Macrolide antibiotics (including azithromycin) for cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition, affecting over 90,000 people worldwide. CF affects several organs in the body, but airway damage has the most profound impact on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Causes of lower airway infection in people with CF are, most notably, Staphylococcus aureus in the early course of the disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a later stage. Macrolide antibiotics, e.g. azithromycin and clarithromycin, are usually taken orally, have a broad spectrum of action against gram-positive (e.g. S aureus) and some gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Haemophilus influenzae), and may have a modifying role in diseases involving airway infection and inflammation such as CF. They are well-tolerated and relatively inexpensive, but widespread use has resulted in the emergence of resistant bacteria. This is an updated review. To assess the potential effects of macrolide antibiotics on clinical status in terms of benefit and harm in people with CF. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. We last searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 2 November 2022. We last searched the trial registries WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov on 9 November 2022. We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible. We included randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adults and children with CF. We compared them to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose or type of administration. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included 14 studies (1467 participants) lasting 28 days to 36 months. All the studies assessed azithromycin: 11 compared oral azithromycin to placebo (1167 participants); one compared a high dose to a low dose (47 participants); one compared nebulised to oral azithromycin (45 participants); and one looked at weekly versus daily dose (208 participants). Oral azithromycin versus placebo There is a slight improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1 % predicted) in one second in the azithromycin group at up to six months compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74 to 6.19; high-certainty evidence), although there is probably no difference at three months, (MD 2.70%, 95% CI -0.12 to 5.52), or 12 months (MD -0.13, 95% CI -4.96 to 4.70). Participants in the azithromycin group are probably at a decreased risk of pulmonary exacerbation with a longer time to exacerbation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence). Mild side effects were common, but there was no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no difference in hospital admissions at six months (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence), or in new acquisition of P aeruginosa at 12 months (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose azithromycin We are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted at six months between the two groups (no data available) or in the rate of exacerbations per child per month (MD -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.10)); very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes. Only children were included in the study and the study did not report on any of our other clinically important outcomes. Nebulised azithromycin versus oral azithromycin We were unable to include any of the data into our analyses and have reported findings directly from the paper; we graded all evidence as being of very low certainty. The authors reported that there was a greater mean change in FEV1 % predicted at one month in the nebulised azithromycin group (P < 0.001). We are uncertain whether there was a change in P aeruginosa count. Weekly azithromycin versus daily azithromycin There is probably a lower mean change in FEV1 % predicted at six months in the weekly group compared to the daily group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45) and probably also a longer period of time until first exacerbation in the weekly group (MD 17.30 days, 95% CI 4.32 days to 30.28 days). Gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common in the weekly group and there is likely no difference in admissions to hospital or QoL. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty. Azithromycin therapy is associated with a small but consistent improvement in respiratory function, a decreased risk of exacerbation and longer time to exacerbation at six months; but evidence for treatment efficacy beyond six months remains limited. Azithromycin appears to have a good safety profile (although a weekly dose was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects, which makes it less acceptable for long-term therapy), with a relatively minimal treatment burden for people with CF, and it is inexpensive. A wider concern may be the emergence of macrolide resistance reported in the most recent study which, combined with the lack of long-term data, means we do not feel that the current evidence is strong enough to support azithromycin therapy for all people with CF. Future research should report over longer time frames using validated tools and consistent reporting, to allow for easier synthesis of data. In particular, future trials should report important adverse events such as hearing impairment or liver disease. More data on the effects of azithromycin given in different ways and reporting on our primary outcomes would benefit decision-making on whether and how to give macrolide antibiotics. Finally, it is important to assess azithromycin therapy for people with CF who are established on the relatively new cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies which correct the underlying molecular defect associated with CF (none of the trials included in the review are relevant to this population).

Southern KW ，Solis-Moya A ，Kurz D ，Smith S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis is a multisystem disease characterised by the production of thick secretions causing recurrent pulmonary infection, often with unusual bacteria. Intravenous (IV) antibiotics are commonly used in the treatment of acute deteriorations in symptoms (pulmonary exacerbations); however, recently the assumption that exacerbations are due to increases in bacterial burden has been questioned. This is an update of a previously published review. To establish whether IV antibiotics for the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis improve short-term and long-term clinical outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and ongoing trials registers. Date of last search of Cochrane Trials Register: 19 June 2024. Randomised controlled trials and the first treatment cycle of cross-over studies comparing IV antibiotics (given alone or in an antibiotic combination) with placebo, or inhaled or oral antibiotics for people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation. Studies comparing different IV antibiotic regimens were also eligible. We assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes lung function % predicted (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC)), time to next exacerbation and quality of life. We included 45 studies involving 2810 participants. The included studies were mostly small, and inadequately reported, many of which were quite old. The certainty of the evidence was mostly low. Combined intravenous antibiotics versus placebo Data reported for absolute change in % predicted FEV1 and FVC suggested a possible improvement in favour of IV antibiotics, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 study, 12 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure time to next exacerbation or quality of life. Intravenous versus nebulised antibiotics Five studies (122 participants) reported FEV1, with analysable data only from one study (16 participants). We found no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies (91 participants) reported on FVC, with analysable data from only one study (54 participants). We are very uncertain on the effect of nebulised antibiotics (very low-certainty evidence). In one study, the 16 participants on nebulised plus IV antibiotics had a lower mean number of days to next exacerbation than those on combined IV antibiotics (low-certainty evidence), but we found no difference in quality of life between groups (low-certainty evidence). Intravenous versus oral antibiotics Three studies (172 participants) reported no difference in different measures of lung function. We found no difference in analysable data between IV and oral antibiotic regimens in either FEV1 % predicted or FVC % predicted (1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the time to the next exacerbation (1 study, 108 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study measured quality of life. Intravenous antibiotic regimens compared One study (analysed as two data sets) compared the duration of IV antibiotic regimens between two groups (split according to initial antibiotic response). The first part was a non-inferiority study in 214 early treatment responders to establish whether 10 days of IV antibiotic treatment was as effective as 14 days. Second, investigators looked at whether 14 or 21 days of IV antibiotics were more effective in 705 participants who did not respond early to treatment. We found no difference in FEV1 % predicted with any duration of treatment (919 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the time to next exacerbation (information later taken from registry data). Investigators did not report FVC or quality of life. Other comparisons We also found little or no difference in lung function when comparing single IV antibiotic regimens to placebo (2 studies, 70 participants), or in lung function and time to next exacerbation when comparing different single antibiotic regimens (2 studies, 95 participants). There may be a greater improvement in lung function in participants receiving combined IV antibiotics compared to single IV antibiotics (6 studies, 265 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence), but probably no difference in the time to next exacerbation (1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four studies compared a single IV antibiotic plus placebo to a combined IV antibiotic regimen with high levels of heterogeneity in the results. We are very uncertain if there is any difference between groups in lung function (4 studies, 214 participants) and there may be little or no difference to being re-admitted to hospital for an exacerbation (2 studies, 104 participants). Nine studies (417 participants) compared combined IV antibiotic regimens with a great variation in drugs. We identified no differences in any measure of lung function or the time to next exacerbation between different regimens (low- to very low-certainty evidence). There were mixed results for adverse events across all comparisons; common adverse effects included elevated liver function tests, gastrointestinal events and haematological abnormalities. There were limited data for other secondary outcomes, such as weight, and there was no evidence of treatment effect. The evidence of benefit from administering IV antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis is often poor, especially in terms of size of studies and risk of bias, particularly in older studies. We are not certain whether there is any difference between specific antibiotic combinations, and neither is there evidence of a difference between the IV route and the inhaled or oral routes. There is limited evidence that shorter antibiotic duration in adults who respond early to treatment is not different to a longer period of treatment. There remain several unanswered questions regarding optimal IV antibiotic treatment regimens.

Hurley MN ，Smith S ，Flume P ，Jahnke N ，Prayle AP ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003, 2006 and 2014. To assess the effects of conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing FI and constipation in people with a neurological disease or injury affecting the central nervous system. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 March 2023), which includes searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP as well as handsearching of journals and conference proceedings; and all reference lists of relevant articles. We included randomised, quasi-randomised (where allocation is not strictly random), cross-over and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any type of conservative, physical or surgical intervention against placebo, usual care or no intervention for the management of FI and constipation in people with central neurological disease or injury. At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in eligible trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and independently extracted data from the included trials using a range of prespecified outcome measures. We produced summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 25 studies with 1598 participants. The studies were generally at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention. Half of the included studies were also at high risk of bias in terms of selective reporting. Outcomes were often reported heterogeneously across studies, making it difficult to pool data. We did not find enough evidence to be able to analyse the effects of interventions on individual central neurological diseases. Additionally, very few studies reported on the primary outcomes of self-reported improvement in FI or constipation, or Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score. Conservative interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Thirteen studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included assessment-based nursing, holistic nursing, probiotics, psyllium, faecal microbiota transplantation, and a stepwise protocol of increasingly invasive evacuation methods. Conservative interventions may result in a large improvement in faecal incontinence (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.47 to -0.23; 3 studies; n = 410; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.80 as a large effect. It was not possible to pool all data from studies that assessed improvement in constipation, but the evidence suggested that conservative interventions may improve constipation symptoms (data not pooled; 8 studies; n = 612; low-certainty evidence). Conservative interventions may lead to a reduction in mean time taken on bowel care (data not pooled; 5 studies; n = 526; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of conservative interventions on condition-specific quality of life and adverse events. Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score was not reported. Physical therapy compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Twelve studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included massage therapy, standing, osteopathic manipulative treatment, electrical stimulation, transanal irrigation, and conventional physical therapy with visceral mobilisation. Physical therapies may make little to no difference to self-reported faecal continence assessed using the St Mark's Faecal Incontinence Score, where the minimally important difference is five, or the Cleveland Constipation Score (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.29; 3 studies; n = 155; low-certainty evidence). Physical therapies may result in a moderate improvement in constipation symptoms (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.14; 9 studies; n = 431; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect. However, physical therapies may make little to no difference in Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score as the minimally important difference for this tool is 3 (MD -1.94, 95% CI -3.36 to -0.51; 7 studies; n = 358; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of physical therapies on the time spent on bowel care, condition-specific quality of life and adverse effects (all very low-certainty evidence). Surgical interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo No studies were found for surgical interventions that met the inclusion criteria for this review. There remains little research on this common and, for patients, very significant issue of bowel management. The available evidence is almost uniformly of low methodological quality. The clinical significance of some of the research findings presented here is difficult to interpret, not least because each intervention has only been addressed in individual trials, against control rather than compared against each other, and the interventions are very different from each other. Understanding whether there is a clinically-meaningful difference from the results of available trials is largely hampered by the lack of uniform outcome measures. This is due to an absence of core outcome sets, and development of these needs to be a research priority to allow studies to be compared directly. Some studies used validated constipation, incontinence or condition-specific measures; however, others used unvalidated analogue scales to report effectiveness. Some studies did not use any patient-reported outcomes and focused on physiological outcome measures, which is of relatively limited significance in terms of clinical implementation. There was evidence in favour of some conservative interventions, but these findings need to be confirmed by larger, well-designed controlled trials, which should include evaluation of the acceptability of the intervention to patients and the effect on their quality of life.

Todd CL ，Johnson EE ，Stewart F ，Wallace SA ，Bryant A ，Woodward S ，Norton C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

Topical and oral steroids for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children.

Mulvaney CA ，Galbraith K ，Webster KE ，Rana M ，Connolly R ，Tudor-Green B ，Marom T ，Daniel M ，Venekamp RP ，Schilder AG ，MacKeith S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》