Abstract

It remains unknown whether the type of aerosol generating device is affecting efficacy and safety among non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) adults. The proposal of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to evaluate effectiveness and safety of inhaled antibiotics administered via dry powder inhaler (DPI) and via nebulizers (SVN) among adult patients with NCFB. Inclusion criteria were randomized-controlled trials, adults (≥18 years) with NCFB, and inhaled antibiotics administered via DPI as intervention. Search strategy was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2019. Sixteen trials (2870 patients) were included. Three trials (all ciprofloxacin) used DPIs and thirteen used SVN (three ciprofloxacin). Both DPI and SVN devices achieved similar safety outcomes (adverse events, antibiotic discontinuation, severe adverse events, and bronchospasm). Administration of ciprofloxacin via DPI significantly improved time to first exacerbation (87 days, 95% CI 34.3–139.7) and quality of life (MD −7.52; 95% CI −13.06 to −1.98) when compared with via SVN. No other significant differences were documented in clinical efficacy (at least one exacerbation, FEV1% predicted) and microbiologic response (bacterial eradication, emergence of new potential pathogens, and emergence of antimicrobial resistance) when comparing devices. Our NMA documented that time to first exacerbation and quality of life, were more favorable for DPIs. Decisions on the choice of devices should incorporate these findings plus other criteria, such as simplicity, costs or maintenance requirements.

Highlights

  • Inhaled antibiotics have been used to treat bronchial colonization/infection, especially in cystic fibrosis patients with chronic bronchial infection by Pseudomonas aeruginosa [1]. most experts agree on the positive effects, and international clinical guidelines recommended their use [2,3,4,5], the role of inhaled antibiotics as first-line therapy among non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) remains controversial [6].Devices used to deliver therapeutic agents as aerosols are based on nebulizers (SVN), pressurized metered-dose inhalers, or dry powder inhalers (DPI) [7], mostly for betaagonists, anti-cholinergic agents, and steroids [8]

  • Most experts agree on the positive effects, and international clinical guidelines recommended their use [2,3,4,5], the role of inhaled antibiotics as first-line therapy among non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) remains controversial [6]

  • This network meta-analysis (NMA) answers the following question: Are inhaled antibiotics administered by different devices similar in terms of clinical, microbiological and safety outcomes in adult patients with bronchiectasis without cystic fibrosis?

Read more

Summary

A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis

Sofia Tejada 1,2, * , Sergio Ramírez-Estrada 3 , Carlos G. Forero 4 , Miguel Gallego 2,5 , Joan B. Cardinal-Fernández 7 , Stephan Ehrmann 8,9 and Jordi Rello 1,10,11. Bronchiectasis: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis. Centro de Investigación Biomédica En Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Instituto de Salud. Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28006 Madrid, Spain. Centre d’étude des Pathologies Respiratoires, INSERM U1100, Université de Tours, 37032 Tours, France. Clinical Research in the ICU, CHU Nimes, Universite de Nimes-Montpellier, 30900 Nimes, France.

Introduction
Study Selection
Study Characteristics
Efficacy
Microbiological
Mortality
Safety Outcomes
Physician and patient preference
Strengths and Limitations
Registration and Protocol
Eligibility Criteria
Search Strategy
Data Collection
Quality Assessment
Statistical Analysis
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call