Cargando…

Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND: Nebulised dornase alfa is used off-label in critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline on patient-important outcome measures in adult critically ill patients. METHODS: We performed a sy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Claudius, Casper, Perner, Anders, Møller, Morten Hylander
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637143/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26547839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0142-z
_version_ 1782399767640276992
author Claudius, Casper
Perner, Anders
Møller, Morten Hylander
author_facet Claudius, Casper
Perner, Anders
Møller, Morten Hylander
author_sort Claudius, Casper
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Nebulised dornase alfa is used off-label in critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline on patient-important outcome measures in adult critically ill patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing nebulised dornase alfa with placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline. The predefined outcome measures were all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and adverse events. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by conventional cumulative meta-analysis, and the robustness of the primary estimate was assessed by TSA. RESULTS: Two trials (n = 63) were included; both were judged to have high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (random effects model RR (95 % CI) 0.73 (0.09–5.77); P = 0.24; I(2) = 30 %). TSA could not be conducted because less than 1 % of the required information size had been accrued. None of the two trials reported adequate and detailed data on any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quantity and quality of evidence for use of nebulised dornase alfa in adult critically ill patients in this systematic review with meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), no. CRD442015016047. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0142-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4637143
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46371432015-11-09 Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis Claudius, Casper Perner, Anders Møller, Morten Hylander Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Nebulised dornase alfa is used off-label in critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline on patient-important outcome measures in adult critically ill patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing nebulised dornase alfa with placebo, no prophylaxis, or hypertonic saline. The predefined outcome measures were all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and adverse events. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by conventional cumulative meta-analysis, and the robustness of the primary estimate was assessed by TSA. RESULTS: Two trials (n = 63) were included; both were judged to have high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (random effects model RR (95 % CI) 0.73 (0.09–5.77); P = 0.24; I(2) = 30 %). TSA could not be conducted because less than 1 % of the required information size had been accrued. None of the two trials reported adequate and detailed data on any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quantity and quality of evidence for use of nebulised dornase alfa in adult critically ill patients in this systematic review with meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), no. CRD442015016047. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0142-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4637143/ /pubmed/26547839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0142-z Text en © Claudius et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Claudius, Casper
Perner, Anders
Møller, Morten Hylander
Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
title Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
title_full Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
title_fullStr Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
title_full_unstemmed Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
title_short Nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
title_sort nebulised dornase alfa versus placebo or hypertonic saline in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4637143/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26547839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0142-z
work_keys_str_mv AT claudiuscasper nebuliseddornasealfaversusplaceboorhypertonicsalineinadultcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT perneranders nebuliseddornasealfaversusplaceboorhypertonicsalineinadultcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT møllermortenhylander nebuliseddornasealfaversusplaceboorhypertonicsalineinadultcriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis