Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Metilxantinas para las exacerbaciones de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Ram 2000 {published and unpublished data}

Ram FSF, Poole PJ, Bagg W, Stewart J, Black PN. Randomised, controlled trial of theophylline for the treatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [abstract]. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2000;161(Suppl):A489.

Rice 1987 {published data only}

Rice KL, Leatherman JW, Duane PG, Snyder LS, Harmon KR, Abel J, et al. Aminophylline for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 1987;107(3):305‐9.

Seidenfield 1984 {published data only}

Seidenfeld JJ, Jones WN, Moss RE, Tremper J. Intravenous aminophylline in the treatment of acute bronchospastic exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1984;13:248‐52.

Wrenn 1991 {published and unpublished data}

Wrenn K, Slovis C, Murphy F, Greenberg R. Aminophylline therapy for acute bronchospastic disease in the emergency room. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;115:241‐47.

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Bone 1980 {published data only}

Bone RC. Treatment of respiratory failure due to advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 1980;140:1018‐21.

Brantingham 1970 {published data only}

Brantingham P. Clinical trial of theograd. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1970;24:165‐70.

Chiappini 1990 {published data only}

Chiappini F, Bevignani G, Fresu R. Effects of theophylline on the course of hypercapnic respiratory insufficiency. Clinica Terapeutica 1990;135:121‐7.

Chin 1983 {published data only}

Chin R, Pescoe R. Practical aspects in management of respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Critical Care Quarterly 1983;6:1‐21.

Dolcetti 1988 {published data only}

Dolcetti A, Osella D, DeFilippis G, Carnuccio C, Grossi E. Comparison of intravenously administered doxofylline and placebo for the treatment of severe acute airways obstruction. The Journal of International Medical Research 1988;16:264‐69.

Donner 1980 {published data only}

Donner C, Fracchia C, Ioli F. Bronchospasm management by means of ipratropium, beclomethasone, and their combination. Giornale Italiano Delle Malattie Del Torace 1980;34:307‐10.

Dorow 1978 {published data only}

Dorow P. The effect of oral aminophylline compound with protracted activity on respiratory resistance and blood gases in obstructive respiratory diseases. Arzneimittel‐Forschung 1978;28:853‐6.

Furukawa 1988 {published data only}

Furukawa CT. Comparative trials including a ß2 adrenergic agonist, a methylxanthine, and a mast cell stabilizer. Annals of Allergy 1988;60:472‐6.

Holford 1993 {published data only}

Holford N, Black P, Couch R, Kennedy J, Briant R. Theophylline target concentration in severe airways obstruction ‐‐ 10 or 20 mg/L? A randomised concentration‐controlled trial. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 1993;25(6):495‐505.

Holford 1993a {published data only}

Holford N, Hashimoto Y, Sheiner LB. Time and theophylline concentration help explain the recovery of peak flow following acute airways obstruction. Population analysis of a randomised concentration controlled trial. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 1993;25(6):506‐15.

Jenkins 1982 {published data only}

Jenkins PF, White JP, Jariwalla AJ, Anderson G, Campbell IA. A controlled study of slow‐release theophylline and aminophylline in patients with chronic bronchitis. British Journal of Diseases of the Chest 1982;76:57‐60.

Jonsson 1988 {published data only}

Jonsson S, Kjartansson G, Gislason D, Helgason H. Comparison of the oral and intravenous routes for treating asthma with methylprednisone and theophylline. Chest 1988;94:723‐6.

Light 1983 {published data only}

Light RW. Conservative treatment of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. Respiratory Care 1983;28:561‐6.

Lloberes 1988 {published data only}

Lloberes P, Ramis L, Montserrat J, et al. Effect of three different bronchodilators during an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. European Respiratory Journal 1988;1:536‐9.

Morandini 1989 {published data only}

Morandini G. Treatment of chronic bronchitis: combined therapy with sustained‐release theophylline and a mucoactive drug sobrerol. Clinical Trials Journal 1989;26:163‐74.

Musil 1988 {published data only}

Musil J, Hirsch V, Votroubkova O. The role of theophylline in threatment of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pracovni Lekarstvi 1998;78:319‐20.

Perret 1980 {published data only}

Perret L, Laitinen LA. Aspects of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Finska Lakaresallskapets Handlingar 1980;124:101‐3.

Reinecke 1986 {published data only}

Reinecke T, Seger D, Wears R. Rapid assay of serum theophylline levels. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1986;15:147‐51.

Sahay 1984 {published data only}

Sahay JN, Bell R, Chatterjee SS, Jayaswal R. Comparative study of the effects of intravenous aminophylline, salbutamol and terbutaline in patients suffering from reversible airways obstruction. Current Medical Research and Opinion 1984;9:1‐6.

Sahay 1986 {published data only}

Sahay JN, Chatterjee SS, Summerfield PJ. A comparative trial of ipratropium bromide, controlled release theophylline, and a combination of these in patients with reversible airflow obstruction. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1986;40:198‐202.

Schmidt 1988 {published data only}

Schmidt EW, Ulmer WT. Increase of arterial oxygen pressure in therapy with theophylline in patients with obstructive ventilation disorder and partial respiratory insufficiency [Ansteif des arteriellen sauerstoffdruckes unter therapie mit theophyllin bei patienten mit obstruktiver ventilationsstorung und respiratorischer partialinsuffizienz]. Prax Klin Pneumol 1988;42(7):600‐2.

Seeto 2004 {published data only}

Seeto LJ, Ito K, Hamid Q, Plowman L, Adcock I, Lim S. Effect of low dose oral theophylline in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [Abstract]. American Thoracic Society 100th International Conference May 21‐26. 2004:C22, Poster 515.

Tanser 1982 {published data only}

Tanser RA. Maintenance of bronchodilation in chronic reversible airways obstruction. Comparison between choline theophylline and salbutamol. Practitioner 1982;226(1365):569‐71.

Tedders 1976 {published data only}

Tedders JG, Thomas AK, Edwards G. A double‐blind comparison of a microcrystalline theophylline tablet and salbutamol in reversible airways obstruction. British Journal of Clinical Practice 1976;30:212‐6.

Thomas 1992 {published data only}

Thomas P, Pugsley JA, Stewart JH. Theophylline and salbutamol improve pulmonary function in patients with irreversible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chest 1992;101:160‐65.

Vozeh 1982 {published data only}

Vozeh S, Kewitz G, Perruchuchoud A, et al. Theophylline serum concentration and therapeutic effect in severe bronchial obstruction: the optimal use of intravenously administered aminophylline. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1982;125:181‐84.

Referencias adicionales

Anonymous 1997

Anonymous. BTS guidelines for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The COPD Guidelines Group of the Standards of Care Committee of the BTS. Thorax 1997;52(Suppl 5):S1‐S28.

ATS 1995

American Thoracic Society. Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1995;152(Suppl):S77‐S121.

Bach 2001

Bach PB, Brown C, Gelfand SE, McCrory DC. Management of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a summary and appraisal of the published evidence. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;134:600‐20.

Jadad 1996

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17:1‐12.

McCrory 2002

McCrory DC, Brown CD. Anti‐cholinergic bronchodilators versus beta2‐sympathomimetic agents for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 4.

Pauwels 2001

Pauwels RA, Buist AS, Calverley PMA, Jenkins CR, Hurd SS, GOLD Scientific Committee. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Workshop Summary. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001;163(2):1256‐76.

Peleman 1998

Peleman RA, Kips JC, Pauwels RA. Therapeutic activities of theophylline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 1998;28(Suppl 3):53‐6.

Peter 2002

Peter JV, Moran JL, Phillips‐Hughes J, Warn D. Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure‐‐a meta‐analysis update. Critical Care Medicine 2002;30:555‐62.

Ram‐Rev 2002

Ram FSF, Jones PW, Castro AA, de Brito Jardim JR, Atallah AN, Lacasse Y, et al. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 4.

Saint 1995

Saint S, Bent S, Vittinghoff E, Grady D. Antibiotics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA 1995;273:957‐60.

Siafakas 1995

Siafakas NM, Vermeire P, Pride NB, et al. [Optimal assessment and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. European Respiratory Journal 1995;8:1398‐420.

Snow 2001

Snow V, Lascher S, Mottur‐Pilson C, Joint Expert Panel on COPD of the American College of Chest Physicians and the American College of Physicians ‐ American Society of Internal Medicine. Evidence base for management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;134(7):595‐599.

Weinberger 1996

Weinberger M, Hendeles L. Theophylline in asthma. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334:1380‐88.

Wood‐Baker 2002

Wood‐Baker R, Walters EH, Gibson P. Oral corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 3.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ram 2000

Methods

Type: Parallel group.
Duration: 7 days or duration of hospitalisation (lesser of).
Randomization: blocks of 4, computer generated.
Outcome blinding: Double‐blind.
Co‐interventions: salbutamol 5mg QID, ipratropium 0.5mg QID, prednisone 40mg one time a day, oral antibiotic (if purulent sputum).
Confounders: none noted.
Assessment score: 5

Participants

Setting: Medical ward.
Inclusion criteria: Admission for acute COPD exacerbation, age >= 50 years, smoked >= 20 packyears, FEV1 on admission <= 1.5L.
Exclusion criteria: Use of theophylline in prior week or need for IV aminophylline, dx of pneumonia or congestive heart failure, prior dx of asthma, bronchiectasis, carcinoma, interstitial lung disease, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or intolerance to theophylline.
Number recruited: 50
Mean age: 71 years
Gender: 46% male
Baseline FEV1: 0.6 L

Interventions

Experimental: longacting oral theophylline (Neulin‐24, 3M) 200mg or greater titrated to serum theo level of 10‐20 mg/L
Control: Placebo.

Outcomes

Analysed: Change in FEV1 at 3 days, length‐of‐stay, change in symptom scores, adverse effects. Reported: Change in FVC, Sa02
Mortality: None
Morbidity: Experimental group; myocardial infarction (1), non‐malignant tachycardia (2); Control group; none.

Notes

Likelihood of COPD: Stringent spirometry criteria

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Information not available

Rice 1987

Methods

Type: Parallel group.
Duration: 72 hrs. Randomization: block.
Outcome blinding: Double‐blinded, with the exception of one investigator who adjusted theophylline and placebo infusion rates.
Co‐interventions: 0.3mL of 5% Metaproterenol sulfate/2.5mL of normal saline q4hrs; methylprednisolone 0.5mg/kg q6hrs, Ampicillin 500mg q6hrs, O2 prn.
Confounders: None identified.
Assessment score: 5

Participants

Setting: ED/medical walk‐in.
Inclusion criteria: Prior diagnosis of COPD, prior spirometry of FEV1 < 2 SD below predicted and FEV1/FVC <60%, current diagnosis of COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization.
Exclusion criteria: Prior diagnosis of asthma, readily reversible exacerbations, prior bronchodilator response of >30% change in FEV1, left heart failure, pneumonia, intubated.
Number recruited: 30
Mean age: 65 years
Gender: 96% male
Baseline FEV1: 0.6 L

Interventions

Experimental: IV aminophylline 0‐6mg/kg load (based on prior theo use), 0.5mg/kg maintenance infusion for level of 72‐94 umol/L (abstract lists 72‐83 umol/L).
Control: Placebo solution.

Outcomes

Analysed: Change in FEV1, dyspnea index, adverse effects.
Reported: Change in FVC, pO2 and pCO2.
Others: None
Mortality: None
Morbidity: Experimental group; intubation (1), Control group; intubation (1).

Notes

Likelihood of COPD: Stringent spirometry criteria

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Information not available

Seidenfield 1984

Methods

Type: Parallel group.
Duration: 2 hours. Randomization: random number generator.
Outcome blinding: Double‐blinded.
Co‐interventions: 0.3 ml metaproterenol sulfate/2.5 ml saline nebulizer, 28% O2.
Confounders: Treating physician could break randomization code if necessary.
Assessment score: 4

Participants

Setting: ED.
Inclusion criteria: ATS definition of chronic bronchitis (1962).
Exclusion criteria: Febrile (>37.5 C), direct admission, arrhythmia, pneumonia, congestive heart failure.
Number recruited: 52
Mean age: 63 years
Gender: 100% male
Baseline FEV1: 0.8 L

Interventions

Experimental: IV aminophylline 2.8‐5.6mg/kg over 1 hour (based on prior theophylline exposure).
Control: D5W.

Outcomes

Analysed: Change in FEV1 at 2 hours, returns to ED in one week.
Reported: 17 patients hospitalised within 1 week, but not reported by treatment group
6‐month mortality: Experimental (3), Control (5)
Morbidity: "No significant side effects observed"

Notes

Likelihood of COPD: Clinical diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, baseline FEV1 0.8 L.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Information not available

Wrenn 1991

Methods

Type: Parallel group.
Duration: Until discharge from ED.
Randomization: yes.
Outcome blinding: Double‐blind.
Co‐interventions: 0.3 ml metaproterenol sulfate/2.5 ml saline nebuliser q30 min prn, methylprednisolone 80mg IV once, 28% O2.
Confounders:
Randomization not stratified by type of obstructive airways disease. Assessment score: 4

Participants

Setting: ED.
Inclusion criteria: asthma exacerbation or wheeze, age >45 years, smoking history of 20 pack‐years, duration of disease >20 years OR disease onset after age 45 years.
Exclusion criteria: Theophylline use in prior 24 hrs, adverse reaction to theophylline, corticosteroids, or beta‐agonists, type 1 diabetes mellitus, possible myocardial infarction, pulmonary edema.
Number recruited: 39
Mean age: 62 years
Gender: 64% male
Baseline FEV1: 0.7 L

Interventions

Experimental: intravenous aminophylline 5.6mg/kg over 20 minutes, then 0.9mg/kg constant infusion.
Control: Placebo.

Outcomes

Analysed: Change in FEV1, PEFR, hospitalizations, return to ED in 3 days, adverse effects
Reported: Change in FVC. Approximate costs, emergency department LOS
Mortality: None reported
Morbidity: Experimental group; new T‐wave inversions on EKG + hyperglycemia (1), Control group; none.

Notes

Likelihood of COPD: No prior PFT data; likely some misclassification with asthma since asthma/COPD subgroups established post hoc. Hospitalization decision made by non‐investigator with prespecified criteria.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

Information not available

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Bone 1980

Not randomised

Brantingham 1970

Stable COPD

Chiappini 1990

Relevant endpoints not reported

Chin 1983

Not randomised

Dolcetti 1988

Crossover design not appropriate for assessment of treatment of exacerbations

Donner 1980

Stable COPD

Dorow 1978

Stable COPD

Furukawa 1988

Asthma

Holford 1993

No placebo group

Holford 1993a

No placebo group

Jenkins 1982

Stable COPD

Jonsson 1988

Asthma

Light 1983

Not randomised

Lloberes 1988

Unclear if randomised; stabilised exacerbation

Morandini 1989

Stable COPD

Musil 1988

Not randomised

Perret 1980

Stable COPD

Reinecke 1986

No intervention

Sahay 1984

Stable COPD

Sahay 1986

Stable COPD

Schmidt 1988

Stable COPD

Seeto 2004

Stable COPD

Tanser 1982

Stable COPD

Tedders 1976

Stable COPD

Thomas 1992

Stable COPD

Vozeh 1982

No placebo group

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 2 hours Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 1 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 2 hours.

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 1 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 2 hours.

2 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 3 days Show forest plot

2

78

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

101.13 [25.61, 176.65]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 2 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 3 days.

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 2 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 3 days.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Admissions among emergency department patients Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 1 Admissions among emergency department patients.

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 1 Admissions among emergency department patients.

2 Emergency department returns within one week Show forest plot

2

91

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.45, 5.15]

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 2 Emergency department returns within one week.

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 2 Emergency department returns within one week.

3 Difference in hospital length‐of‐stay (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 3 Difference in hospital length‐of‐stay (days).

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 3 Difference in hospital length‐of‐stay (days).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Proportion with improvement in symptom score within hours Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 1 Proportion with improvement in symptom score within hours.

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 1 Proportion with improvement in symptom score within hours.

2 Change in symptoms score at 3 days Show forest plot

2

78

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.36 [‐5.11, 2.40]

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 2 Change in symptoms score at 3 days.

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 2 Change in symptoms score at 3 days.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Adverse effects

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Effect of methyl‐xanthines on nausea/vomiting Show forest plot

3

117

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.62 [1.70, 12.56]

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 1 Effect of methyl‐xanthines on nausea/vomiting.

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 1 Effect of methyl‐xanthines on nausea/vomiting.

2 Effect of methylxanthines on tremor Show forest plot

3

117

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.73, 4.56]

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 2 Effect of methylxanthines on tremor.

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 2 Effect of methylxanthines on tremor.

3 Effect of methylxanthines on palpitations/arrhythmias Show forest plot

2

89

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.14 [0.87, 19.61]

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 3 Effect of methylxanthines on palpitations/arrhythmias.

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 3 Effect of methylxanthines on palpitations/arrhythmias.

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 1 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 2 hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 1 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 2 hours.

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 2 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 3 days.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1, Outcome 2 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 3 days.

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 1 Admissions among emergency department patients.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 1 Admissions among emergency department patients.

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 2 Emergency department returns within one week.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 2 Emergency department returns within one week.

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 3 Difference in hospital length‐of‐stay (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints, Outcome 3 Difference in hospital length‐of‐stay (days).

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 1 Proportion with improvement in symptom score within hours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 1 Proportion with improvement in symptom score within hours.

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 2 Change in symptoms score at 3 days.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores, Outcome 2 Change in symptoms score at 3 days.

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 1 Effect of methyl‐xanthines on nausea/vomiting.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 1 Effect of methyl‐xanthines on nausea/vomiting.

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 2 Effect of methylxanthines on tremor.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 2 Effect of methylxanthines on tremor.

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 3 Effect of methylxanthines on palpitations/arrhythmias.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Adverse effects, Outcome 3 Effect of methylxanthines on palpitations/arrhythmias.

Comparison 1. Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 2 hours Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2 Change in FEV1 (ml) at 3 days Show forest plot

2

78

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

101.13 [25.61, 176.65]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Effect of methylxanthines on FEV1
Comparison 2. Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Admissions among emergency department patients Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2 Emergency department returns within one week Show forest plot

2

91

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.45, 5.15]

3 Difference in hospital length‐of‐stay (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Effect of methylxanthines on clinical endpoints
Comparison 3. Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Proportion with improvement in symptom score within hours Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2 Change in symptoms score at 3 days Show forest plot

2

78

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.36 [‐5.11, 2.40]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Effect of methylxanthines on symptom scores
Comparison 4. Adverse effects

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Effect of methyl‐xanthines on nausea/vomiting Show forest plot

3

117

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.62 [1.70, 12.56]

2 Effect of methylxanthines on tremor Show forest plot

3

117

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.83 [0.73, 4.56]

3 Effect of methylxanthines on palpitations/arrhythmias Show forest plot

2

89

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.14 [0.87, 19.61]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Adverse effects