Mast‐cell stabilising agents to prevent exercise‐induced bronchoconstriction

Carol Spooner; G Richard Spooner; Brian H Rowe

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002307

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 1 Maximum percent decrease in PFT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 2 Complete protection: post exercise fall PFT <15% (entered as proportion achieved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 3 Clinical Protection: 50% improvement over placebo (entered as proportion achieved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 4 Mean degree of clinical protection: PFT comparison.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 5 ADRS.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 6 High vs low quality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 7 Effect by severity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 MCS vs anticholinergics (AC), Outcome 8 Effect by steroid use.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 1 Maximum percent decrease in PFT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 2 Complete protection: post exercise fall PFT <15% (entered as proportion achieved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 3 Clinical Protection: 50% improvement over placebo (entered as proportion achieved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 4 Mean degree of protection: PFT comparison.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 5 ADRS.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 6 High vs low quality.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 7 Effect by severity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 8 By delivery method.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 9 By Drug: MSC vs SABA.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 10 By method used to calculate change.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 11 Effect by severity (TBI).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA), Outcome 12 Effect by steroid use.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 1 Maximum percent decrease in PFT.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 2 Complete protection: post exercise fall PFT <15% (entered as proportion achieved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 3 Clinical Protection: 50% improvement over placebo (entered as proportion achieved).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 4 Mean degree of protection: PFT comparison.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 5 ADRS.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 6 Effect by severity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 SABA vs combination SABA + MCS, Outcome 7 By method used to calculate change.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1. MCS vs anticholinergics (AC)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Maximum percent decrease in PFT Show forest plot	8	358	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐6.68 [‐10.04, ‐3.31]

1.1 Children	4	102	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐6.56 [‐12.17, ‐0.95]
1.2 Adults	4	256	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐6.74 [‐10.95, ‐2.54]
2 Complete protection: post exercise fall PFT <15% (entered as proportion achieved) Show forest plot	8	346	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.15 [1.26, 3.68]

2.1 Children	4	90	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.55 [0.39, 6.16]
2.2 Adults	4	256	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.55 [1.46, 4.44]
3 Clinical Protection: 50% improvement over placebo (entered as proportion achieved) Show forest plot	5	104	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.70 [1.14, 6.41]

3.1 Children	2	52	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	3.31 [0.92, 11.86]
3.2 Adults	3	52	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	2.28 [0.70, 7.36]
4 Mean degree of clinical protection: PFT comparison Show forest plot	6	130	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	11.21 [2.40, 20.02]

4.1 Children	3	78	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	10.73 [1.25, 20.21]
4.2 Adults	3	52	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	14.05 [‐17.70, 45.79]
5 ADRS Show forest plot	4	108	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5.1 General side effects	4	108	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 High vs low quality Show forest plot	8	358	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐6.68 [‐10.04, ‐3.31]

6.1 Low quality (Jadad 1‐2)	4	252	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐6.29 [‐10.54, ‐2.04]
6.2 High quality ( Jadad 3‐5)	4	106	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐7.32 [‐12.82, ‐1.82]
7 Effect by severity Show forest plot	8	358	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐6.68 [‐10.04, ‐3.31]

7.1 Mild EIB (< 30% maximum fall on placebo)	3	250	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐5.88 [‐9.75, ‐2.00]
7.2 Severe EIB (=>30% maximum fall on placebo)	5	108	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐9.12 [‐15.90, ‐2.33]
8 Effect by steroid use Show forest plot	5	112	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐8.36 [‐14.26, ‐2.46]

8.1 No recent steroid use	5	112	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐8.36 [‐14.26, ‐2.46]
8.2 Some on ICS (no studies)	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 1. MCS vs anticholinergics (AC)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Maximum percent decrease in PFT Show forest plot	12	543	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.84 [4.47, 9.22]

1.1 Children	7	183	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.30 [3.88, 10.73]
1.2 Adults	5	360	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.39 [2.67, 10.12]
2 Complete protection: post exercise fall PFT <15% (entered as proportion achieved) Show forest plot	9	451	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.31 [0.18, 0.52]

2.1 Children	6	147	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.07, 0.46]
2.2 Adults	3	304	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.21, 0.75]
3 Clinical Protection: 50% improvement over placebo (entered as proportion achieved) Show forest plot	6	154	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.18, 0.77]

3.1 Children	4	108	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.35 [0.14, 0.88]
3.2 Adults	2	46	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.12, 1.34]
4 Mean degree of protection: PFT comparison Show forest plot	7	180	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐22.67 [‐33.42, ‐11.92]

4.1 Children	5	134	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐21.55 [‐34.15, ‐8.96]
4.2 Adults	2	46	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐30.05 [‐52.52, ‐7.57]
5 ADRS Show forest plot	10	304	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.16 [0.00, 8.24]

5.1 General side effects	10	304	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.16 [0.00, 8.24]
6 High vs low quality Show forest plot	12	543	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.06 [4.60, 9.52]

6.1 Low quality (Jadad 1‐2)	5	356	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.51 [3.97, 11.04]
6.2 High quality (Jadad 3‐5)	7	187	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.32 [2.47, 10.18]
7 Effect by severity Show forest plot	12	543	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.85 [4.45, 9.24]

7.1 Mild EIB (< 30% maximum fall on placebo)	4	273	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.06 [1.73, 6.39]
7.2 Severe EIB (=>30% maximum fall on placebo)	8	270	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	10.80 [7.44, 14.17]
8 By delivery method Show forest plot	12	401	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	11.12 [7.65, 14.59]

8.1 MDI	2	52	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	11.12 [‐1.23, 23.48]
8.2 Spinhaler (Top/Bottom Index)	3	96	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	16.05 [11.95, 20.15]
8.3 Nebulisation	2	53	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.46 [‐3.14, 12.06]
8.4 Two or more methods	5	200	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	9.94 [6.34, 13.55]
9 By Drug: MSC vs SABA Show forest plot	16	507	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	11.00 [7.76, 14.23]

9.1 Fenoterol	3	82	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	9.88 [3.26, 16.49]
9.2 Salbutamol	4	159	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	8.15 [2.71, 13.59]
9.3 Terbutaline	2	46	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.85 [2.11, 9.58]
9.4 Reproterol/procaterol	2	56	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	11.11 [1.57, 20.64]
9.5 Fenoterol (Top/Bottom Index)	3	100	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	17.60 [12.95, 22.24]
9.6 Salbutamol (Top/Bottom Index)	2	64	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	10.50 [‐0.28, 21.28]
10 By method used to calculate change Show forest plot	16		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

10.1 Percent Change Index	11	343	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.76 [5.23, 10.30]
10.2 Top‐Bottom Index	5	164	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	14.71 [9.14, 20.29]
11 Effect by severity (TBI) Show forest plot	4		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

11.3 Top/Bottom index (Severe EIB)	4	130	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	15.18 [8.07, 22.29]
12 Effect by steroid use Show forest plot	7	232	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	7.41 [4.73, 10.09]

12.1 No recent steroid use	4	156	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	6.35 [3.16, 9.53]
12.2 Some on ICS	3	76	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	10.00 [5.03, 14.96]

Comparison 2. MCS vs short acting beta‐agonist (SABA)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. SABA vs combination SABA + MCS

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Maximum percent decrease in PFT Show forest plot	5		Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

1.1 Children	2	50	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.83 [‐1.25, 4.92]
1.2 Adults	3	80	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.31 [‐6.29, 8.91]
2 Complete protection: post exercise fall PFT <15% (entered as proportion achieved) Show forest plot	4	88	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.46 [0.15, 1.39]

2.1 Children	3	64	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.09, 5.03]
2.2 Adults	1	24	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.36 [0.07, 1.88]
3 Clinical Protection: 50% improvement over placebo (entered as proportion achieved) Show forest plot	3	74	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.37 [0.11, 1.21]

3.1 Children	2	50	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.30 [0.06, 1.52]
3.2 Adults	1	24	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.47 [0.08, 2.66]
4 Mean degree of protection: PFT comparison Show forest plot	3	75	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐10.26 [‐26.99, 6.47]

4.1 Children	2	51	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐10.26 [‐26.99, 6.47]
4.2 Adults	1	24	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 ADRS Show forest plot	6	164	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.14, 7.10]

5.1 General side effects	6	164	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.14, 7.10]
6 Effect by severity Show forest plot	5	130	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.76 [‐1.10, 4.62]

6.1 Mild EIB (< 30% maximum fall on placebo)	2	62	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.49 [‐1.53, 4.51]
6.2 Severe EIB (=>30% maximum fall on placebo)	3	68	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	4.10 [‐4.76, 12.97]
7 By method used to calculate change Show forest plot	9	258	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.42 [‐0.81, 1.64]

7.1 Percent Change Index	5	130	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.76 [‐1.10, 4.62]
7.2 Top/Bottom index	4	128	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.11 [‐1.25, 1.47]

Comparison 3. SABA vs combination SABA + MCS

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet