BACKGROUND: The reduction of lung inflammation is one of the goals of cystic fibrosis therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids are often used in this respect to treat children and adults with cystic fibrosis. The rationale for this is their potential to reduce lung damage arising from inflammation, as well as their effect on symptomatic wheezing. It is important to establish the current level of evidence for the risks and benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, especially in the light of their known adverse effects on growth. This is an update of a previously published review; however, due to the lack of research in this area, we do not envisage undertaking any further updates.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of taking regular inhaled corticosteroids compared to not taking them in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We requested information from pharmaceutical companies manufacturing inhaled corticosteroids and authors of identified trials.Date of most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 19 November 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials, published and unpublished, comparing inhaled corticosteroids to placebo or standard treatment in individuals with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors assessed methodological quality and risk of bias in trials using established criteria and extracted data using standard pro formas. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 35 citations, of which 27 (representing 13 trials) were eligible for inclusion. These 13 trials reported the use of inhaled corticosteroids in 525 people with cystic fibrosis aged between 6 and 55 years. One was a withdrawal trial in 171 individuals who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids. Methodological quality and risk of bias were difficult to assess from published information.Objective measures of airway function were reported in most trials but were often incomplete and reported at different time points. We found no difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted in any of the trials, although the quality of the evidence was low due to risks of bias within the included trials and low participant numbers. We are uncertain whether inhaled corticosteroids result in an improvement in exercise tolerance, bronchial hyperreactivity or exacerbations as the quality of the evidence was very low. Data from one trial suggested that inhaled corticosteroids may make little or no difference to quality of life (low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse effects, but the quality of the evidence is low and so we are uncertain whether inhaled corticosteroids increase the risk of adverse effects. However, one study did show that growth was adversely affected by high doses of inhaled corticosteroids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from these trials is of low to very low quality and insufficient to establish whether inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial in cystic fibrosis, but withdrawal in those already taking them has been shown to be safe. There is some evidence they may cause harm in terms of growth. It has not been established whether long-term use is beneficial in reducing lung inflammation, which should improve survival, but it is unlikely this will be proven conclusively in a randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND: Tuberculous pericarditis can impair the heart's function and cause death; long term, it can cause the membrane to fibrose and constrict causing heart failure. In addition to antituberculous chemotherapy, treatments include corticosteroids, drainage, and surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for tuberculous pericarditis.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 March 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 March 2017); Embase (1974 to 27 March 2017); and LILACS (1982 to 27 March 2017). In addition we searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal using 'tuberculosis' and 'pericard*' as search terms on 27 March 2017. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted researchers in the field of tuberculous pericarditis. This is a new version of the original 2002 review.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search outputs, evaluated study eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data; and we resolved any discrepancies by discussion and consensus. One trial assessed the effects of both corticosteroid and Mycobacterium indicus pranii treatment in a two-by-two factorial design; we excluded data from the group that received both interventions. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials met the inclusion criteria; all were from sub-Saharan Africa and included 1959 participants, with 1051/1959 (54%) HIV-positive. All trials evaluated corticosteroids and one each evaluated colchicine, M. indicus pranii immunotherapy, and open surgical drainage. Four trials (1841 participants) were at low risk of bias, and three trials (118 participants) were at high risk of bias.In people who are not infected with HIV, corticosteroids may reduce deaths from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.09; 660 participants, 4 trials, low certainty evidence) and the need for repeat pericardiocentesis (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; 492 participants, 2 trials, low certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce deaths from pericarditis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80; 660 participants, 4 trials, moderate certainty evidence). However, we do not know whether or not corticosteroids have an effect on constriction or cancer among HIV-negative people (very low certainty evidence).In people living with HIV, only 19.9% (203/1959) were on antiretroviral drugs. Corticosteroids may reduce constriction (RR 0.55, 0.26 to 1.16; 575 participants, 3 trials, low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether corticosteroids have an effect on all-cause death or cancer (very low certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on repeat pericardiocentesis (RR 1.02, 0.89 to 1.18; 517 participants, 2 trials, low certainty evidence).For colchicine among people living with HIV, we found one small trial (33 participants) which had insufficient data to make any conclusions about any effects on death or constrictive pericarditis.Irrespective of HIV status, due to very low certainty evidence from one trial, it is uncertain whether adding M. indicus pranii immunotherapy to antituberculous drugs has an effect on any outcome.Open surgical drainage for effusion may reduce repeat pericardiocentesis In HIV-negative people (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76; 122 participants, 1 trial, low certainty evidence) but may make little or no difference to other outcomes. We did not find an eligible trial that assessed the effects of open surgical drainage in people living with HIV.The review authors found no eligible trials that examined the length of antituberculous treatment needed nor the effects of other adjunctive treatments for tuberculous pericarditis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For HIV-negative patients, corticosteroids may reduce death. For HIV-positive patients not on antiretroviral drugs, corticosteroids may reduce constriction. For HIV-positive patients with good antiretroviral drug viral suppression, clinicians may consider the results from HIV-negative patients more relevant.Further research may help evaluate percutaneous drainage of the pericardium under local anaesthesia, the timing of pericardiectomy in tuberculous constrictive pericarditis, and new antibiotic regimens.
BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, which makes it essential to stimulate smoking cessation. The financial cost of smoking cessation treatment can act as a barrier to those seeking support. We hypothesised that provision of financial assistance for people trying to quit smoking, or reimbursement of their care providers, could lead to an increased rate of successful quit attempts. This is an update of the original 2005 review.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the impact of reducing the costs for tobacco smokers or healthcare providers for using or providing smoking cessation treatment through healthcare financing interventions on abstinence from smoking. The secondary objectives were to examine the effects of different levels of financial support on the use or prescription of smoking cessation treatment, or both, and on the number of smokers making a quit attempt (quitting smoking for at least 24 hours). We also assessed the cost effectiveness of different financial interventions, and analysed the costs per additional quitter, or per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in September 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and interrupted time series studies involving financial benefit interventions to smokers or their healthcare providers, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for individual studies on an intention-to-treat basis and performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS: In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both.Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage.There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants).Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants).Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants.There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants).We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.
