Anti-interleukin-13 and anti-interleukin-4 agents versus placebo, anti-interleukin-5 or anti-immunoglobulin-E agents, for people with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the immunoglobulin E pathway and the interleukin-5 pathway with specific monoclonal antibodies directed against the cytokines or their receptors is effective in patients with severe asthma. However, there are patients who have suboptimal responses to these biologics. Since interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, signalling through the interleukin-4 receptor, have multiple effects on the biology of asthma, therapies targeting interleukin-4 and -13 (both individually and combined) have been developed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4 agents, compared with placebo, anti-immunoglobulin E agents, or anti-interleukin-5 agents, for the treatment of children, adolescents, or adults with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the Group and through searches of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The search was carried out on the 16 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials that compared anti-interleukin-13 or -4 agents (or agents that target both interleukin-13 and interleukin-4) with placebo in adolescents and adults (aged 16 years or older) or children (younger than 16 years), with a diagnosis of asthma; participants could receive their usual short- or long-acting medications (e.g. inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta adrenoceptor agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists) provided that they were not part of the randomised treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified and included 41 RCTs. Of these, 29 studies contributed data to the quantitative analyses, randomly assigning 10,604 people with asthma to receive an anti-interleukin-13 (intervention) or anti-interleukin-4 agent (intervention), or placebo (comparator). No relevant studies were identified where the comparator was an anti-immunoglobulin agent or an anti-interleukin-5 agent. Studies had a duration of between 2 and 52 (median 16) weeks. The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 22 to 55 years. Only five studies permitted enrolment of children and adolescents, accounting for less than 5% of the total participants contributing data to the present review. The majority of participants had moderate or severe uncontrolled asthma. Concomitant ICS use was permitted or required in the majority (21 of 29) of the included studies. The use of maintenance systemic corticosteroids was not permitted in 19 studies and was permitted or required in five studies (information not reported in five studies). Regarding the most commonly assessed anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents, four studies evaluated dupilumab (300 mg once every week (Q1W), 200 mg once every two weeks (Q2W), 300 mg Q2W, 200 mg once every four weeks (Q4W), 300 mg Q4W, each administered by subcutaneous (SC) injection); eight studies evaluated lebrikizumab (37.5 mg Q4W, 125 mg Q4W, 250 mg Q4W each administered by SC injection); and nine studies (3259 participants) evaluated tralokinumab (75 mg Q1W, 150 mg Q1W, 300 mg Q1W, 150 mg Q2W, 300 mg Q2W, 600 mg Q2W, 300 mg Q4W, each administered by SC injection; 1/5/10 mg/kg administered by intravenous (IV) injection); all anti-interleukin-13 or-4 agents were compared with placebo. The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unclear (insufficient detail provided); nine studies were considered to be at high risk for attrition bias and three studies were considered to be at high risk for reporting bias. The following results relate to the primary outcomes. The rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or emergency department (ED) visit was probably lower in participants receiving tralokinumab versus placebo (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence; data available for tralokinumab (anti-interleukin-13) only). In participants receiving an anti-interleukin-13/-4 agent, the mean improvement versus placebo in adjusted asthma quality of life questionnaire score was 0.18 units (95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; high-certainty evidence); however, this finding was deemed not to be a clinically relevant improvement. There was likely little or no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who reported all-cause serious adverse events (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of secondary outcomes, there may be little or no difference between groups in the proportion of patients who experienced exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32; low-certainty evidence). Anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents probably improve asthma control based on asthma control questionnaire score (anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo, mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.14); however, the magnitude of this result was deemed not to be a clinically relevant improvement. The proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event was greater in those receiving anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents compared with those receiving placebo (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30; high-certainty evidence); the most commonly reported adverse events in participants treated with anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache and injection site reaction. The pooled results for the exploratory outcome, the rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS) or hospitalisation or emergency department visit, may be lower in participants receiving anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents versus placebo (rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77; low-certainty evidence). Results were generally consistent across subgroups for different classes of agent (anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4), durations of study and severity of disease. Subgroup analysis based on category of T helper 2 (TH2) inflammation suggested greater efficacy in patients with higher levels of inflammatory biomarkers (blood eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide and serum periostin). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the totality of the evidence, compared with placebo, anti-interleukin-13/-4 agents are probably associated with a reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation or ED visit, at the cost of increased adverse events, in patients with asthma. No clinically relevant improvements in health-related quality of life or asthma control were identified. Therefore, anti-interleukin-13 or anti-interleukin-4 agents may be appropriate for adults with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma who have not responded to other treatments. These conclusions are generally supported by moderate or high-certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder characterised by both motor and non-motor problems. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, licensed for treatment of type 2 diabetes, work by stimulating GLP-1 receptors in the pancreas, which triggers the release of insulin. GLP-1 receptors have been found in the brain. Insulin signalling in the brain plays a key role in neuronal metabolism and repair and in synaptic efficacy, but insulin signalling is desensitised in the brain of people with PD. Researchers are exploring the neuroprotective effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in neurodegenerative disorders such as PD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries, and we handsearched conference abstracts. The most recent search was run on 25 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PD that compared GLP-1 receptor agonists with conventional PD treatment, placebo, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. We resolved discrepancies between the two data extractors by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Through our searches, we retrieved 99 unique records, of which two met our inclusion criteria. One double-blind study of exenatide versus placebo randomised 62 participants, who self-administered exenatide or placebo for 48 weeks and were followed up at 60 weeks after a 12-week washout. One single-blind study of exenatide versus no additional treatment randomised 45 participants; participants in the intervention group self-administered exenatide for 12 months, and all participants were followed up at 14 months and 24 months following absence of exenatide for 2 months and 12 months, respectively. These trials had low risk of bias, except risk of performance bias was high for Aviles-Olmos 2013. Exenatide versus placebo Primary outcomes We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in the off-medication state (mean difference (MD) -3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.11 to -0.09). The difference in scores was slightly greater when scores were adjusted for baseline severity of the condition (as reported by study authors) (MD -3.5, 95% CI -6.7 to -0.3), exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as assessed by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ)-39 Summary Index (SI) (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.95 to 3.35), the EuroQol scale measuring health status in five dimensions (EQ5D) (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16), or the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD 5.00, 95% CI -3.42 to 13.42). Eight serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded, but all were considered unrelated to the intervention. Low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide has little or no effect on weight loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.76). Exenatide versus no treatment Primary outcomes at 14 months We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD -4.50, 95% CI -8.64 to -0.36), exceeding the MCID. We are uncertain whether exenatide improves HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (MD 3.50, 95% CI -2.75 to 9.75; very low-quality evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on the number of SAEs (RR 1.60, 95% 0.40 to 6.32). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide may lead to weight loss (MD -2.40 kg, 95% CI -4.56 to -0.24). Primary outcomes at 24 months We found evidence as reported by study authors to suggest that exenatide improves motor impairment as measured by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.0). Exenatide may not improve HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (P = 0.682) and may not result in weight loss (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI 3.0 to 2.8). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- or very low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide may improve motor impairment for people with PD. The difference in motor impairment observed between groups may persist for some time following cessation of exenatide. This raises the possibility that exenatide may have a disease-modifying effect. SAEs were unlikely to be related to treatment. The effectiveness of exenatide for improving HRQoL, non-motor outcomes, ADLs, and psychological outcomes is unclear. Ongoing studies are assessing other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 µg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 µg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 µg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 µg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Information or education interventions for adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients and their carers.

BACKGROUND: During intensive care unit (ICU) admission, patients and their carers experience physical and psychological stressors that may result in psychological conditions including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Improving communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their carers may alleviate these disorders. Communication may include information or educational interventions, in different formats, aiming to improve knowledge of the prognosis, treatment, or anticipated challenges after ICU discharge. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of information or education interventions for improving outcomes in adult ICU patients and their carers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from database inception to 10 April 2017. We searched clinical trials registries and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and planned to include quasi-RCTs, comparing information or education interventions presented to participants versus no information or education interventions, or comparing information or education interventions as part of a complex intervention versus a complex intervention without information or education. We included participants who were adult ICU patients, or their carers; these included relatives and non-relatives, including significant representatives of patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied GRADE criteria to assess certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs with 1157 patient participants and 943 carer participants. We found no quasi-RCTs. We identified seven studies that await classification, and three ongoing studies.Three studies designed an intervention targeted at patients, four at carers, and one at both patients and carers. Studies included varied information: standardised or tailored, presented once or several times, and that included verbal or written information, audio recordings, multimedia information, and interactive information packs. Five studies reported robust methods of randomisation and allocation concealment. We noted high attrition rates in five studies. It was not feasible to blind participants, and we rated all studies as at high risk of performance bias, and at unclear risk of detection bias because most outcomes required self reporting.We attempted to pool data statistically, however this was not always possible due to high levels of heterogeneity. We calculated mean differences (MDs) using data reported from individual study authors where possible, and narratively synthesised the results. We reported the following two comparisons.Information or education intervention versus no information or education intervention (4 studies)For patient anxiety, we did not pool data from three studies (332 participants) owing to unexplained substantial statistical heterogeneity and possible clinical or methodological differences between studies. One study reported less anxiety when an intervention was used (MD -3.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.38 to -3.02), and two studies reported little or no difference between groups (MD -0.40, 95% CI -4.75 to 3.95; MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.94). Similarly, for patient depression, we did not pool data from two studies (160 patient participants). These studies reported less depression when an information or education intervention was used (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.80; MD -1.27, 95% CI -1.47 to -1.07). However, it is uncertain whether information or education interventions reduce patient anxiety or depression due to very low-certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether information or education interventions improve health-related quality of life due to very low-certainty evidence from one study reporting little or no difference between intervention groups (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.99 to 2.39; 143 patient participants). No study reported adverse effects, knowledge acquisition, PTSD severity, or patient or carer satisfaction.We used the GRADE approach and downgraded certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations, inconsistencies between results, and limited data from few small studies.Information or education intervention as part of a complex intervention versus a complex intervention without information or education (4 studies)One study (three comparison groups; 38 participants) reported little or no difference between groups in patient anxiety (tailored information pack versus control: MD 0.09, 95% CI -3.29 to 3.47; standardised general ICU information versus control: MD -0.25, 95% CI -4.34 to 3.84), and little or no difference in patient depression (tailored information pack versus control: MD -1.26, 95% CI -4.48 to 1.96; standardised general ICU information versus control: MD -1.47, 95% CI -6.37 to 3.43). It is uncertain whether information or education interventions as part of a complex intervention reduce patient anxiety and depression due to very low-certainty evidence.One study (175 carer participants) reported fewer carer participants with poor comprehension among those given information (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53), but again this finding is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence.Two studies (487 carer participants) reported little or no difference in carer satisfaction; it is uncertain whether information or education interventions as part of a complex intervention increase carer satisfaction due to very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects were reported in only one study: one participant withdrew because of deterioration in mental health on completion of anxiety and depression questionnaires, but the study authors did not report whether this participant was from the intervention or comparison group.We downgraded certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations, and limited data from few small studies.No studies reported severity of PTSD, or health-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain of the effects of information or education interventions given to adult ICU patients and their carers, as the evidence in all cases was of very low certainty, and our confidence in the evidence was limited. Ongoing studies may contribute more data and introduce more certainty when incorporated into future updates of the review.

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill people.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.

Automated monitoring compared to standard care for the early detection of sepsis in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that is usually diagnosed when a patient has a suspected or documented infection, and meets two or more criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). The incidence of sepsis is higher among people admitted to critical care settings such as the intensive care unit (ICU) than among people in other settings. If left untreated sepsis can quickly worsen; severe sepsis has a mortality rate of 40% or higher, depending on definition. Recognition of sepsis can be challenging as it usually requires patient data to be combined from multiple unconnected sources, and interpreted correctly, which can be complex and time consuming to do. Electronic systems that are designed to connect information sources together, and automatically collate, analyse, and continuously monitor the information, as well as alerting healthcare staff when pre-determined diagnostic thresholds are met, may offer benefits by facilitating earlier recognition of sepsis and faster initiation of treatment, such as antimicrobial therapy, fluid resuscitation, inotropes, and vasopressors if appropriate. However, there is the possibility that electronic, automated systems do not offer benefits, or even cause harm. This might happen if the systems are unable to correctly detect sepsis (meaning that treatment is not started when it should be, or it is started when it shouldn't be), or healthcare staff may not respond to alerts quickly enough, or get 'alarm fatigue' especially if the alarms go off frequently or give too many false alarms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether automated systems for the early detection of sepsis can reduce the time to appropriate treatment (such as initiation of antibiotics, fluids, inotropes, and vasopressors) and improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients in the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; ISI Web of science; and LILACS, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization trials portal. We searched all databases from their date of inception to 18 September 2017, with no restriction on country or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared automated sepsis-monitoring systems to standard care (such as paper-based systems) in participants of any age admitted to intensive or critical care units for critical illness. We defined an automated system as any process capable of screening patient records or data (one or more systems) automatically at intervals for markers or characteristics that are indicative of sepsis. We defined critical illness as including, but not limited to postsurgery, trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, burns, and hypovolaemic or haemorrhagic shock. We excluded non-randomized studies, quasi-randomized studies, and cross-over studies . We also excluded studies including people already diagnosed with sepsis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy; time to initiation of fluid resuscitation; and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included: length of stay in ICU; failed detection of sepsis; and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs in this review. It was unclear if the RCTs were three separate studies involving 1199 participants in total, or if they were reports from the same study involving fewer participants. We decided to treat the studies separately, as we were unable to make contact with the study authors to clarify.All three RCTs are of very low study quality because of issues with unclear randomization methods, allocation concealment and uncertainty of effect size. Some of the studies were reported as abstracts only and contained limited data, which prevented meaningful analysis and assessment of potential biases.The studies included participants who all received automated electronic monitoring during their hospital stay. Participants were randomized to an intervention group (automated alerts sent from the system) or to usual care (no automated alerts sent from the system).Evidence from all three studies reported 'Time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy'. We were unable to pool the data, but the largest study involving 680 participants reported median time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy in the intervention group of 5.6 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 2.3 to 19.7) in the intervention group (n = not stated) and 7.8 hours (IQR 2.5 to 33.1) in the control group (n = not stated).No studies reported 'Time to initiation of fluid resuscitation' or the adverse event 'Mortality at 30 days'. However very low-quality evidence was available where mortality was reported at other time points. One study involving 77 participants reported 14-day mortality of 20% in the intervention group and 21% in the control group (numerator and denominator not stated). One study involving 442 participants reported mortality at 28 days, or discharge was 14% in the intervention group and 10% in the control group (numerator and denominator not reported). Sample sizes were not reported adequately for these outcomes and so we could not estimate confidence intervals.Very low-quality evidence from one study involving 442 participants reported 'Length of stay in ICU'. Median length of stay was 3.0 days in the intervention group (IQR = 2.0 to 5.0), and 3.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 4.0 in the control).Very low-quality evidence from one study involving at least 442 participants reported the adverse effect 'Failed detection of sepsis'. Data were only reported for failed detection of sepsis in two participants and it wasn't clear which group(s) this outcome occurred in.No studies reported 'Quality of life'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear what effect automated systems for monitoring sepsis have on any of the outcomes included in this review. Very low-quality evidence is only available on automated alerts, which is only one component of automated monitoring systems. It is uncertain whether such systems can replace regular, careful review of the patient's condition by experienced healthcare staff.

Self-management for bronchiectasis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is a long term respiratory condition with an increasing rate of diagnosis. It is associated with persistent symptoms, repeated infective exacerbations, and reduced quality of life, imposing a burden on individuals and healthcare systems. The main aims of therapeutic management are to reduce exacerbations and improve quality of life. Self-management interventions are potentially important for empowering people with bronchiectasis to manage their condition more effectively and to seek care in a timely manner. Self-management interventions are beneficial in the management of other airways diseases such as asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and have been identified as a research priority for bronchiectasis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and adverse effects of self-management interventions for adults and children with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register of trials, clinical trials registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers' websites up to 13 December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials of any duration that included adults or children with a diagnosis of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis assessing self-management interventions delivered in any form. Self-management interventions included at least two of the following elements: patient education, airway clearance techniques, adherence to medication, exercise (including pulmonary rehabilitation) and action plans. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were, health-related quality of life, exacerbation frequency and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the number of participants admitted to hospital on at least one occasion, lung function, symptoms, self-efficacy and economic costs. We used a random effects model for analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies with a total of 84 participants were included: a 12-month RCT of early rehabilitation in adults of mean age 72 years conducted in two centres in England (UK) and a six-month proof-of-concept RCT of an expert patient programme (EPP) in adults of mean age 60 years in a single regional respiratory centre in Northern Ireland (UK). The EPP was delivered in group format once a week for eight weeks using standardised EPP materials plus disease-specific education including airway clearance techniques, dealing with symptoms, exacerbations, health promotion and available support. We did not find any studies that included children. Data aggregation was not possible and findings are reported narratively in the review.For the primary outcomes, both studies reported health-related quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), but there was no clear evidence of benefit. In one study, the mean SGRQ total scores were not significantly different at 6 weeks', 3 months' and 12 months' follow-up (12 months mean difference (MD) -10.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -45.15 to 24.61). In the second study there were no significant differences in SGRQ. Total scores were not significantly different between groups (six months, MD 3.20, 95% CI -6.64 to 13.04). We judged the evidence for this outcome as low or very low. Neither of the included studies reported data on exacerbations requiring antibiotics. For serious adverse events, one study reported more deaths in the intervention group compared to the control group, (intervention: 4 of 8, control: 2 of 12), though interpretation is limited by the low event rate and the small number of participants in each group.For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of benefit in terms of frequency of hospital admissions or FEV1 L, based on very low-quality evidence. One study reported self-efficacy using the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy scale, which comprises 10 components. All scales showed significant benefit from the intervention but effects were only sustained to study endpoint on the Managing Depression scale. Further details are reported in the main review. Based on overall study quality, we judged this evidence as low quality. Neither study reported data on respiratory symptoms, economic costs or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether self-management interventions benefit people with bronchiectasis. In the absence of high-quality evidence it is advisable that practitioners adhere to current international guidelines that advocate self-management for people with bronchiectasis.Future studies should aim to clearly define and justify the specific nature of self-management, measure clinically important outcomes and include children as well as adults.

Hypothermia for traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Hypothermia has been used in the treatment of brain injury for many years. Encouraging results from small trials and laboratory studies led to renewed interest in the area and some larger trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of mild hypothermia for traumatic brain injury (TBI) on mortality, long-term functional outcomes and complications. SEARCH METHODS: We ran and incorporated studies from database searches to 21 March 2016. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), PubMed, ISI Web of science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. We also re-ran these searches pre-publication in June 2017; the result from this search is presented in 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of participants with closed TBI requiring hospitalisation who were treated with hypothermia to a maximum of 35 ºC for at least 12 consecutive hours. Treatment with hypothermia was compared to maintenance with normothermia (36.5 to 38 ºC). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed data on mortality, unfavourable outcomes according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale, and pneumonia. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 eligible trials with a total of 3110 randomised participants; nine of these were new studies since the last update (2009) and five studies had been previously excluded but were re-assessed and included during the 2017 update. We identified two ongoing studies from searches of clinical trials registers and database searches and two studies await classification.Studies included both adults and children with TBI. Most studies commenced treatment immediately on admission to hospital or after craniotomies and all treatment was maintained for at least 24 hours. Thirty-three studies reported data for mortality, 31 studies reported data for unfavourable outcomes (death, vegetative state or severe disability), and 14 studies reported pneumonia. Visual inspection of the results for these outcomes showed inconsistencies among studies, with differences in the direction of effect, and we did not pool these data for meta-analysis. We considered duration of hypothermia therapy and the length of follow-up in collected data for these subgroups; differences in study data remained such that we did not perform meta-analysis.Studies were generally poorly reported and we were unable to assess risk of bias adequately. Heterogeneity was evident both in the trial designs and participant inclusion. Inconsistencies in results may be explained by heterogeneity among study participants or bias introduced by individual study methodology but we did not explore this in detail in subgroup or sensitivity analyses. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence for each outcome and downgraded the evidence for mortality and unfavourable outcome to very low. We downgraded the evidence for the pneumonia outcome to low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite a large number studies, there remains no high-quality evidence that hypothermia is beneficial in the treatment of people with TBI. Further research, which is methodologically robust, is required in this field to establish the effect of hypothermia for people with TBI.

Personalised asthma action plans for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: A key aim of asthma care is to empower each person to take control of his or her own condition. A personalised asthma action plan (PAAP), also known as a written action plan, an individualised action plan, or a self-management action plan, contributes to this endeavour. A PAAP includes individualised self-management instructions devised collaboratively with the patient to help maintain asthma control and regain control in the event of an exacerbation. A PAAP includes baseline characteristics (such as lung function), maintenance medication and instructions on how to respond to increasing symptoms and when to seek medical help. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PAAPs used alone or in combination with education, for patient-reported outcomes, resource use and safety among adults with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, clinical trial registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers' websites up to 14 September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both blinded and unblinded, that evaluated written PAAPs in adults with asthma. Included studies compared PAAP alone versus no PAAP, and/or PAAP plus education versus education alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalisation, asthma symptom scores on a validated scale and adverse events (all causes). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measured on a validated scale, number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, respiratory function and days lost from work or study. We used a random-effects model for all analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 studies described in 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These 15 included studies randomised a total of 3062 participants (PAAP vs no PAAP: 2602 participants; PAAP plus education vs education alone: 460 participants). Ten studies (eight PAAP vs no PAAP; two PAAP plus education vs education alone) provided outcome data that contributed to quantitative analyses. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low.Fourteen studies lasted six months or longer, and the remaining study lasted for 14 weeks. When reported, mean age ranged from 22 to 49 years and asthma severity ranged from mild to severe/high risk. PAAP alone compared with no PAAPResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.24; 1385 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.25 to - 0.07; 141 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) or the number of serious adverse events, including death (OR 3.26, 95% CI 0.33 to 32.21; 125 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Data revealed a statistically significant improvement in quality of life scores for those receiving PAAP compared with no PAAP (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; 441 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence), but this was below the threshold for a minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results also showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs on the number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.48; 1136 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence) nor on respiratory function (change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1): MD -0.04 L, 95% CI -0.25L to 0.17 L; 392 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). In one study, PAAPs were associated with significantly fewer days lost from work or study (MD -6.20, 95% CI -7.32 to - 5.08; 74 participants; low-quality evidence). PAAP plus education compared with education aloneResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with adding a PAAP to education in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.32; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.34; 70 participants; one study; low-quality evidence), change in quality of life scores from baseline (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.39; 174 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) and number of participants requiring oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported serious adverse events, respiratory function or days lost from work or study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of available studies was limited by variable reporting of primary and secondary outcomes; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to the effectiveness of PAAPs in the management of adult asthma. We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials of additional benefit or harm associated with use of PAAP versus no PAAP, or PAAP plus education versus education alone, but we considered the quality of the evidence to be low or very low, meaning that we cannot be confident in the magnitude or direction of reported treatment effects. In the context of this caveat, we found no observable effect on the primary outcomes of hospital attendance with an asthma exacerbation, asthma symptom scores or adverse events. We recommend further research with a particular focus on key patient-relevant outcomes, including exacerbation frequency and quality of life, in a broad spectrum of adults, including those over 60 years of age.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Patient- and parent-initiated oral steroids for asthma exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways affecting an estimated 334 million people worldwide. During severe exacerbations, patients may need to attend a medical centre or hospital emergency department for treatment with systemic corticosteroids, which can be administered intravenously or orally. Some people with asthma are prescribed oral corticosteroids (OCS) for self-administration (i.e. patient-initiated) or to administer to their child with asthma (i.e. parent-initiated), in the event of an exacerbation. This approach to treatment is becoming increasingly common. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of patient- or parent-initiated oral steroids for adults and children with asthma exacerbations. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR from its inception to 18 May 2016 and trial registries from their inception to 24 August 2016; we imposed no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data; we excluded cross-over trials.We looked for studies where adults (aged 18 years or older) or children of school age (aged 5 years or older) with asthma were randomised to receive: (a) any patient-/parent-initiated OCS or (b) placebo, normal care, alternative active treatment, or an identical personalised asthma action plan without the patient- or parent-initiated OCS component. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results to identify any studies that met the prespecified inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were hospital admissions for asthma, asthma symptoms at follow-up and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Despite comprehensive searches of electronic databases and clinical trial registries, we did not identify any studies meeting the inclusion criteria for this review. Five potentially relevant studies were excluded for two reasons: the intervention did not meet the inclusion criteria for this review (three studies) and studies had a cross-over design (two studies). Two of the excluded studies asked the relevant clinical question. However, these studies were excluded due to their cross-over design, as per the protocol. We contacted the authors of the cross-over trials who were unable to provide data for the first treatment period (i.e. prior to cross-over). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence from randomised trials (non-cross-over design) to inform the use of patient- or parent-initiated oral corticosteroids in people with asthma.