系統性回顧 related to this topic

loading
33 References (32 articles) Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 Advances in respiratory medicine
Year 2022
Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Magnesium sulfate has been extensively used to treat asthma exacerbations, but its efficacy remains questionable in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate in COPD. A systemic review search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Central Cochrane Registry. Randomized clinical trials were included with magnesium sulfate as an intervention arm in the COPD population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For continuous variables, standardized mean difference (SMD) and difference in means (MD) were calculated. For discrete variables, the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) odds ratio was used. For effect sizes, a confidence interval of 95% was used. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used for statistical significance. Analysis was done using both random and fixed effect models. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the final analysis. In patients with acute exacerbations of COPD treated with IV magnesium, a significant increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) was observed (MD = 2.537 [0.717 to 4.357], p = 0.006), as well as in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (SMD = 1.073 [0.748 to 1.397], p < 0.001) using the fixed model. Similarly, residual volume decreased significantly in the IV magnesium group (MD = -0.470 [-0.884 to -0.056], p = 0.026). The hospitalization rate was also lower in the magnesium group, (MH odds ratio 0.453 [0.233 to 0.882], p = 0.020). No statistically significant difference was noted in FEV₁ in the stable COPD population. CONCLUSION: IV magnesium was associated with a favorable deviation of FEV1 and PEFR, decreased residual volume, and decreased odds of admission in the COPD exacerbation population. Therefore, magnesium sulfate can be used as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD.

Systematic review

Unclassified

作者 Ni H , Aye SZ , Naing C
期刊 The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Year 2022
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic and progressive disease, often punctuated by recurrent flare-ups or exacerbations. Magnesium sulfate, having a bronchodilatory effect, may have a potential role as an adjunct treatment in COPD exacerbations. However, comprehensive evidence of its effects is required to facilitate clinical decision-making. 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.

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
Year 2018
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: Corticosteroids have important effects on intermediate outcomes in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival is unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect on mortality of corticosteroids in critical and perioperative settings. DESIGN: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. SETTING: PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to February 1, 2018, for randomized trials comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill or surgical adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: Corticosteroids compared with placebo or standard care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 44,553 patients from 135 studies were included. Overall, mortality in the corticosteroid group and in the control group were similar (16% v 16%; p = 0.9). Subanalyses identified a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival in patients with respiratory system diseases (9% v 13%; p < 0.001) and bacterial meningitis (28% v 32%; p= 0.04), and a detrimental effect on survival in patients with traumatic brain injury (22% v 19%; p < 0.001). No differences in mortality were found in patients with cardiac diseases (7% v 6%; p = 0.7), in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (2.8% v 3.2% p = 0.14), and when treatment duration or patient age were considered. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis documents the safety of corticosteroids in the overall critically ill population with the notable exception of brain injury patients, a setting where the authors confirmed their detrimental effect on survival. A possible beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival was found among patients with respiratory diseases and in patients with bacterial meningitis.

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Year 2018
BACKGROUND: Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain, as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of antibiotics on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) for management of acute COPD exacerbations, as well as their effects on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay, time to next exacerbation). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and other electronically available databases up to September 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo and providing follow-up of at least seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised as a single group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation, and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. When authors of primary studies did not report outcomes or study details, we contacted them to request missing data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (ORs) for rare events (mortality and adverse events), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes using random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials with 2663 participants (11 with outpatients, seven with inpatients, and one with ICU patients).For outpatients (with mild to moderate exacerbations), evidence of low quality suggests that currently available antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.94; I² = 31%; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 295 to 212 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 165 to 277). Studies providing older antibiotics not in use anymore yielded an RR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 31%). Evidence of low quality from one trial in outpatients suggested no effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30). One trial reported no effects of antibiotics on re-exacerbations between two and six weeks after treatment initiation. Only one trial (N = 35) reported health-related quality of life but did not show a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups.Evidence of moderate quality does not show that currently used antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure among inpatients with severe exacerbations (i.e. for inpatients excluding ICU patients) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12; I² = 50%), but trial results remain uncertain. In turn, the effect was statistically significant when trials included older antibiotics no longer in clinical use (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00; I² = 39%). Evidence of moderate quality from two trials including inpatients shows no beneficial effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.94 to 6.55). Length of hospital stay (in days) was similar in antibiotic and placebo groups.The only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; moderate-quality evidence; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 565 to 107 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 45 to 254). Results of this trial show a statistically significant effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72; moderate-quality evidence) and on length of hospital stay (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -12.84 to -6.36; low-quality evidence).Evidence of moderate quality gathered from trials conducted in all settings shows no statistically significant effect on overall incidence of adverse events (Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.63; moderate-quality evidence) nor on diarrhoea (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.07; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Researchers have found that antibiotics have some effect on inpatients and outpatients, but these effects are small, and they are inconsistent for some outcomes (treatment failure) and absent for other outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay). Analyses show a strong beneficial effect of antibiotics among ICU patients. Few data are available on the effects of antibiotics on health-related quality of life or on other patient-reported symptoms, and data show no statistically significant increase in the risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. These inconsistent effects call for research into clinical signs and biomarkers that can help identify patients who would benefit from antibiotics, while sparing antibiotics for patients who are unlikely to experience benefit and for whom downsides of antibiotics (side effects, costs, and multi-resistance) should be avoided.

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2018
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be treated with systemic corticosteroid for seven to 14 days. Intermittent systemic corticosteroid use is cumulatively associated with adverse effects such as osteoporosis, hyperglycaemia and muscle weakness. Shorter treatment could reduce adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of short-duration (seven or fewer days) and conventional longer-duration (longer than seven days) systemic corticosteroid treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of COPD. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were carried out using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and ongoing trials registers up to March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different durations of systemic corticosteroid defined as short (i.e. seven or fewer days) or longer (i.e. longer than seven days). Other interventions—bronchodilators and antibiotics—were standardised. Studies with participants requiring assisted ventilation were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies with 582 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which five studies conducted in hospitals with 519 participants (range 28 to 296) contributed to the meta-analysis. Mean ages of study participants were 65 to 73 years, the proportion of male participants varied (58% to 84%) and COPD was classified as severe or very severe. Corticosteroid treatment was given at equivalent daily doses for three to seven days for short-duration treatment and for 10 to 15 days for longer-duration treatment. Five studies administered oral prednisolone (30 mg in four, tapered in one), and two studies provided intravenous corticosteroid treatment. Studies contributing to the meta-analysis were at low risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. In four studies we did not find a difference in risk of treatment failure between short-duration and longer-duration systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 457; odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.46)), which was equivalent to 22 fewer per 1000 for short-duration treatment (95% CI 51 fewer to 34 more). No difference in risk of relapse (a new event) was observed between short-duration and longer-duration systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 457; OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.56), which was equivalent to nine fewer per 1000 for short-duration treatment (95% CI 68 fewer to 100 more). Time to the next COPD exacerbation did not differ in one large study that was powered to detect non-inferiority and compared five days versus 14 days of systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 311; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37). In five studies no difference in the likelihood of an adverse event was found between short-duration and longer-duration systemic corticosteroid treatment (n = 503; OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.69, or nine fewer per 1000 (95% CI 44 fewer to 51 more)). Length of hospital stay (n = 421; mean difference (MD) -0.61 days, 95% CI -1.51 to 0.28) and lung function at the end of treatment (n = 185; MD FEV1 -0.04 L; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10) did not differ between short-duration and longer-duration treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Information from a new large study has increased our confidence that five days of oral corticosteroids is likely to be sufficient for treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of COPD, and this review suggests that the likelihood is low that shorter courses of systemic corticosteroids (of around five days) lead to worse outcomes than are seen with longer (10 to 14 days) courses. We graded most available evidence as moderate in quality because of imprecision; further research may have an important impact on our confidence in the estimates of effect or may change the estimates. The studies in this review did not include people with mild or moderate COPD; further studies comparing short-duration systemic corticosteroid versus conventional longer-duration systemic corticosteroid for treatment of adults with acute exacerbations of COPD are required.

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 Diabetes, obesity & metabolism
Year 2016
Loading references information
目的:确定观察性研究的证据是否支持广泛认为高血压是更常见的一种风险因素,而不是大脑性脑出血性脑出血。方法:比较高血压发生频率为深部和左侧脑内出血脑出血的危险因素,不包括发现次要原因的出血,并进行荟萃分析。评估了预先确定的方法学质量标准对结果的影响,并考虑了其他偏见来源。结果:来自所有28项研究(约4000名患者)的合并结果发现,高血压患者的肺动脉高压患者的发生率高达两倍,优势比(OR)2.10,95%置信区间(95%CI) 1.82〜2.42),但研究之间存在显着的异质性。对于使用中风前定义的高血压,基于人群或仅包含第一次中风的研究,汇总的OR较不极端。在符合所有标准的三项研究(601例)中,深部出血与较高的统计学显着性高血压相关(OR 1.50,95%CI 1.09〜2.07)。对于限于年轻患者的研究的OR似乎更为极端(12.32,95%CI 6.13至24.77),但这些研究中没有一项符合我们的方法学质量标准。另外,毫无疑问的偏见来源包括对报告脑部扫描的医生是否对高血压状态不了解,对出血位置分类的不确定性以及二次因素调查可变率的不确定性。结论:在没有确定的继发性原因的情况下,发现有深度和高度的脑内出血患者出现过高的高血压,但这可能是由于剩余的,未量化的方法学偏差。

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Loading references information
背景:急性下呼吸道感染(下呼吸道感染)的范围从急性支气管炎,慢性支气管炎肺炎急性发作。大约五万人死于急性每年呼吸道感染。其中,肺炎死亡率代表,住院费和医疗咨询的最常见的原因。阿齐霉素是一种大环内酯类抗菌素,从红霉素结构改性,并指出其针对与呼吸道感染,特别是流感嗜血杆菌(流感嗜血杆菌)有关的某些革兰氏阴性微生物活性。 目的:为了阿奇霉素的效力比较阿莫西林或阿莫西林/克拉维酸(amoxyclav)中下呼吸道感染的治疗,在临床上失败,不良事件和微生物消灭发生率方面。 搜索方法:我们搜查中环(2014年,第10期),MEDLINE(1966年1月到10月4日一周,2014年)和医学文摘(1974年1月至2014年11月)。 选择标准:随机对照试验(RCT)和准随机对照试验,参与者有临床证据的急性下呼吸道感染,如急性支气管炎,肺炎,慢性支气管炎急性发作比较阿奇霉素或阿莫西林阿莫西林/克拉维酸。 数据收集和分析:审查作者独立评估的搜索方法质量鉴定所有潜在的研究。我们提取并分别分析相关的数据。我们决心通过讨论不符。我们最初汇集各类急性下呼吸道感染的荟萃分析。我们研究使用森林图和驰(2)测试结果的异质性。我们还使用了一(2)统计量的指数来衡量试验之间不一致的结果。我们进行了亚组和敏感性分析。 主要结果:纳入16项试验,涉及2648人参加。我们能够分析15个审判与2496人参加。所有试验的汇总分析表明,有大约在10天的治疗失败的发生率无差异显著至14两组(风险比(RR),随机效应1.09; 95%可信区间(CI)0.64 1.85)。亚组分析与急性支气管炎参加试验的阿奇霉素组中表现出较低的显著临床失败相比,羟氨苄青霉素或amoxyclav(RR随机效应0.63; 95%CI为0.45〜0.88)。敏感性分析表明,非显著减少临床失败的阿奇霉素治疗的参与者(RR 0.55; 95%CI为0.25〜1.21)三个隐藏的充分研究,相比RR 1.32; 95%CI为0.70〜2.49的12个研究与隐蔽性不足。12个试验报道微生物消灭的发生并有两组之间没有差异显著(RR 0.95; 95%CI为0.87〜1.03)。不良事件的阿奇霉素组中的减少是RR 0.76(95%CI 0.57至1.00)。 作者的结论:有证据不清的阿奇霉素是治疗急性下呼吸道感染优于阿莫西林或amoxyclav。患者疑似细菌引起急性支气管炎,阿奇霉素倾向于更有效地治疗失败和比羟氨苄​​青霉素或amoxyclav不良事件的发生率较低的条款。然而,大多数研究都不清楚方法学质量和样本量小;需要高品质的方法和足够的尺寸未来的试验。

Systematic review

Unclassified

作者 Teo J , Liew Y , Lee W , Kwa AL
期刊 International journal of antimicrobial agents
Year 2014
Loading references information
延长(扩展/连续)输液的临床优势仍然存在争议。以前的研究和审查都未能表现出延长输液时间一致的临床益处。这个荟萃分析试图确定是否延长β内酰胺输注用降低死亡率和提高临床成功相关联。一种随机对照试验(RCT)和观察性研究具有相同的抗生素住院成人患者的间歇性快推给药比较长时间输液搜索PubMed,EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆进行。评价主要成果是死亡率和临床成功。共有29个研究,2206例(18随机对照试验和11个观察性研究)被纳入荟萃分析。间歇丸药相比,使用长时间输液似乎与一个显著降低死亡率[汇总相对风险(RR)= 0.66,95%置信区间(CI)0.53-0.83]和改善临床成功(RR = 1.12关联95%CI 1.03-1.21)。但不是随机对照试验(死亡率,RR = 0.83,95;统计学显著的好处是由非随机研究(临床成功,RR = 1.34,95%CI 1.02-1.76死亡率,RR = 0.57,95%CI 0.43-0.76)的支持%CI 0.57-1.21;临床成功,RR = 1.05,95%CI 0.99-1.12)。观察性研究,特别是在增加抗生素耐药性的面的积极成果,有助于证明迫切需要进行大规模的,精心设计的,多中心随机对照试验,涉及感染高最小抑菌浓度病原体危重病人清楚地证实这个受益。

Systematic review

Unclassified

期刊 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2014
背景:哮喘患者生活质量问卷(AQLQ)和哮喘控制问卷(ACQ)广泛应用于哮喘研究;然而,在更新的哮喘治疗研究中,与安慰剂组相比,这些措施的平均改善不超过最小的重要差异(MID),特别是当对目前的治疗添加新的治疗时。目的:我们进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析,检查了常用哮喘药物AQLQ和ACQ反应的大小以及影响临床试验终点的因素。方法:进行系统文献检索,以确定报告AQLQ或ACQ结果的盲法随机对照试验。然后进行混合治疗比较,结合meta回归。结果:在64个随机对照试验(42,527例)中,54例包括AQLQ,11例包括ACQ作为终点。预期期的存在,治疗期间的治疗性质,治疗期间的并发治疗以及仪器版本显着影响AQLQ评分从基线的变化以及是否超过MID。与安慰剂相比,仅有吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS),有或没有长效β-激动剂,达到了MID。 ACQ结果与AQLQ的结果相当:与安慰剂无差异超过MID,ICS治疗提供了最大的改善。结论:ACQ和AQLQ的建立的患者MID不能在临床研究中将控制器添加到ICS治疗中作为治疗组之间的群体疗效阈值来实现。因此,除了报告仪器的平均变化外,还应考虑其他测量标准,包括响应者分析。

Systematic review

Unclassified

作者 Liu KX , Xu B , Wang J , Zhang J , Ding HB , Ariani F , Qu JM , Lin QC
期刊 Journal of thoracic disease
Year 2014
Loading references information
目的:探讨慢性支气管炎(AECB)和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(AECOPD)急性发作的疗效和莫西沙星的安全性。 方法:我们检索PubMed,文摘,和科学的网络的相关研究。两个审评提取数据,并审查了独立研究的质量。主要成果是临床上的成功,在早期随访。使用随机效应模型研究级的数据汇集,当我(2)为> 50%或固定效应模型,当我(2)为<50%。 结果:11随机对照研究进行了审议。有关于治疗成功的意向性治疗(ITT)[比值比(OR)= 1.18,95%置信区间(CI)0.98-1.42],临床上可评价(CE)(莫西沙星和比较代理商之间没有区别OR 1.13,95%CI,0.93-1.37)的患者,或不利的影响一般(OR 1.00,95%CI,0.86-1.17)。莫西沙星与更好的微生物成功相关(OR 1.45; 95%CI,1.14-1.85)。 结论:莫西沙星是作为临床等效和细菌学优于抗生素疗法的AECB患者和AECOPD常规使用。莫西沙星治疗可能是一个有前途的和安全的替代经验性治疗慢性支气管炎急性发作及AECOPD。