MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2004983285 · doi:10.1002/ebch.583

Cochrane review: Regular treatment with formoterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

2010· article· en· W2004983285 sur OpenAlexaff
Christopher J Cates, Toby J Lasserson, Roman Jaeschke

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAsthma and respiratory diseases
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFormoterolMedicineAdverse effectAsthmaClinical trialInternal medicineCochrane LibraryPediatricsIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trialBudesonide

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2‐agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long‐acting beta2‐agonists are safe when used alone or in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids. Objectives The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non‐fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Search strategy Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Selection criteria Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids, and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors. Main results The review included 14 studies on adults and adolescents (8,028 participants) and seven studies on children and adolescents (2,788 participants). Data on all cause fatal and non‐fatal serious adverse events were found for all studies, and the overall risk of bias was low. Four deaths occurred on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and none on regular inhaled corticosteroids alone. All the deaths were in adults, and one was reported to be asthma‐related. The difference was not statistically significant. Non‐fatal serious adverse events of any cause were very similar in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.33)], and an increase in events in children on regular formoterol was not statistically significant [Peto Odds Ratio 1.62 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.28)]. Asthma related serious adverse events on formoterol were lower in adults [Peto Odds Ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.00)] and although they were higher in children [Peto Odds Ratio 1.49 (95% CI 0.48 to 4.61)], this was not statistically significant. Authors' conclusions It is not possible, from the data in this review, to reassure people with asthma that inhaled corticosteroids with regular formoterol carries no risk of increasing mortality in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids alone as all four deaths occurred among 6,594 people using inhaled corticosteroids with formoterol. On the other hand, we have found no conclusive evidence of harm and there was only one asthma related death registered during over 3,000 patient year observation on formoterol. In adults, the decrease in asthma‐related serious adverse events on regular formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids was not accompanied by a decrease in all cause serious adverse events. In children the number of events was too small, and consequently the results too imprecise, to determine whether the increase in all cause non‐fatal serious adverse events found in the previous meta‐analysis on regular formoterol alone is abolished by the additional use of inhaled corticosteroids. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of formoterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of formoterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects. Plain Language Summary Serious adverse events with regular formoterol and inhaled corticosteroids There has been some concern raised at the possibility of increased serious adverse events following administration of formoterol, a long‐acting beta‐agonist, to people with asthma. We analysed data from 14 studies in adults and seven in children. Too few deaths occurred in the trials to gain any conclusive reassurance that regular formoterol taken with inhaled corticosteroids either reduces the risk of mortality, or in fact does not increase it (all four deaths that did occur, including one related to asthma, were among 6,594 patients taking formoterol with inhaled corticosteroids). Serious adverse events were very similar in adults with and without formoterol. Although there were more events on formoterol in children, the difference was not big enough to rule out this as being a chance finding. Similarly, decreased risk of asthma‐related serious adverse events in adults and increased risk among children taking formoterol could be also be chance findings.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,040

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,006
Bibliométrie0,0060,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalMême sujetAsthma and respiratory diseasesTravaux en français237 207