J. Murphy, C. King, B. Kapitein, R. Fernandes, A. Lilley, S. Messahel, D. Hawcutt, I. Sinha
{"title":"口服类固醇治疗学龄前儿童急性喘息:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"J. Murphy, C. King, B. Kapitein, R. Fernandes, A. Lilley, S. Messahel, D. Hawcutt, I. Sinha","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa4941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Benefits of oral corticosteroids (OCS) for acute preschool wheeze are unclear. Aim: Systematically review evidence for OCS in preschool children presenting to the emergency department (ED) or hospitalised with acute wheeze. Methods: We included randomised controlled trials of OCS vs placebo for children Results: Four studies were eligible. Risk of bias was generally low except for selective outcome reporting. OCS did not reduce risk of hospitalisation (Risk ratio 0.94,95%CI 0.80,1.12; Figure 1). Of 3 studies reporting LOS, 2 showed statistically but not clinically significant reduction (placebo 9 hours [IQR 2-16] vs OCS 6.2 [2–11.8] p0.04; and placebo 7.7 hours[5.0-22.9] versus OCS 6.8[4–14] p0.03). Atopic history, and interval symptoms were not consistently associated with better response to OCS. Severity and prior diagnosis of asthma were associated with response in one study. Conclusion: High quality evidence suggests OCS should not be used in the ED in acute preschool wheeze. Effects on those with known asthma or hospitalised with severe illness are uncertain.","PeriodicalId":114886,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric asthma and allergy","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral steroids for preschool children with acute wheeze: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"J. Murphy, C. King, B. Kapitein, R. Fernandes, A. Lilley, S. Messahel, D. Hawcutt, I. Sinha\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa4941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Benefits of oral corticosteroids (OCS) for acute preschool wheeze are unclear. Aim: Systematically review evidence for OCS in preschool children presenting to the emergency department (ED) or hospitalised with acute wheeze. Methods: We included randomised controlled trials of OCS vs placebo for children Results: Four studies were eligible. Risk of bias was generally low except for selective outcome reporting. OCS did not reduce risk of hospitalisation (Risk ratio 0.94,95%CI 0.80,1.12; Figure 1). Of 3 studies reporting LOS, 2 showed statistically but not clinically significant reduction (placebo 9 hours [IQR 2-16] vs OCS 6.2 [2–11.8] p0.04; and placebo 7.7 hours[5.0-22.9] versus OCS 6.8[4–14] p0.03). Atopic history, and interval symptoms were not consistently associated with better response to OCS. Severity and prior diagnosis of asthma were associated with response in one study. Conclusion: High quality evidence suggests OCS should not be used in the ED in acute preschool wheeze. Effects on those with known asthma or hospitalised with severe illness are uncertain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":114886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paediatric asthma and allergy\",\"volume\":\"144 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paediatric asthma and allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa4941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric asthma and allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.oa4941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景:口服皮质类固醇(OCS)治疗急性学龄前喘息的益处尚不清楚。目的:系统地回顾学龄前儿童在急诊科(ED)或因急性喘息住院的OCS证据。方法:我们纳入了儿童OCS与安慰剂的随机对照试验。结果:4项研究符合条件。除选择性结果报告外,偏倚风险一般较低。OCS未降低住院风险(风险比0.94,95%CI 0.80,1.12;图1)在报告LOS的3项研究中,2项显示统计学上但无临床意义的减少(安慰剂9小时[IQR 2-16] vs OCS 6.2 [2 - 11.8] p0.04;安慰剂组7.7小时[5.0-22.9],OCS组6.8小时[4-14]p0.03)。特应性病史和间歇期症状并不一致地与OCS的更好应答相关。在一项研究中,哮喘的严重程度和既往诊断与反应相关。结论:高质量的证据表明,OCS不应用于急性学龄前喘息的ED。对已知哮喘患者或因严重疾病住院的患者的影响尚不确定。
Oral steroids for preschool children with acute wheeze: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Benefits of oral corticosteroids (OCS) for acute preschool wheeze are unclear. Aim: Systematically review evidence for OCS in preschool children presenting to the emergency department (ED) or hospitalised with acute wheeze. Methods: We included randomised controlled trials of OCS vs placebo for children Results: Four studies were eligible. Risk of bias was generally low except for selective outcome reporting. OCS did not reduce risk of hospitalisation (Risk ratio 0.94,95%CI 0.80,1.12; Figure 1). Of 3 studies reporting LOS, 2 showed statistically but not clinically significant reduction (placebo 9 hours [IQR 2-16] vs OCS 6.2 [2–11.8] p0.04; and placebo 7.7 hours[5.0-22.9] versus OCS 6.8[4–14] p0.03). Atopic history, and interval symptoms were not consistently associated with better response to OCS. Severity and prior diagnosis of asthma were associated with response in one study. Conclusion: High quality evidence suggests OCS should not be used in the ED in acute preschool wheeze. Effects on those with known asthma or hospitalised with severe illness are uncertain.