Treatment of acute gastroenteritis in children: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions commonly used in developed countries

Stephen B. Freedman, Samina Ali, Marta Oleszczuk, Serge Gouin, Lisa Hartling
{"title":"Treatment of acute gastroenteritis in children: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions commonly used in developed countries","authors":"Stephen B. Freedman,&nbsp;Samina Ali,&nbsp;Marta Oleszczuk,&nbsp;Serge Gouin,&nbsp;Lisa Hartling","doi":"10.1002/ebch.1932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background:</h3>\n \n <p>Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is an extremely common paediatric condition, which results in significant morbidity in children and is a financial burden to the society.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective:</h3>\n \n <p>The purpose of this overview is to critically evaluate the evidence currently available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) regarding the efficacy and safety of commonly considered treatment options in children with AGE.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods:</h3>\n \n <p>All Cochrane reviews evaluating the following treatments in children with AGE were eligible for inclusion: oral rehydration therapy, anti-emetics and probiotics. We excluded those focusing on the treatment of antibiotic associated or nosocomial diarrhoea, persistent (chronic) diarrhoea and the prevention of gastroenteritis. We focused on the following outcomes that were selected a priori as clinically important: rate of admission to the hospital; length of stay in hospital; rate of return visits; administration of intravenous (IV) therapy owing to failure of oral rehydration therapy; adverse events and dysnatremia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main results:</h3>\n \n <p>Children who received oral rehydration therapy had a shorter length of stay in hospital compared with children who received IV therapy [mean difference, MD = −1.20 days (−2.38, −0.02)]; however, the result was no longer significant when an outlying study was removed. Children who received IV therapy were at increased risk of developing phlebitis [risk difference, RD= − 0.02 (−0.04, −0.01)], while paralytic ileus was more common in children receiving ORT [RD = 0.03 (confidence interval, CI 0.01–0.05)]. Children who received oral ondansetron had lower hospital admission rates to the emergency department (ED) and lower rates of IV rehydration during their ED stay compared with children receiving placebo [risk ration, RR = 0.40 (CI 0.19–0.83) and RR = 0.41 (CI 0.29–0.59), respectively]. Children receiving IV ondansetron had lower hospital admission rates to the ED than patients receiving placebo [RR = 0.21 (0.05, 0.93)]. Probiotic use amongst children hospitalized following AGE reduced the mean duration of hospitalization by 1.12 days (CI −1.16, −0.38).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions:</h3>\n \n <p>Given that oral rehydration is less invasive than IV rehydration with no evidence of important clinical differences, it is the first choice for rehydration in children with AGE and mild-to-moderate dehydration. As the vast majority of children with AGE do not require IV rehydration, oral ondansetron administration to children with significant vomiting should be performed to reduce the use of IV rehydration and the need for hospital admission. In children deemed too unwell to receive oral rehydration therapy, IV ondansetron administration is an option, as its use is associated with lower hospital admission rates. Although probiotics appear to be an effective option for the treatment of AGE amongst hospitalized children, outpatient data is lacking and more studies are urgently needed to determine the optimal organism, dosing and duration of treatment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12162,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","volume":"8 4","pages":"1123-1137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1932","citationCount":"91","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 91

Abstract

Background:

Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is an extremely common paediatric condition, which results in significant morbidity in children and is a financial burden to the society.

Objective:

The purpose of this overview is to critically evaluate the evidence currently available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) regarding the efficacy and safety of commonly considered treatment options in children with AGE.

Methods:

All Cochrane reviews evaluating the following treatments in children with AGE were eligible for inclusion: oral rehydration therapy, anti-emetics and probiotics. We excluded those focusing on the treatment of antibiotic associated or nosocomial diarrhoea, persistent (chronic) diarrhoea and the prevention of gastroenteritis. We focused on the following outcomes that were selected a priori as clinically important: rate of admission to the hospital; length of stay in hospital; rate of return visits; administration of intravenous (IV) therapy owing to failure of oral rehydration therapy; adverse events and dysnatremia.

Main results:

Children who received oral rehydration therapy had a shorter length of stay in hospital compared with children who received IV therapy [mean difference, MD = −1.20 days (−2.38, −0.02)]; however, the result was no longer significant when an outlying study was removed. Children who received IV therapy were at increased risk of developing phlebitis [risk difference, RD= − 0.02 (−0.04, −0.01)], while paralytic ileus was more common in children receiving ORT [RD = 0.03 (confidence interval, CI 0.01–0.05)]. Children who received oral ondansetron had lower hospital admission rates to the emergency department (ED) and lower rates of IV rehydration during their ED stay compared with children receiving placebo [risk ration, RR = 0.40 (CI 0.19–0.83) and RR = 0.41 (CI 0.29–0.59), respectively]. Children receiving IV ondansetron had lower hospital admission rates to the ED than patients receiving placebo [RR = 0.21 (0.05, 0.93)]. Probiotic use amongst children hospitalized following AGE reduced the mean duration of hospitalization by 1.12 days (CI −1.16, −0.38).

Conclusions:

Given that oral rehydration is less invasive than IV rehydration with no evidence of important clinical differences, it is the first choice for rehydration in children with AGE and mild-to-moderate dehydration. As the vast majority of children with AGE do not require IV rehydration, oral ondansetron administration to children with significant vomiting should be performed to reduce the use of IV rehydration and the need for hospital admission. In children deemed too unwell to receive oral rehydration therapy, IV ondansetron administration is an option, as its use is associated with lower hospital admission rates. Although probiotics appear to be an effective option for the treatment of AGE amongst hospitalized children, outpatient data is lacking and more studies are urgently needed to determine the optimal organism, dosing and duration of treatment.

儿童急性胃肠炎的治疗:发达国家常用干预措施的系统综述
背景:急性胃肠炎(AGE)是一种极为常见的儿科疾病,在儿童中发病率很高,是社会的经济负担。目的:本综述的目的是批判性地评估目前在Cochrane系统评价数据库(CDSR)中可获得的关于AGE儿童常用治疗方案的有效性和安全性的证据。方法:所有评价以下治疗方法的Cochrane综述均符合纳入条件:口服补液治疗、止吐药和益生菌。我们排除了抗生素相关性腹泻或院内腹泻、持续性(慢性)腹泻和肠胃炎预防的研究。我们重点关注以下先验选择的具有临床重要性的结果:住院率;住院时间;回访率;由于口服补液治疗失败而给予静脉(IV)治疗;不良事件和钠血症。主要结果:接受口服补液治疗的患儿比接受静脉输液治疗的患儿住院时间短[平均差异,MD = - 1.20天(- 2.38,- 0.02)];然而,当一项外围研究被移除时,结果不再显著。接受静脉注射治疗的儿童发生静脉炎的风险增加[风险差,RD= - 0.02(- 0.04, - 0.01)],而麻痹性肠梗阻在接受ORT治疗的儿童中更为常见[RD = 0.03(置信区间,CI 0.01 - 0.05)]。与服用安慰剂的儿童相比,口服昂丹司琼的儿童在急诊科(ED)住院率和静脉补液率较低[风险比,RR = 0.40 (CI 0.19-0.83)和RR = 0.41 (CI 0.29-0.59)]。静脉注射昂丹司琼的儿童因急症住院率低于安慰剂组[RR = 0.21(0.05, 0.93)]。在AGE后住院的儿童中使用益生菌使平均住院时间减少1.12天(CI - 1.16, - 0.38)。结论:口服补液比静脉补液侵入性小,无明显临床差异,是AGE患儿轻中度脱水的首选补液方法。由于绝大多数AGE患儿不需要静脉补液,对于出现明显呕吐的患儿应口服昂丹司琼,以减少静脉补液的使用和住院的需要。对于被认为身体不适而不能接受口服补液治疗的儿童,静脉注射昂丹司琼是一种选择,因为它的使用与较低的住院率相关。虽然益生菌似乎是治疗住院儿童AGE的有效选择,但门诊数据缺乏,迫切需要更多的研究来确定最佳的微生物、剂量和治疗时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信