Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta asma. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta asma. Mostrar todas las entradas

07 abril, 2012

¿Qué evidencia existe para el tratamiento de sibilancias inducidas por infecciones virales en pacientes pediátricos con montelukast?

¿Qué evidencia existe para el tratamiento de sibilancias inducidas por infecciones virales en pacientes pediátricos con montelukast?

Barroso Espadero D. ¿Qué evidencia existe para el tratamiento de sibilancias inducida por infecciones virales en pacientes pediátricos con montelukast? Evid Pediatr. 2012;8:46.
Traducción autorizada de: TRIPanswers. What is the evidence for the treatment of viral induced wheeze in paediatric patients with Singulair? TRIP Database Limited. Servicio y Repositorio de Preguntas y Respuestas Clínicas: “TRIPanswers” (sitio web de TRIPanswers). Documento número 6851 [en línea] [fecha de actualización: 2012; fecha de consulta: 25-3-2012]. Disponible en: http://www.tripanswers.org/answer.aspx?qid=6851.
Artículo completo | PDF

Conclusion personal: parece que nos encontramos ante otro medicamento no mejor que un placebo. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

29 octubre, 2011

Guias Clinicas de Asma

FFuente: Servicio Vasco de Salud
asma, asma, asma, asma, asma
Guia de Asma

01 agosto, 2011

Asthma, placebo, and how not to kill your patients


Salbutamal metered dose inhaler.
Salbutamal metered dose inhaler. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A number of years ago I was walking along Lake Michigan with a friend (a fellow medical resident) when she turned to me and said, “are you wheezing?  Do you have asthma?”  I had always been physically active and assumed my breathlessness while walking down the trail was due to the thirty extra pounds of pizza and doughnuts I’d acquired during residency.  But she was right: I was wheezing and breathless and it didn’t feel good at all.  I made an appointment with one of the hospital’s lung docs who took a good history, did a physical, and ran some pulmonary function tests.  And I did have asthma.  And it felt much, much better when I            t got better when I lost 40 lbs and started treatment for my acid reflux.)
I still get mild asthma symptoms from time to time, especially when I get sick, but for many others, the picture isn’t so pretty.  Asthma kills at least a quarter of a million people every year around the world.   If you’ve ever worked in an ER and seen a kid with a bad asthma attack, you’ve earned a healthy respect for the disease.  If you’ve ever watched your own kid gasping for breath, begging you to make it better, you’ve learned to fear it.
As our understanding of asthma has improved, so has our ability to treat it (an ability that is strongly linked to a patient’s socio-economic status.  Mortality has been rising despite the discovery of better treatments.  Wait: let’s pull this out of the parentheses…)…  Asthma deaths and hospitalizations are largely preventable, and disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic Americans. We know how to treat thedisease asthma, but don’t know how to treat the people who are affected most.
We understand that asthma is not just a tightening of the airways but also an inflammation that can cause long-term damage.   Not only can we treat asthma, but we have objective ways of measuring how well our patients are doing.   It’s easy and inexpensive to measure airway obstruction and response to medications.  We know what works.
For this reason, a new study in the New England Journal of Medicineseems both wise and foolish. To see full article in PDF here. 
(I thought I was so on the ball.  I really did. But while I was busy riding my bike, playing with my kid, and looking at rentals with my wife, David Gorski and my other medical blogger pals were out in Las Vegas at TAM discussing the very study I wanted to tell you about.)
The study, called “Active albuterol or placebo, sham acupuncture, or no intervention in asthma,” was done for reasons that are not clear to me. It may have been done not to test the effectiveness of asthma therapy but to look at what a “placebo” might really be or do.  At least, I think that was the idea.  When reading the abstract and full text, it’s not actually clear why the study was done.  At first it seems as if it were done to see why asthmatics treated with placebo improve:
In prospective experimental studies in patients with asthma, it is difficult to determine whether responses to placebo differ from the natural course of physiological changes that occur without any intervention.
Why ask such a question? We know that poorly-treated asthma is deadly, and well treated asthma much less so.  Why do we care about placebo effects here?  The authors explain further:
Placebo effects (i.e., benefits resulting from simulated treatment or the experience of receiving care) are reported to improve signs and symptoms of many diseases in clinical trials and in clinical practice. On this basis, the accepted standards for clinical-trial design specify that the effects of active treatment should ideally be compared with the effects of placebo. Despite this common practice, it is unclear whether placebo effects observed in clinical trials (or those that presumably occur in clinical care) influence both objective and subjective outcomes and whether placebo effects differ from the natural course of disease or regression to the mean.
In other words, the authors want to know what placebos actually do to real people, and they chose asthmatics because they are easy to study (there are symptom-assessment tools for subjective data and spirometry for objective data).   This makes asthma both the right and wrong choice for the study.  It’s an excellent model to assess the affect of placebo, but one in which the use of placebo is hard to justify on an ethical basis.
Not surprisingly, they found that “doing something” worked better than doing nothing.  More specifically, they found that any placebo will make a patient feel subjectively better than doing nothing at all.   They also found that all three placebos (sham acupuncture, fake inhaled medicine, and simply being enrolled in the study without treatment) improve do bjective measures of lung function, but not nearly as much as real medicine (in fact, not much at all).
In other words, simply attending to a patient makes them feel better.  But to get a significant objective improvement (in asthma at least) you must also give them real medicine.  Real medicine comprises both active medications and attending to the patient.  There is no separate “placebo” that can be given to treat asthma effectively.
This is actually a quite beautiful study.  It demonstrates that “placebo effect” is not the same as a real treatment, that real treatment always includes whatever benefit placebo provides, and that placebo is mostly an effect on subjective rather than objective measures of health.  You can’t fix asthma with placebo, only with real treatment.  But we’ve already known that from decades of studying asthma.  So what other justification is there for doing this study?
Our research has important implications both for the treatment of asthma and for clinical-trial design in general. Many patients with asthma have symptoms that remain uncontrolled, and the discrepancy between objective pulmonary function and patients’ self-reports noted in this study suggests that subjective improvement in asthma should be interpreted with caution and that objective outcomes should be more heavily relied on for optimal asthma care. Indeed, although improvement in objective measures of lung function would be expected to correlate with subjective measures, our study suggests that in clinical trials, reliance solely on subjective outcomes may be inherently unreliable, since they may be significantly influenced by placebo effects. However, even though objective physiological measures (e.g., FEV1) are important, other outcomes such as emergency room visits and quality-of-life metrics may be more clinically relevant to patients and physicians. Although placebos remain an essential component of clinical trials to validate objective findings, assessment of the course of the disease without treatment, if medically appropriate, is essential in the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes. (Emphasis mine, PalMD)
Source: Science based-medicine
This is folly.  First, we have a huge literature on quality of life metrics in asthma.  Huge.  And we also know that objective changes in asthma are what save patients’ lives.  Yes, I care how my patient feels, but it is not more “clinically relevant” than how they are actually doing physiologically.  Both are important, but not equal.  And the idea that comparing active treatment to placebo is not ideal is not new to researchers.  It’s simply that following the natural history of the disease as a “control” is not usually appropriate (cf. Tuskegee syphilis experiment).
No good clinician would consider treating an asthmatic with placebo.  Improper treatment of asthma leads to debility and death.  This study chose mild asthmatics, but I still feel very uncomfortable with the ethics of the study design.  Rather than using a disease we know how to treat to study placebo, we should be finding ways to get treatment to the millions of people who aren’t getting it.
References
Wechsler ME, Kelley JM, Boyd IO, Dutile S, Marigowda G, Kirsch I, Israel E, & Kaptchuk TJ (2011). Active albuterol or placebo, sham acupuncture, or no intervention in asthma. The New England journal of medicine, 365(2), 119-26 PMID: 21751905



Enhanced by Zemanta

09 diciembre, 2008

Revisa la FDA retiro de fármacos contra el asma por sus efectos

■ Pide retirar tratamientos con agonistas LABA en menores de 18 años y de Serevent y Foradil en pacientes de todas las edades

■ La semana próxima consultarán a un panel de expertos

Reuters

Washington, 5 de diciembre. Los reguladores sanitarios de Estados Unidos siguen preocupados por los graves riesgos causados por una clase de fármacos contra el asma, por lo que decidieron pedir asesoría a un grupo de especialistas externos, indicaron documentos publicados el viernes.
Los funcionarios del área de salud consultarán la semana próxima a un panel de asesores sobre si deberían revocar su aprobación para el tratamiento de la enfermedad, agregaron.
El personal de la oficina de seguridad de medicamentos de la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) recomendó de forma unánime retirar la autorización de tratamiento a menores de 18 años a todos los agonistas beta de larga duración (LABA, por sus siglas en inglés).
Las medidas se dan en medio de un aumento del riesgo de muertes y ataques relacionados con asma entre los consumidores de esos fármacos.
Entre los LABA se encuentran Advair y Serevent de GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Symbicort de Astra Zeneca Plc y Foradil de Novartis AG, que en Estados Unidos comercializa Schering-Plough Corp.
Riesgos contra beneficios
El personal de seguridad de medicamentos de la FDA, que controla los riesgos de los fármacos después de su aprobación, también instó a la remoción de la autorización de Serevent y Foradil para el tratamiento del asma en las personas de todas las edades.
Serevent y Foradil sólo contienen LABA, mientras Advair y Symbicort combinan LABA con esteroides inhalables.
Sumar el esteroide protegería contra las complicaciones graves, argumentó Glaxo.
Un “meta análisis” de varios estudios reveló que el riesgo “no se veía” en el caso de Advair o cuando el LABA se usaba con un esteroide, señalaron los documentos de la agencia federal estadunidense.
Un memorándum que resume los temas a tratar en el encuentro del panel asesor señaló que la FDA preguntará a los especialistas externos si las medicinas aún deberían tener aprobación para el tratamiento de asma. El panel se reunirá el miércoles y jueves próximos.
El doctor Badrul Chowdhury, director de la división de la FDA que revisa los fármacos pulmonares y antialérgicos, dijo que existe un “riesgo de seguridad grave e importante”, pero añadió que las muertes vinculadas con el asma eran “numéricamente escasas” y los beneficios no eran triviales.
“La remoción del mercado de los LABA inhalables como tratamiento para el asma es una forma de controlar el riesgo que implican estos medicamentos, pero se trataría de un enfoque extremo que podría resultar problemático”, escribió Chowdhury.
Los fármacos también están aprobados para el tratamiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y se mantendrían disponibles para los pacientes con esa dolencia.
Los fabricantes de las medicinas, en documentos separados preparados para el encuentro, indicaron que los beneficios superan a los riesgos cuando se utilizan como es indicado.

Revisa la FDA retiro de fármacos contra el asma por sus efectos

■ Pide retirar tratamientos con agonistas LABA en menores de 18 años y de Serevent y Foradil en pacientes de todas las edades

■ La semana próxima consultarán a un panel de expertos

Reuters

Washington, 5 de diciembre. Los reguladores sanitarios de Estados Unidos siguen preocupados por los graves riesgos causados por una clase de fármacos contra el asma, por lo que decidieron pedir asesoría a un grupo de especialistas externos, indicaron documentos publicados el viernes.
Los funcionarios del área de salud consultarán la semana próxima a un panel de asesores sobre si deberían revocar su aprobación para el tratamiento de la enfermedad, agregaron.
El personal de la oficina de seguridad de medicamentos de la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) recomendó de forma unánime retirar la autorización de tratamiento a menores de 18 años a todos los agonistas beta de larga duración (LABA, por sus siglas en inglés).
Las medidas se dan en medio de un aumento del riesgo de muertes y ataques relacionados con asma entre los consumidores de esos fármacos.
Entre los LABA se encuentran Advair y Serevent de GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Symbicort de Astra Zeneca Plc y Foradil de Novartis AG, que en Estados Unidos comercializa Schering-Plough Corp.
Riesgos contra beneficios
El personal de seguridad de medicamentos de la FDA, que controla los riesgos de los fármacos después de su aprobación, también instó a la remoción de la autorización de Serevent y Foradil para el tratamiento del asma en las personas de todas las edades.
Serevent y Foradil sólo contienen LABA, mientras Advair y Symbicort combinan LABA con esteroides inhalables.
Sumar el esteroide protegería contra las complicaciones graves, argumentó Glaxo.
Un “meta análisis” de varios estudios reveló que el riesgo “no se veía” en el caso de Advair o cuando el LABA se usaba con un esteroide, señalaron los documentos de la agencia federal estadunidense.
Un memorándum que resume los temas a tratar en el encuentro del panel asesor señaló que la FDA preguntará a los especialistas externos si las medicinas aún deberían tener aprobación para el tratamiento de asma. El panel se reunirá el miércoles y jueves próximos.
El doctor Badrul Chowdhury, director de la división de la FDA que revisa los fármacos pulmonares y antialérgicos, dijo que existe un “riesgo de seguridad grave e importante”, pero añadió que las muertes vinculadas con el asma eran “numéricamente escasas” y los beneficios no eran triviales.
“La remoción del mercado de los LABA inhalables como tratamiento para el asma es una forma de controlar el riesgo que implican estos medicamentos, pero se trataría de un enfoque extremo que podría resultar problemático”, escribió Chowdhury.
Los fármacos también están aprobados para el tratamiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y se mantendrían disponibles para los pacientes con esa dolencia.
Los fabricantes de las medicinas, en documentos separados preparados para el encuentro, indicaron que los beneficios superan a los riesgos cuando se utilizan como es indicado.

Revisa la FDA retiro de fármacos contra el asma por sus efectos

■ Pide retirar tratamientos con agonistas LABA en menores de 18 años y de Serevent y Foradil en pacientes de todas las edades

■ La semana próxima consultarán a un panel de expertos

Reuters

Washington, 5 de diciembre. Los reguladores sanitarios de Estados Unidos siguen preocupados por los graves riesgos causados por una clase de fármacos contra el asma, por lo que decidieron pedir asesoría a un grupo de especialistas externos, indicaron documentos publicados el viernes.
Los funcionarios del área de salud consultarán la semana próxima a un panel de asesores sobre si deberían revocar su aprobación para el tratamiento de la enfermedad, agregaron.
El personal de la oficina de seguridad de medicamentos de la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) recomendó de forma unánime retirar la autorización de tratamiento a menores de 18 años a todos los agonistas beta de larga duración (LABA, por sus siglas en inglés).
Las medidas se dan en medio de un aumento del riesgo de muertes y ataques relacionados con asma entre los consumidores de esos fármacos.
Entre los LABA se encuentran Advair y Serevent de GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Symbicort de Astra Zeneca Plc y Foradil de Novartis AG, que en Estados Unidos comercializa Schering-Plough Corp.
Riesgos contra beneficios
El personal de seguridad de medicamentos de la FDA, que controla los riesgos de los fármacos después de su aprobación, también instó a la remoción de la autorización de Serevent y Foradil para el tratamiento del asma en las personas de todas las edades.
Serevent y Foradil sólo contienen LABA, mientras Advair y Symbicort combinan LABA con esteroides inhalables.
Sumar el esteroide protegería contra las complicaciones graves, argumentó Glaxo.
Un “meta análisis” de varios estudios reveló que el riesgo “no se veía” en el caso de Advair o cuando el LABA se usaba con un esteroide, señalaron los documentos de la agencia federal estadunidense.
Un memorándum que resume los temas a tratar en el encuentro del panel asesor señaló que la FDA preguntará a los especialistas externos si las medicinas aún deberían tener aprobación para el tratamiento de asma. El panel se reunirá el miércoles y jueves próximos.
El doctor Badrul Chowdhury, director de la división de la FDA que revisa los fármacos pulmonares y antialérgicos, dijo que existe un “riesgo de seguridad grave e importante”, pero añadió que las muertes vinculadas con el asma eran “numéricamente escasas” y los beneficios no eran triviales.
“La remoción del mercado de los LABA inhalables como tratamiento para el asma es una forma de controlar el riesgo que implican estos medicamentos, pero se trataría de un enfoque extremo que podría resultar problemático”, escribió Chowdhury.
Los fármacos también están aprobados para el tratamiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y se mantendrían disponibles para los pacientes con esa dolencia.
Los fabricantes de las medicinas, en documentos separados preparados para el encuentro, indicaron que los beneficios superan a los riesgos cuando se utilizan como es indicado.

08 diciembre, 2008

Antiasmaticos en el NYT

Warning Given on Use of 4 Popular Asthma Drugs, but Debate Remains

Published: December 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Two federal drug officials have concluded that asthma sufferers risk death if they continue to use four hugely popular asthma drugs — Advair, Symbicort, Serevent and Foradil. But the officials’ views are not universally shared within the government.

The two officials, who work in the safety division of the Food and Drug Administration, wrote in an assessment on the agency’s Web site on Friday that asthma sufferers of all ages should no longer take the medicines. A third drug-safety official concluded that Advair and Symbicort could be used by adults but that all four drugs should no longer be used by people age 17 and under.

Dr. Badrul A. Chowdhury, director of the division of pulmonary and allergy products at the agency, cautioned in his own assessment that the risk of death associated with the drugs was small and that banning their use “would be an extreme approach” that could lead asthmatics to rely on other risky medications.

Once unheard of, public disagreements among agency experts have occurred on occasion in recent years. The agency is convening a committee of experts on Wednesday and Thursday to sort out the disagreement, which has divided not only the F.D.A. but also clinicians and experts for more than a decade.

Sudden deaths among asthmatics still clutching their inhalers have fed the debate. But trying to determine whether the deaths were caused by patients’ breathing problems or the inhalers has proved difficult.

The stakes for drug makers are high. Advair sales last year were $6.9 billion and may approach $8 billion this year, making the medication GlaxoSmithKline’s biggest seller and one of the biggest-selling drugs in the world. Glaxo also sells Serevent, which had $538 million in sales last year. Symbicort is made by AstraZeneca and Foradil by Novartis.

Whatever the committee’s decision, the drugs will almost certainly remain on the market because even the agency’s drug-safety officials concluded that they were useful in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nearly all of whom are elderly.

Dr. Katharine Knobil, global clinical vice president for Glaxo, dismissed the conclusions of the agency’s drug-safety division as “not supported by their own data.” Dr. Knobil said that Advair was safe and that Serevent was safe when used with a steroid.

Michele Meeker, a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca, said that the F.D.A.’s safety division improperly excluded most studies of Symbicort in its analysis, and that a review of all of the information shows that the drug does not increase the risks of death or hospitalization.

Dr. Daniel Frattarelli, a Detroit pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’s committee on drugs, said that he was treating children with Advair and that his committee had recently discussed the safety of the medicines.

“Most of us felt these were pretty good drugs,” Dr. Frattarelli said. “I’m really looking forward to hearing what the F.D.A. committee decides.”

About 9 percent of Advair’s prescriptions go to those age 17 and under, according to Glaxo. Ms. Meeker could not provide similar figures for Symbicort.

In 1994, Serevent was approved for sale, and the F.D.A. began receiving reports of deaths. A letter to the New England Journal of Medicine described two elderly patients who died holding Serevent inhalers. Glaxo warned patients that the medicine, unlike albuterol, does not work instantly and should not be used during an attack.

In 1996, Glaxo began a study of Serevent’s safety, but the company refused for years to report the results publicly. In 2001, the company introduced Advair, whose sales quickly cannibalized those of Serevent and then far surpassed them.

Finally in 2003, Glaxo reported the results of its Serevent study, which showed that those given the medicine were more likely to die than those given placebo inhalers. Glaxo said problems with the trial made its results impossible to interpret.

Asthma is caused when airways within the lungs spasm and swell, restricting the supply of oxygen. The two primary treatments are steroids, which reduce swelling, and beta agonists, which treat spasms. Rescue inhalers usually contain albuterol, which is a beta agonist with limited duration. Serevent and Foradil are both beta agonists but have a longer duration than albuterol and were intended to be taken daily to prevent attacks.

Advair contains Serevent and a steroid. Symbicort, introduced last year, contains Foradil and a steroid. In the first nine months of this year, Symbicort had $209 million in sales.

The problem with albuterol is that it seems to make patients’ lungs more vulnerable to severe attacks, which is why asthmatics are advised to use their rescue inhalers only when needed. The long-acting beta agonists may have the same risks.

But drug makers say this risk disappears when long-acting beta agonists are paired with steroids. The labels that accompany Serevent and Foradil instruct doctors to pair the medicines with an inhaled steroid.

02 octubre, 2008

Anticolinergicos y eventos cardiovasculares

Inhaled anticholinergics and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Department of Medicine, One Medical Center Blvd, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. sosingh@wfubmc.edu

CONTEXT: Inhaled anticholinergics (ipratropium bromide or tiotropium bromide) are widely used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effect on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cardiovascular risks of inhaled anticholinergics, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted on March 19, 2008, of relevant articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, regulatory authority Web sites in the United States and the United Kingdom, and manufacturers' trial registries with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any inhaled anticholinergic for treatment of COPD that had at least 30 days of treatment and reported on cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with the I(2) statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: After a detailed screening of 103 articles, 17 trials enrolling 14 783 patients were analyzed. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 135 of 7472 patients (1.8%) receiving inhaled anticholinergics and 86 of 7311 patients (1.2%) receiving control therapy (RR, 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.21-2.06]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). Among individual components of the primary end point, inhaled anticholinergics significantly increased the risk of MI (RR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.05-2.23]; P = .03, I(2) = 0%) and cardiovascular death (RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.17-2.77]; P = .008, I(2) = 0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.81-2.62]; P = .20, I(2) = 0%). All-cause mortality was reported in 149 of the patients treated with inhaled anticholinergics (2.0%) and 115 of the control patients (1.6%) (RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99-1.61]; P = .06, I(2) = 2%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 5 long-term trials (>6 months) confirmed the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (2.9% of patients treated with anticholinergics vs 1.8% of the control patients; RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.27-2.36]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Inhaled anticholinergics are associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke among patients with COPD.

Enlace a Pubmed

Anticolinergicos y eventos cardiovasculares

Inhaled anticholinergics and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Department of Medicine, One Medical Center Blvd, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. sosingh@wfubmc.edu

CONTEXT: Inhaled anticholinergics (ipratropium bromide or tiotropium bromide) are widely used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effect on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cardiovascular risks of inhaled anticholinergics, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted on March 19, 2008, of relevant articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, regulatory authority Web sites in the United States and the United Kingdom, and manufacturers' trial registries with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any inhaled anticholinergic for treatment of COPD that had at least 30 days of treatment and reported on cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with the I(2) statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: After a detailed screening of 103 articles, 17 trials enrolling 14 783 patients were analyzed. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 135 of 7472 patients (1.8%) receiving inhaled anticholinergics and 86 of 7311 patients (1.2%) receiving control therapy (RR, 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.21-2.06]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). Among individual components of the primary end point, inhaled anticholinergics significantly increased the risk of MI (RR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.05-2.23]; P = .03, I(2) = 0%) and cardiovascular death (RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.17-2.77]; P = .008, I(2) = 0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.81-2.62]; P = .20, I(2) = 0%). All-cause mortality was reported in 149 of the patients treated with inhaled anticholinergics (2.0%) and 115 of the control patients (1.6%) (RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99-1.61]; P = .06, I(2) = 2%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 5 long-term trials (>6 months) confirmed the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (2.9% of patients treated with anticholinergics vs 1.8% of the control patients; RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.27-2.36]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Inhaled anticholinergics are associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke among patients with COPD.

Enlace a Pubmed

Anticolinergicos y eventos cardiovasculares

Inhaled anticholinergics and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Department of Medicine, One Medical Center Blvd, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. sosingh@wfubmc.edu

CONTEXT: Inhaled anticholinergics (ipratropium bromide or tiotropium bromide) are widely used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effect on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cardiovascular risks of inhaled anticholinergics, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted on March 19, 2008, of relevant articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, regulatory authority Web sites in the United States and the United Kingdom, and manufacturers' trial registries with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any inhaled anticholinergic for treatment of COPD that had at least 30 days of treatment and reported on cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with the I(2) statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: After a detailed screening of 103 articles, 17 trials enrolling 14 783 patients were analyzed. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 135 of 7472 patients (1.8%) receiving inhaled anticholinergics and 86 of 7311 patients (1.2%) receiving control therapy (RR, 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.21-2.06]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). Among individual components of the primary end point, inhaled anticholinergics significantly increased the risk of MI (RR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.05-2.23]; P = .03, I(2) = 0%) and cardiovascular death (RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.17-2.77]; P = .008, I(2) = 0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.81-2.62]; P = .20, I(2) = 0%). All-cause mortality was reported in 149 of the patients treated with inhaled anticholinergics (2.0%) and 115 of the control patients (1.6%) (RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99-1.61]; P = .06, I(2) = 2%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 5 long-term trials (>6 months) confirmed the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (2.9% of patients treated with anticholinergics vs 1.8% of the control patients; RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.27-2.36]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Inhaled anticholinergics are associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke among patients with COPD.

Enlace a Pubmed

23 septiembre, 2008

Fiebre, paracetamol y riesgo de asma, rinoconjuntivitis y eczema

Summary

Background

Exposure to paracetamol during intrauterine life, childhood, and adult life may increase the risk of developing asthma. We studied 6–7-year-old children from Phase Three of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) programme to investigate the association between paracetamol consumption and asthma.

Methods

As part of Phase Three of ISAAC, parents or guardians of children aged 6–7 years completed written questionnaires about symptoms of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema, and several risk factors, including the use of paracetamol for fever in the child's first year of life and the frequency of paracetamol use in the past 12 months. The primary outcome variable was the odds ratio (OR) of asthma symptoms in these children associated with the use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life, as calculated by logistic regression.

Findings

205 487 children aged 6–7 years from 73 centres in 31 countries were included in the analysis. In the multivariate analyses, use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life was associated with an increased risk of asthma symptoms when aged 6–7 years (OR 1·46 [95% CI 1·36–1·56]). Current use of paracetamol was associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of asthma symptoms (1·61 [1·46–1·77] and 3·23 [2·91–3·60] for medium and high use vs no use, respectively). Use of paracetamol was similarly associated with the risk of severe asthma symptoms, with population-attributable risks between 22% and 38%. Paracetamol use, both in the first year of life and in children aged 6–7 years, was also associated with an increased risk of symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema.

Interpretation

Use of paracetamol in the first year of life and in later childhood, is associated with risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema at age 6 to 7 years. We suggest that exposure to paracetamol might be a risk factor for the development of asthma in childhood.

Funding

The BUPA Foundation, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand, the Hawke's Bay Medical Research Foundation, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation, Glaxo Wellcome New Zealand, the New Zealand Lottery Board, Astra Zeneca New Zealand, and Glaxo Wellcome International Medical Affairs.

Affiliations

a. Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
b. Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
c. Department of Medicine, Otago University Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
d. Dr von Haunersches University Children's Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
e. Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR China
f. Department of Medicine, University of Malta, Malta
g. School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Prof Richard Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, PO Box 10055, Wellington 6143, New Zealand

Fiebre, paracetamol y riesgo de asma, rinoconjuntivitis y eczema

Summary

Background

Exposure to paracetamol during intrauterine life, childhood, and adult life may increase the risk of developing asthma. We studied 6–7-year-old children from Phase Three of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) programme to investigate the association between paracetamol consumption and asthma.

Methods

As part of Phase Three of ISAAC, parents or guardians of children aged 6–7 years completed written questionnaires about symptoms of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema, and several risk factors, including the use of paracetamol for fever in the child's first year of life and the frequency of paracetamol use in the past 12 months. The primary outcome variable was the odds ratio (OR) of asthma symptoms in these children associated with the use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life, as calculated by logistic regression.

Findings

205 487 children aged 6–7 years from 73 centres in 31 countries were included in the analysis. In the multivariate analyses, use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life was associated with an increased risk of asthma symptoms when aged 6–7 years (OR 1·46 [95% CI 1·36–1·56]). Current use of paracetamol was associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of asthma symptoms (1·61 [1·46–1·77] and 3·23 [2·91–3·60] for medium and high use vs no use, respectively). Use of paracetamol was similarly associated with the risk of severe asthma symptoms, with population-attributable risks between 22% and 38%. Paracetamol use, both in the first year of life and in children aged 6–7 years, was also associated with an increased risk of symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema.

Interpretation

Use of paracetamol in the first year of life and in later childhood, is associated with risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema at age 6 to 7 years. We suggest that exposure to paracetamol might be a risk factor for the development of asthma in childhood.

Funding

The BUPA Foundation, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand, the Hawke's Bay Medical Research Foundation, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation, Glaxo Wellcome New Zealand, the New Zealand Lottery Board, Astra Zeneca New Zealand, and Glaxo Wellcome International Medical Affairs.

Affiliations

a. Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
b. Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
c. Department of Medicine, Otago University Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
d. Dr von Haunersches University Children's Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
e. Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR China
f. Department of Medicine, University of Malta, Malta
g. School of Population Health, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to: Prof Richard Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, PO Box 10055, Wellington 6143, New Zealand