4.6 Review

Long-term macrolides for non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

RESPIROLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 321-329

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/resp.12233

关键词

bronchiectasis; efficacy; long term; macrolide; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR [003/2005/A, 007/2013/A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term macrolides are increasingly being prescribed for stable bronchiectasis. This meta-analysis assessed the clinical effect of this treatment in bronchiectasis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. All randomized, controlled trials (RCT) comparing long-term macrolides with placebo and/or usual medical care, with outcome measures relating to efficacy and safety were selected. Nine RCT recruiting 530 patients were included. Compared with placebo and/or usual medical care, long-term macrolides significantly reduced the risk of the exacerbations (number of participants with exacerbations (relative risk=0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.82, P<0.00001); average exacerbations per participant (weighted mean difference=-1.01, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.67, P<0.00001)), the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores (weighted mean difference=-5.39 95% CI -9.89 to -0.88, P=0.02), dyspnoea scale (weighted mean difference=-0.31 95% CI -0.42 to -0.20, P<0.00001), 24-h sputum volume (P<0.00001), and attenuated the decline of forced expiratory volume in 1s (weighted mean difference 0.02L, 95% CI 0.00-0.04, P=0.01). Eradication of pathogens (P=0.06), overall rate of adverse events (P=0.61), and emergence of new pathogens (P=0.61) were not elevated, while gastrointestinal events increased significantly with macrolides (P=0.0001). Macrolide resistance increased, but a meta-analysis was not possible due to the diversity of parameters. Long-term use of macrolides appears to be a treatment option for stable bronchiectasis. The results of this review justify further investigation about adding this intervention to the treatment regimens of bronchiectasis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据