequency in acute asthma (mean difference (MD) -2.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.21 to -2.39; 60 women). One trial assessing the addition of intravenous theophylline to standard care in acute asthma did not report on exacerbations (65 women). No clear difference was shown in the risk of exacerbations with the use of inhaled beclomethasone in addition to usual treatment for maintenance therapy in one trial (risk ratio (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.05; 60 women); a second trial also showed no difference, however data were not clearly reported to allow inclusion in a meta-analysis. No difference was shown when inhaled beclomethasone was compared with oral theophylline for maintenance therapy (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.33; one trial, 385 women). None of these trials reported on neonatal intensive care admissions.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

inhaled magnesium sulphate in acute asthma was shown to improve lung function measures (one trial, 60 women); intravenous theophylline in acute asthma was not associated with benefits (one trial, 65 women). No clear differences were seen with the addition of inhaled corticosteroids to routine treatment in three trials (374 women). While inhaled beclomethasone, compared with oral theophylline, significantly reduced treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects in one trial (384 women), no other differences were observed, except for higher treatment adherence with theophylline. Four of the five trials did not report on adverse effects. Non-pharmacological interventionsPrimary outcomes: in one trial, the use of a FENO-based algorithm was shown to significantly reduce asthma exacerbations (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.90; 220 women); and a trend towards fewer neonatal hospitalisations was observed (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.02; 214 infants). No exacerbations occurred in one trial assessing pharmacist-led management; this approach did not reduce neonatal intensive care admissions (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.27 to 8.32; 58 infants). One trial (64 women) assessing PMR did not report on exacerbations or neonatal intensive care admissions.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

the use of a FENO-based algorithm to adjust therapy led to some improvements in quality of life scores, as well as more frequent use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists, and less frequent use of short-acting β-agonists (one trial, 220 women). The FENO-based algorithm was associated with fewer infants with recurrent episodes of bronchiolitis in their first year of life, and a trend towards fewer episodes of croup for infants. Pharmacist-led management improved asthma control scores at six months (one trial, 60 women); PMR improved lung function and quality of life measures (one trial, 64 women). No other differences between comparisons were observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on eight included trials, of moderate quality overall, no firm conclusions about optimal interventions for managing asthma in pregnancy can be made. Five trials assessing pharmacological interventions did not provide clear evidence of benefits or harms to support or refute current practice. While inhaled magnesium sulphate for acute asthma was shown to reduce exacerbations, this was in one small trial of unclear quality, and thus this finding should be interpreted with caution. Three trials assessing non-pharmacological interventions provided some support for the use of such strategies, however were not powered to detect differences in important maternal and infant outcomes. While a FENO-based algorithm reduced exacerbations, the effects on perinatal outcomes were less certain, and thus widespread implementation is not yet appropriate. Similarly, though positive effects on asthma control were shown with PMR and pharmacist-led management, the evidence to date is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.In view of the limited evidence base, further randomised trials are required to determine the most effective and safe interventions for asthma in pregnancy. Future trials must be sufficiently powered, and well-designed, to allow differences in important outcomes for mothers and babies to be detected. The impact on health services requires evaluation. Any further trials assessing pharmacological interventions should assess novel agents or those used in current practice. Encouragingly, at least five trials have been identified as planned or underway.