OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of statins as an adjunct therapy for asthma in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched for studies in the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP and Embase Ovid SP, from their inception dates We handsearched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences. We also searched clinical trials registries for completed, ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews to identify additional studies. The search is current to 7 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group design that assessed statins for at least 12 weeks' duration. We considered all participants with a clinical diagnosis of asthma to be eligible, regardless of age, sex, disease severity and previous or current treatment. We planned to include studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and selected the studies, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We resolved any disagreement through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS: We found only one trial involving a total of 60 people living with asthma. The trial compared the effect of atorvastatin with a placebo (dummy treatment containing lactose) in treating people with chronic asthma. The trial did not report data for the primary outcomes or adverse events. There was uncertainty about the relative effect on forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) in the atorvastatin group compared with the placebo group. The study did not report serious adverse effects for the interventions. The included study had internal discrepancies in its reported data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence was of very low certainty, so we are unable to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of statins to treat asthma. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess the effect of statins on people with asthma. Well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples and longer duration of treatment are required, which assess outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and costs, to provide better quality evidence. Future studies that include subgroups of obese people with asthma are also required.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide in stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website and Almirall Clinical Trials Registry and Results. We contacted Forest Laboratories for any unpublished trials and checked the reference lists of identified articles for additional information. The last search was performed on 7 April 2014 for CAGR and 11 April 2014 for other sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group RCTs of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo, long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or LAMA in adults with stable COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought missing data from the trial authors as well as manufacturers of aclidinium. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and reported both with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: This review included 12 multicentre RCTs randomly assigning 9547 participants with stable COPD. All the studies were industry-sponsored and had similar inclusion criteria with relatively good methodological quality. All but one study included in the meta-analysis were double-blind and scored low risk of bias. The study duration ranged from four weeks to 52 weeks. Participants were more often males, mainly Caucasians, mean age ranging from 61.7 to 65.6 years, and with a smoking history of 10 or more pack years. They had moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was between 46% and 57.6% of the predicted normal value, and the mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 45.1 to 50.4 when reported.There was no difference between aclidinium and placebo in all-cause mortality (low quality) and number of patients with exacerbations requiring a short course of oral steroids or antibiotics, or both (moderate quality). Aclidinium improved quality of life by lowering the SGRQ total score with a mean difference of -2.34 (95% CI -3.18 to -1.51; I(2) = 48%, 7 trials, 4442 participants) when compared to placebo. More patients on aclidinium achieved a clinically meaningful improvement of at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.70; I(2) = 34%; number needed to treat (NNT) = 10, 95% CI 8 to 15, high quality evidence) over 12 to 52 weeks than on placebo. Aclidinium also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in pre-dose FEV1 than placebo with a mean difference of 0.09 L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.10; I(2) = 39%, 9 trials, 4963 participants). No trials assessed functional capacity. Aclidinium reduced the number of patients with exacerbations requiring hospitalisation by 4 to 20 fewer per 1000 over 4 to 52 weeks (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%, 10 trials, 5624 people; NNT = 77, 95% CI 51 to 233, high quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in non-fatal serious adverse events (moderate quality evidence) between aclidinium and placebo.Compared to tiotropium, aclidinium did not demonstrate significant differences for exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both, exacerbation-related hospitalisations and non-fatal serious adverse events (very low quality evidence). Inadequate data prevented the comparison of aclidinium to formoterol or other LABAs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium is associated with improved quality of life and reduced hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD compared to placebo. Overall, aclidinium did not significantly reduce mortality, serious adverse events or exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both.Currently, the available data are insufficient and of very low quality in comparisons of the efficacy of aclidinium versus tiotropium. The efficacy of aclidinium versus LABAs cannot be assessed due to inaccurate data. Thus additional trials are recommended to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium compared to other LAMAs or LABAs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV1 compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of magnesium sulfate for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, EU Clinical Trials Register and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. We also searched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences and reference lists of included studies up to 2 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included single- or double-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing magnesium sulfate in adults with COPD exacerbations. We excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were: hospital admissions (from the emergency room); need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV), assisted ventilation or admission to intensive-care unit (ICU); and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: length of hospital stay, mortality, adverse events, dyspnoea score, lung function and blood gas measurements. We assessed confidence in the evidence using GRADE methodology. For missing data, we contacted the study investigators.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (10 double-blind and 1 single-blind) with a total 762 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 62 to 76 years. Trials were single- or two-centre trials conducted in Iran, New Zealand, Nepal, Turkey, the UK, Tunisia and the USA between 2004 and 2018. We judged studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains. Three studies were at high risk for blinding and other biases. Intravenous magnesium sulfate versus placebo Seven studies (24 to 77 participants) were included. Fewer people may require hospital admission with magnesium infusion compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 7; 3 studies, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous magnesium may result in little to no difference in the requirement for non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reported cases of endotracheal intubation (2 studies, 107 participants) or serious adverse events (1 study, 77 participants) in either group. Included studies did not report intensive care unit (ICU) admission or deaths. Magnesium infusion may reduce the length of hospital stay by a mean difference (MD) of 2.7 days (95% CI 4.73 days to 0.66 days; 2 studies, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence) and improve dyspnoea score by a standardised mean difference of -1.40 (95% CI -1.83 to -0.96; 2 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were uncertain about the effect of magnesium infusion on improving lung function or oxygen saturation. For all adverse events, the Peto OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.00; 102 participants); however, the event rate was too low to reach a robust conclusion. Nebulised magnesium sulfate versus placebo Three studies (20 to 172 participants) were included. Magnesium inhalation may have little to no impact on hospital admission (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or need for ventilatory support (NIV or mechanical ventilation) (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.20; very low-certainty evidence). It may result in fewer ICU admissions compared to placebo (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in dyspnoea (MD -14.37, 95% CI -26.00 to -2.74; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events reported in either group. There was one reported death in the placebo arm in one trial, but the number of participants was too small for a conclusion. There was limited evidence about the effect of magnesium inhalation on length of hospital stay, lung function outcomes or oxygen saturation. Included studies did not report adverse events. Magnesium sulfate versus ipratropium bromide A single study with 124 participants assessed nebulised magnesium sulfate plus intravenous magnesium infusion versus nebulised ipratropium plus intravenous normal saline. There was little to no difference between these groups in terms of hospital admission (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.37), endotracheal intubation (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.71) and length of hospital stay (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 2.42), all with very low-certainty evidence. There were no data available for non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and serious adverse events. Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium sulfate may be associated with fewer hospital admissions, reduced length of hospital stay and improved dyspnoea scores compared to placebo. There is no evidence of a difference between magnesium infusion and placebo for NIV, lung function, oxygen saturation or adverse events. We found no evidence for ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, serious adverse events or mortality. For nebulised magnesium sulfate, we are unable to draw conclusions about its effects in COPD exacerbations for most of the outcomes. Studies reported possibly lower ICU admissions and a lesser degree of dyspnoea with magnesium inhalation compared to placebo; however, larger studies are required to yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes. Similarly, we could not identify any robust evidence for magnesium sulfate compared to ipratropium bromide. Future well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples are required, including subgroups according to severity of exacerbations and COPD phenotypes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonists in stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV1 of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV1 compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques of laser photocoagulation therapy in sickle cell disease-related retinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 21 September 2015.We also searched the following resources (24 March 2015): Latin American and Carribean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platforms (ICTRP); and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laser photocoagulation to no treatment in children and adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, the risk of bias of the included trials and extracted and analysed data. We contacted the trial authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (341 eyes of 238 children and adults) were included comparing efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation to no therapy in people with proliferative sickle retinopathy. There were 121 males and 117 females with an age range from 13 to 67 years. The laser photocoagulation technique used was different in the two trials; one single-centre trial employed sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation using an argon laser; and the second, two-centre trial, employed feeder vessel coagulation using argon laser in one centre and xenon arc in the second centre. The follow-up period ranged from a mean of 21 to 32 months in one trial and 42 to 47 months in the second. Both trials were at risk of selection bias (random sequence generation) because of the randomisation method employed for participants with bilateral disease. One study was considered to be at risk of reporting bias.Using sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation, one trial (174 eyes) reported that complete regression of proliferative sickle retinopathy was seen in 30.2% in the laser group and 22.4% in the control group (no difference between groups). The same trial reported the development of new proliferative sickle retinopathy in 34.3% of laser-treated eyes and in 41.3% of eyes given no treatment; again, there was no difference between treatment groups. The second trial, using feeder vessel coagulation, did not present full data for either treatment group for these outcomes.There was evidence from both trials (341 eyes) that laser photocoagulation using scatter laser or feeder vessel coagulation may prevent the loss of vision in eyes with proliferative sickle retinopathy (at median follow up of 21 to 47 months). Data from both trials indicated that laser treatment prevented the occurrence of vitreous haemorrhage with both argon and xenon laser; with the protective effect being greater with feeder vessel laser treatment compared to scatter photocoagulation.Regarding adverse effects, the incidence of retinal tear was minimal, with only one event reported. Combined data from both trials were available for 341 eyes; there was no difference between the laser and control arms for retinal detachment. In relation to choroidal neovascularization, treatment with xenon arc was found to be associated with a significantly higher risk, but visual loss related to this complication is uncommon with long-term follow up of three years or more.Data regarding quality of life and other adverse effects were not reported in the included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are based on the data from two trials conducted over 20 years ago. In the absence of further evidence, laser treatment for sickle cell disease-related retinopathy should be considered as a one of therapeutic options for preventing visual loss and vitreous haemorrhage. However, it does not appear to have a significant different effect on other clinical outcomes such as regression of proliferative sickle retinopathy and development of new ones. No evidence is available assessing efficacy in relation to patient-important outcomes (such as quality of life or the loss of a driving licence). There is limited evidence on safety, overall, scatter argon laser photocoagulation is superior in terms of adverse effects, although feeder vessel coagulation has a better effect in preventing vitreous haemorrhage. Further research is needed to examine the safety of laser treatment compared to other interventions such as intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors. In addition, patient-important outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness should be addressed.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques of laser photocoagulation therapy in SCD-related proliferative retinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched the following resources (26 June 2022): Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platforms (ICTRP); and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laser photocoagulation to no treatment in children and adults with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials; we extracted and analysed data, contacting trial authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (414 eyes of 339 children and adults) comparing the efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation to no therapy in people with PSR. There were 160 males and 179 females ranging in age from 13 to 67 years. The trials used different laser photocoagulation techniques; one single-centre trial employed sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation using an argon laser; a two-centre trial employed feeder vessel coagulation using argon laser in one centre and xenon arc in the second centre; while a third trial employed focal scatter laser photocoagulation using argon laser. The mean follow-up periods were 21 to 32 months in one trial, 42 to 47 months in a second, and 48 months in the third. Two trials had a high risk of allocation bias due to the randomisation method for participants with bilateral disease; the third trial had an unclear risk of selection bias. One trial was at risk of reporting bias. Given the unit of analysis is the eye rather than the individual, we chose to report the data narratively. Using sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation, one trial (174 eyes) reported no difference between groups for complete regression of PSR: 30.2% in the laser group and 22.4% in the control group. The same trial also reported no difference between groups in the development of new PSR: 34.3% of lasered eyes and 41.3% of control eyes (very low-certainty evidence). The two-centre trial using feeder vessel coagulation, only presented data at follow-up for one centre (mean period of nine years) and reported the development of new sea fan in 48.0% in the treated and 45.0% in the control group; no statistical significance (P = 0.64). A third trial reported regression in 55% of the laser group versus 28.6% of controls and progression of PSR in 10.5% of treated versus 25.7% of control eyes. We graded the evidence for these two primary outcomes as very low-certainty evidence. The sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported visual loss in 3.0% of treated eyes (mean follow-up 47 months) versus 12.0% of controlled eyes (mean follow-up 42 months) (P = 0.019). The feeder vessel coagulation trial reported visual loss in 1.14% of the laser group and 7.5% of the control group (mean follow-up 26 months at one site and 32 months in another) (P = 0.07). The focal scatter laser photocoagulation trial (mean follow-up of four years) reported that 72/73 eyes had the same visual acuity, while visual loss was seen in only one eye from the control group. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low. The sectoral scatter laser trial detected vitreous haemorrhage in 12.0% of the laser group and 25.3% of control with a mean follow-up of 42 (control) to 47 months (treated) (P ≤ 0.5). The two-centre feeder vessel coagulation trial observed vitreous haemorrhage in 3.4% treated eyes (mean follow-up 26 months) versus 27.5% control eyes (mean follow-up 32 months); one centre (mean follow-up nine years) reported vitreous haemorrhage in 1/25 eyes (4.0%) in the treatment group and 9/20 eyes (45.0%) in the control group (P = 0.002). The scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported that vitreous haemorrhage was not seen in the treated group compared to 6/35 (17.1%) eyes in the control group and appeared only in the grades B and (PSR) stage III) (P < 0.05). We graded evidence for this outcome as low-certainty. Regarding adverse effects, only one occurrence of retinal tear was reported. All three trials reported on retinal detachment, with no significance across the treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). One trial reported on choroidal neovascularization, with treatment with xenon arc found to be associated with a significantly higher risk, but visual loss related to this complication is uncommon with long-term follow-up of three years or more. The included trials did not report on other adverse effects or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are based on the data from three trials (two of which were conducted over 30 years ago). Given the limited evidence available, which we assessed to be of low- or very low-certainty, we are uncertain whether laser therapy for sickle cell retinopathy improves the outcomes measured in this review. This treatment does not appear to have an effect on clinical outcomes such as regression of PSR and development of new incidences. No evidence is available assessing efficacy in relation to patient-important outcomes (such as quality of life or the loss of a driving licence). Further research is needed to examine the safety of laser treatment compared to other interventions such as intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) . Patient-important outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness should be addressed.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
SEARCH METHODS: We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence from the trials included in this review, we do not know if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy increases, reduces, or makes no difference to the number of people with treatment success; if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation increases, reduces, or makes no difference to serious adverse events; or if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham improves, worsens, or makes no difference to health-related quality of life and liver function tests in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Evidence on the effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with sham, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation,or dual endoscopic sphincterotomyon all-cause mortality, non-serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay is lacking. We found no trials comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy versus a placebo drug or versus any other pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination. All four trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. We lack randomised clinical trials assessing clinically and patient-relevant outcomes to demonstrate the effects of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in children and adults with SCD and to compare different dose regimens. To determine the effects of vitamin D supplementation on general health (e.g. growth status and health-related quality of life), on musculoskeletal health (including bone mineral density, pain crises, bone fracture and muscle health), on respiratory health (including lung function, acute chest syndrome, acute exacerbation of asthma and respiratory infections) and the safety of vitamin D supplementation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 19 March 2020. We also searched database such as PubMed, clinical trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 14 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing oral administration of any form of vitamin D supplementation at any dose and for any duration to another type or dose of vitamin D or placebo or no supplementation in people with SCD, of all ages, gender, and phenotypes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. They used the GRADE guidelines to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Vitamin D versus placebo One double-blind RCT (n = 39) compared oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation (20 participants) to placebo (19 participants) for six weeks. Only 25 participants completed the full six months of follow-up. The study had a high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data, but a low risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors) and selective outcome reporting; and an unclear risk of other biases. Vitamin D supplementation probably led to higher serum 25(OH)D levels at eight weeks, mean difference (MD) 29.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.63 to 32.95); at 16 weeks, MD 12.67 (95% CI 10.43 to 14.90); and at 24 weeks, MD 15.52 (95% CI 13.50 to 17.54) (moderate-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in adverse events (tingling of lips or hands) between the vitamin D and placebo groups, risk ratio 3.16 (95% CI 0.14 to 72.84) (low-quality evidence). Vitamin D supplementation probably caused fewer pain days compared to the placebo group at eight weeks, MD -10.00 (95% CI -16.47 to -3.53) (low-quality evidence), but probably led to a lower (worse) health-related quality of life score (change from baseline in physical functioning PedsQL scores); at both 16 weeks, MD -12.56 (95% CI -16.44 to -8.69) and 24 weeks, MD -12.59 (95% CI -17.43 to -7.76), although this may not be the case at eight weeks (low-quality evidence). Vitamin D supplementation regimens compared Two double-blind RCTs (83 participants) compared different regimens of vitamin D. One RCT (n = 62) compared oral vitamin D3 7000 IU/day to 4000 IU/day for 12 weeks, while the second RCT (n = 21) compared oral vitamin D3 100,000 IU/month to 12,000 IU/month for 24 months. Both RCTs had low risk of bias for blinding (of participants, personnel and outcome assessors) and incomplete outcome data, but the risk of selective outcome reporting bias was high. The bias from randomisation and allocation concealment was low in one study but not in the second. There was an unclear risk of other biases. When comparing oral vitamin D 100,000 IU/month to 12,000 IU/month, the higher dose may have resulted in higher serum 25(OH)D levels at one year, MD 16.40 (95% CI 12.59 to 20.21) and at two years, MD 18.96 (95% CI 15.20 to 22.72) (low-quality evidence). There was little or no difference in adverse events between doses (low-quality evidence). There were more episodes of acute chest syndrome in the high-dose group, at one year, MD 0.27 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) but there was little or no difference at two years, MD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22) (moderate-quality evidence). At one year and two years there was also little or no difference between the doses in the presence of pain (moderate-quality evidence) or forced expiratory volume in one second % predicted. However, the high-dose group had lower values for % predicted forced vital capacity at both one and two years, MD -7.20% predicted (95% CI -14.15 to -0.25) and MD -7.10% predicted (95% CI -14.03 to -0.17), respectively. There were little or no differences between dose regimens in the muscle health of either hand or the dominant hand. The study comparing oral vitamin D3 7000 IU/day to 4000 IU/day (21 participants) did not provide data for analysis, but median serum 25(OH)D levels were reported to be lower in the low-dose group at both six and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks the median serum parathyroid hormone level was lower in the high-dose group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We included three RCTs of varying quality. We consider that the current evidence presented in this review is not of sufficient quality to guide clinical practice. Until further evidence becomes available, clinicians should consider the relevant existing guidelines for vitamin D supplementation and dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D. Well-designed RCTs of parallel design, are required to determine the effects and the safety of vitamin D supplementation as well as to assess the relative benefits of different doses in children and adults with SCD.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in children and adults with sickle cell disease.To determine the effects of vitamin D supplementation on general health such as growth status and health-related quality of life; on musculoskeletal health including bone mineral density, pain crises, bone fracture and muscle health; on respiratory health which includes lung function tests, acute chest syndrome, acute exacerbation of asthma and respiratory infections; and the safety of vitamin D supplementation in children and adults with sickle cell disease.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched database such as PubMed, clinical trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 15 December 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies and quasi-randomised controlled studies (controlled clinical studies) comparing oral administration of any form of vitamin D supplementation to another type of vitamin D or placebo or no supplementation at any dose and for any duration, in people with sickle cell disease, of all ages, gender, and phenotypes including sickle cell anaemia, haemoglobin sickle cell disease and sickle beta-thalassaemia diseases.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. They used the GRADE guidelines to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind randomised controlled study including 46 people with sickle cell disease (HbSS, HbSC, HbSβ+thal and HbSβ0thal) was eligible for inclusion in this review. Of the 46 enrolled participants, seven withdrew before randomisation leaving 39 participants who were randomised. Only 25 participants completed the full six months of follow up. Participants were randomised to receive oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) (n = 20) or placebo (n = 19) for six weeks and were followed up to six months. Two participants from the treatment group have missing values of baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, therefore the number of samples analysed was 37 (vitamin D n = 18, placebo n = 19).The included study had a high risk of bias with regards to incomplete outcome data (high dropout rate in the placebo group), but a low risk of bias for other domains such as random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors, selective outcome reporting; and an unclear risk of other biases.Compared to the placebo group, the vitamin D group had significantly higher serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels at eight weeks, mean difference 29.79 (95% confidence interval 26.63 to 32.95); at 16 weeks, mean difference 12.67 (95% confidence interval 10.43 to 14.90); and at 24 weeks, mean difference 15.52 (95% confidence interval 13.50 to 17.54). We determined the quality of the evidence for this outcome to be moderate. There was no significant difference of adverse events (tingling of lips or hands) between the vitamin D and placebo groups, risk ratio 3.16 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 72.84), but the quality of the evidence was low. Regarding the frequency of pain, the vitamin D group had significantly fewer pain days compared to the placebo group, mean difference -10.00 (95% confidence interval -16.47 to -3.53), but again the quality of the evidence was low. Furthermore, the review included physical functioning PedsQL scores which was reported as absolute change from baseline. The vitamin D group had a lower (worse) health-related quality of life score than the placebo group but this was not significant at eight weeks, mean difference -2.02 (95% confidence interval -6.34 to 2.30). However, the difference was significant at both 16 weeks, mean difference -12.56 (95% confidence interval -16.44 to -8.69) and 24 weeks, mean difference -12.59 (95% confidence interval -17.43 to -7.76). We determined the quality of evidence for this outcome to be low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We included only one low-quality clinical study which had a high risk of bias with regards to incomplete outcome data. Therefore, we consider that the evidence is not of sufficient quality to guide clinical practice. Until further evidence becomes available, clinicians should consider the relevant existing guidelines for vitamin D supplementation (e.g. the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines) and dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D (e.g. from the USA Institute of Medicine). Evidence of vitamin D supplementation in sickle cell disease from high quality studies is needed. Well-designed, randomised, placebo-controlled studies of parallel design, are required to determine the effects and the safety of vitamin D supplementation in children and adults with sickle cell disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of D-cycloserine compared with placebo for social and communication skills in individuals with ASD.
SEARCH METHODS: In November 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications and contacted the authors of the included study, Minshawi 2016, to identify any additional studies. In addition, we contacted pharmaceutical companies, searched manufacturers' websites and sources of reports of adverse events. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any duration and dose of D-cycloserine, with or without adjunct treatment, compared to placebo in individuals with ASD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted relevant data, assessed the risk of bias, graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and analysed and evaluated the data. We provide a narrative report of the findings as only one study is included in this review.
MAIN RESULTS: We included a single RCT (Minshawi 2016) funded by the United States Department of Defense. It was conducted at two sites in the USA: Indiana University School of Medicine and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre. In the included study, 67 children with ASD aged between 5 and 11 years were randomised to receive either 10 weeks (10 doses) of (50 mg) D-cycloserine plus social skills training, or placebo plus social skills training. Randomisation was carried out 1:1 between D-cycloserine and placebo arms, and outcome measures were recorded at one-week post-treatment. The 'risk of bias' assessment for the included study was low for five domains and unclear for two domains. The study (67 participants) reported low certainty evidence of little to no difference between the two groups for all outcomes measured at one week post-treatment: social interaction impairment (mean difference (MD) 3.61 (assessed with the Social Responsiveness Scale), 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to 12.82); social communication impairment (MD -1.08 (measured using the inappropriate speech subscale of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)), 95% CI -2.34 to 0.18); restricted, repetitive, stereotyped patterns of behaviour (MD 0.12 (measured by the ABC stereotypy subscale), 95% CI -1.71 to 1.95); serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31); non-core symptoms of ASD (RR 0.97 (measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale), 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93); and tolerability of D-cycloserine (RR 0.32 (assessed by the number of dropouts), 95% CI 0.01 to 7.68). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to conclude with certainty whether D-cycloserine is effective for individuals with ASD. This review included low certainty data from only one study with methodological issues and imprecision. The added value of this review compared to the included study is we assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Moreover, if we find new trials in future updates of this review, we could potentially pool the data, which may either strengthen or decrease the evidence for our findings.