Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152214›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Macrolide antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.

Kevin W Southern, Pierre M Barker, Arturo Solis-Moya, Latifa Patel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
20.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 294 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Oral versus inhaled antibiotics for bronchiectasis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Kevin W SouthernInstitute of ChildHealth, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. kwsouth@liv.ac.uk.
Pierre M Barker
Arturo Solis-Moya
Latifa Patel
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBHospital Nacional de Niños · CRInstitute for Healthcare Improvement · USUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMacrolide antibiotics may have a modifying role in diseases which involve airway infection and inflammation, like cystic fibrosis.

objectivesTo test the hypotheses that, in people with cystic fibrosis, macrolide antibiotics: 1. improve clinical status compared to placebo or another antibiotic; 2. do not have unacceptable adverse effects. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data (May 2010).Latest search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 29 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics compared to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Seven groups were contacted and provided additional data which were incorporated into the review. MAIN

resultsTen of 31 studies identified were included (959 patients). Five studies with a low risk of bias examined azithromycin versus placebo and demonstrated consistent improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second over six months (mean difference at six months 3.97% (95% confidence interval 1.74% to 6.19%; n = 549, from four studies)). Patients treated with azithromycin were approximately twice as likely to be free of pulmonary exacerbation at six months, odds ratio 1.96 (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 3.33). With respect to secondary outcomes, there was a significant reduction in need for oral antibiotics and greater weight gain in those taking azithromycin. Adverse events were uncommon and not obviously associated with azithromycin, although a once-weekly high dose regimen was associated with more frequent gastrointestinal adverse events. Treatment with azithromycin was associated with reduced identification of Staphylococcus aureus on respiratory culture, but also a significant increase in macrolide resistance. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review provides evidence of improved respiratory function after six months of azithromycin. Data beyond six months were less clear, although reduction in pulmonary exacerbation was sustained. Treatment appeared safe over a six-month period; however, emergence of macrolide resistance was a concern. A multi-centre trial examining long-term effects of this antibiotic treatment is needed, especially for infants recognised through newborn screening.

Indexed as

Pseudomonas aeruginosaAnti-Bacterial AgentsAzithromycinBacterial InfectionsCystic FibrosisDisease ProgressionHumansMacrolidesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePseudomonas InfectionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsAzithromycinMacrolides

Identifiers

PMID23152214
PMCPMC7098459
OpenAlexW2148645653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.