journal club usha niranjan spr paediatrics/ diabetes & endocrine

30
Journal Club Usha Niranjan SPR Paediatrics/ Diabetes & Endocrine

Upload: virgil-stewart

Post on 28-Dec-2015

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Journal Club

Usha Niranjan

SPR Paediatrics/ Diabetes & Endocrine

Rationale

• Bronchiolitis season• Several children (< 2yrs) with

bronchiolitis• Develop fever with occasional

crackles more on one side of the chest.

• Chest X-ray - bilateral perihilar changes

• ? to start antibiotics• ? large proportion get antibiotics

What are we concerned about• In a child presenting with fever and clinical symptoms

and signs of bronchiolitis– ? risk of serious complications such as pneumonia, septicaemia.

• Is there any added benefit?– Macrolides thought to have anti-inflammatory activities +

immune modulatory effects.

What is known on the topic?• Antibiotics are not recommended for bronchiolitis unless

– Concerns about secondary bacterial lobar pneumonia.

– Respiratory failure.

• It is widely accepted in the literature that chest radiographs cannot reliably differentiate viral from bacterial aetiology of pneumonia.– Harris M, Clark J, Coote N, Fletcher P, Harnden A, et al. (2011) British

Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in children: update 2011. Thorax 66 Suppl 2: ii1–23

Accuracy of the interpretation of chest radiographs for the diagnosis of paediatric pneumonia. Elemraid M.A., et al.

PLoS ONE, August 2014, 9/8, 1932-6203.

• An 18-month prospective aetiological study of pneumonia (Northern England).

• CXR done - children aged <16 years with clinical features of pneumonia.

• Reported independently by 2 x radiologists.• Significant disagreement between the first and second reports

(P=0.001), notably in those aged < 5 years (26%, P=0.001). • The most frequent sources of disagreement were the reporting of

patchy and peri-hilar changes. They did not significantly affect – the clinical outcomes.– management decisions of pneumonia in children .

PICO• P: In children with bronchiolitis or viral wheeze

• I: Antibiotics

• C: placebo

• O: rapid improvement

NHS evidence database searches• Medline• Embase• Cochrane database

• None focussing on the aspect of chest X-ray changes

Article

Antibiotics for bronchiolitis in children under two years of age.

Farley R, Spurling GKP, Eriksson L, Del Mar CB.

The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10

Study• Cochrane Systematic review of

– RCTs comparing antibiotics to placebo in children < 2yrs with bronchiolitis using clinical criteria (respiratory distress preceeded by coryzal symptoms with or without fever).

• Included 7 studies – 824 participants • Primary outcome

– Duration of oxygen requirement and symptoms(O2 requirement, wheeze, fever)

• Secondary outcome– Length of hospital stay, re-admission,

The included studies

Low income country – Bangladesh (blinding not described & high risk of reporting bias)

High income country (Netherlands)

Low income country (Bangladesh) - high risk of selection bias

Primary outcome- Days of supplemental oxygen

The three studies adequate data showed no difference between antibiotics and placebo

(pooled MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.72 to 0.33)

Primary outcome – O2 Saturation• One study – Majumder 2009 (children <24 months)

• I.V ampicillin (n=29), oral erythromycin(n=32)• No antibiotics - Control (n=43)

• No significant difference in O2 saturation for the antibiotics group combined or individually with the control.

Primary outcome - Wheeze• One study – Majumder 2009

• On day 3 – fewer children with wheeze in the combined antibiotics arm vs control ( Chi2 test = 24.82)

• P value <0. 001

• On day 5 - more children had wheeze in the antibiotic arm (Chi2 test = 5.69 (P value = 0.058))

• Kabir 2009 (Children <2yrs)– Symptom resolution rapid (< 4 days) vs gradual ( >4 days)– None of symptoms including fever on day 2 were significantly

different among the i.v ampicillin, oral erythromycin or control group (Chi2 = 0.38 (P value = 0.83))

• Kneyber 2008 – Azithromycin vs placebo – No significant difference in duration of fever.– MD 0.47 (95% CI -0.12 to 1.06); (P = 0.12)

Primary outcome - Fever

Secondary outcome• Duration of admission/ time to discharge

– 3 x studies pooled (Kneyber 2008; McCallum 2013; Pinto 2012)– No difference between antibiotics (azithromycin) and placebo – MD – 0.58; 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.02)– Chi2 test = 0.40, df = 2 (P value = 0.82)

• Re-admissions– Two studies (McCallum 2013; Tahan 2007)sufficient data – found no significant difference.– Data not pooled due to substantial risk of heterogeneity.

• Complications/ adverse events – none

• Radiological findings- not reported.

Critical appraisal• Validity

1) Did the review address a clearly focused question? • Yes

2) Did the authors look for the appropriate sort of papers? • Yes

Validity• Do you think the important, relevant studies were

included?

– YES• personal contact with experts • search for unpublished as well as published studies • search for non-English language studies

• Did the review’s authors do enough to assess the quality of the included studies?

– Yes

• If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?

– Yes

• What are the overall result of the reviews?• Primary outcomes:

– Duration of oxygen requirement – no significant difference.– Wheeze –mixed results for effects of antibiotics( study - high risk

of bias).– Fever – no difference in duration of fever or the presence of

fever on day 2.

• Secondary outcomes:– 6 x studies –no difference in length of illness or hospital stay– Length of hospital stay – No significant difference between

azithromycin and placebo. – Hospital readmission – No significant difference.– Radiological findings were not reported as an outcome

in any of the included studies.

What are the results?

Results• Were the results precise?

• Yes– Pooled data – sufficient to assess effect– Confidence intervals reported.

Applicability

• Can the results be applied to the local population?

– Yes

Applicability• Were all the clinically important outcomes considered?• Yes

• Are the benefits worth the harm and costs?

• Yes

Conclusion:

• The review highlights:– No evidence to support the use of antibiotics for bronchiolitis.

– No RCTs assessing the usefulness of antibiotics for bronchiolitis in an intensive care setting.

• Further research focused on determining • the reasons that clinicians use antibiotics in bronchiolitis.• how to reduce clinician anxiety about not using antibiotics

• Further research to identify the subgroup – At risk of secondary bacterial infection following bronchiolitis

especially in the context of respiratory failure.

THANK YOU