Macrolide antibiotics (including azithromycin) for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition, affecting over 90,000 people worldwide. CF affects several organs in the body, but airway damage has the most profound impact on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Causes of lower airway infection in people with CF are, most notably, Staphylococcus aureus in the early course of the disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a later stage. Macrolide antibiotics, e.g. azithromycin and clarithromycin, are usually taken orally, have a broad spectrum of action against gram-positive (e.g. S aureus) and some gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Haemophilus influenzae), and may have a modifying role in diseases involving airway infection and inflammation such as CF. They are well-tolerated and relatively inexpensive, but widespread use has resulted in the emergence of resistant bacteria. This is an updated review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential effects of macrolide antibiotics on clinical status in terms of benefit and harm in people with CF. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We 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 last searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 2 November 2022. We last searched the trial registries WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov on 9 November 2022. We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adults and children with CF. We compared them to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose or type of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (1467 participants) lasting 28 days to 36 months. All the studies assessed azithromycin: 11 compared oral azithromycin to placebo (1167 participants); one compared a high dose to a low dose (47 participants); one compared nebulised to oral azithromycin (45 participants); and one looked at weekly versus daily dose (208 participants). Oral azithromycin versus placebo There is a slight improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1 % predicted) in one second in the azithromycin group at up to six months compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74 to 6.19; high-certainty evidence), although there is probably no difference at three months, (MD 2.70%, 95% CI -0.12 to 5.52), or 12 months (MD -0.13, 95% CI -4.96 to 4.70). Participants in the azithromycin group are probably at a decreased risk of pulmonary exacerbation with a longer time to exacerbation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence). Mild side effects were common, but there was no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no difference in hospital admissions at six months (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence), or in new acquisition of P aeruginosa at 12 months (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose azithromycin We are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted at six months between the two groups (no data available) or in the rate of exacerbations per child per month (MD -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.10)); very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes. Only children were included in the study and the study did not report on any of our other clinically important outcomes. Nebulised azithromycin versus oral azithromycin We were unable to include any of the data into our analyses and have reported findings directly from the paper; we graded all evidence as being of very low certainty. The authors reported that there was a greater mean change in FEV1 % predicted at one month in the nebulised azithromycin group (P < 0.001). We are uncertain whether there was a change in P aeruginosa count. Weekly azithromycin versus daily azithromycin There is probably a lower mean change in FEV1 % predicted at six months in the weekly group compared to the daily group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45) and probably also a longer period of time until first exacerbation in the weekly group (MD 17.30 days, 95% CI 4.32 days to 30.28 days). Gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common in the weekly group and there is likely no difference in admissions to hospital or QoL. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin therapy is associated with a small but consistent improvement in respiratory function, a decreased risk of exacerbation and longer time to exacerbation at six months; but evidence for treatment efficacy beyond six months remains limited. Azithromycin appears to have a good safety profile (although a weekly dose was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects, which makes it less acceptable for long-term therapy), with a relatively minimal treatment burden for people with CF, and it is inexpensive. A wider concern may be the emergence of macrolide resistance reported in the most recent study which, combined with the lack of long-term data, means we do not feel that the current evidence is strong enough to support azithromycin therapy for all people with CF. Future research should report over longer time frames using validated tools and consistent reporting, to allow for easier synthesis of data. In particular, future trials should report important adverse events such as hearing impairment or liver disease. More data on the effects of azithromycin given in different ways and reporting on our primary outcomes would benefit decision-making on whether and how to give macrolide antibiotics. Finally, it is important to assess azithromycin therapy for people with CF who are established on the relatively new cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies which correct the underlying molecular defect associated with CF (none of the trials included in the review are relevant to this population).

Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of most recent search: 11 June 2020. A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases. Date of most recent search: 05 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: Authors identified 20 studies, of which 10 studies with 238 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the 10 included studies were published as abstracts only and lacked concise details, thus limiting the information available. Eight studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only, one in children only and four in a combination of children and adults. No differences between treatment and control were reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) or postural stability (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use and distance completed in a six minute walk test, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (very low-quality evidence). Another study (n=36) reported improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure following training (P < 0.001) (very low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported significant differences on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Most people with cystic fibrosis (CF) (80% to 90%) need pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) to prevent malnutrition. Enzyme preparations need to be taken whenever food is taken, and the dose needs to be adjusted according to the food consumed. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of PERT is needed to guide clinical practice, as there is variability between centres with respect to assessment of pancreatic function, time of commencing treatment, dose and choice of supplements. This is an updated version of a published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PERT in children and adults with CF and to compare the efficacy and safety of different formulations of PERT and their appropriateness in different age groups. Also, to compare the effects of PERT in CF according to different diagnostic subgroups (e.g. different ages at introduction of therapy and different categories of pancreatic function). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Most recent search: 07 November 2019. We also searched an ongoing trials website and the websites of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture pancreatic enzyme replacements for any additional trials. Most recent search: 26 December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with CF and receiving PERT, at any dosage and in any formulation, for a period of not less than four weeks, compared to placebo or other PERT preparations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials and extracted outcome data. They also assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence (GRADE) of the trials included in the review. MAIN RESULTS: 14 trials were included in the review (641 children and adults with CF), two of these were parallel trials and 12 were cross-over trials. Interventions included different enteric and non-enteric-coated preparations of varying formulations in comparison to each other. The number of participants in each trial varied between 14 and 129. 13 trials were for a duration of four weeks and one trial lasted seven weeks. The majority of the trials had an unclear risk of bias from the randomisation process as the details of this were not given; they also had a high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. We mostly could not combine data from the trials as they compared different formulations and the findings from individual trials provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over trials is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the trials due to over-inflation of CIs from the individual trials.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with PERT. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed trial that can answer these questions.

Respiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 17 April 2018.A hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases up until 07 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system MAIN RESULTS: Authors identified 19 studies, of which nine studies with 202 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the nine included studies were published as abstracts only and lacking concise details, thus limiting the information available. Seven studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only and four in a combination of children and adults.No significant improvement was reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a significant change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was significantly longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Most people with cystic fibrosis (80% to 90%) need pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy to prevent malnutrition. Enzyme preparations need to be taken whenever food is taken, and the dose needs to be adjusted according to the food consumed. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is needed to guide clinical practice, as there is variability between centres with respect to assessment of pancreatic function, time of commencing treatment, dose and choice of supplements. This is an updated version of a published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in children and adults with cystic fibrosis and to compare the efficacy and safety of different formulations of this therapy and their appropriateness in different age groups. Also, to compare the effects of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in cystic fibrosis according to different diagnostic subgroups (e.g. different ages at introduction of therapy and different categories of pancreatic function). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Most recent search: 15 July 2016.We also searched an ongoing trials website and the websites of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture pancreatic enzyme replacements for any additional trials. Most recent search: 22 July 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with cystic fibrosis and receiving pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, at any dosage and in any formulation, for a period of not less than four weeks, compared to placebo or other pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy preparations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials and extracted outcome data. They also assessed the risk of bias of the trials included in the review. MAIN RESULTS: One parallel trial and 12 cross-over trials of children and adults with cystic fibrosis were included in the review. The number of participants in each trial varied between 14 and 129 with a total of 512 participants included in the review. All the included trials were for a duration of four weeks. The included trials had mostly an unclear risk of bias from the randomisation process as the details of this were not given; they also mostly had a high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias.We could not combine data from all the trials as they compared different formulations. Findings from individual studies provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations. Ten studies reported information on the review's primary outcome (nutritional status); however, we were only able to combine data from two small cross-over studies (n = 41). The estimated gain in body weight was imprecise, 0.32 kg (95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.67; P = 0.07). Combined data from the same studies gave statistically significant results favouring enteric-coated microspheres over enteric-coated tablets for our secondary outcomes stool frequency, mean difference -0.58 (95% confidence interval -0.85 to -0.30; P < 0.0001); proportion of days with abdominal pain, mean difference -7.96% (95% confidence interval -12.97 to -2.94; P = 0.002); and fecal fat excretion, mean difference -11.79 g (95% confidence interval -17.42 to -6.15; P < 0.0001). Data from another single small cross-over study also favoured enteric-coated microspheres over non-enteric-coated tablets with adjuvant cimetidine in terms of stool frequency, mean difference -0.70 (95% confidence interval -0.90 to -0.50; P < 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over studies is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the studies due to over-inflation of confidence intervals from the individual studies.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed study that can answer these questions.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Most people with cystic fibrosis (80% to 90%) need pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy to prevent malnutrition. Enzyme preparations need to be taken whenever food is taken, and the dose needs to be adjusted according to the food consumed. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is needed to guide clinical practice, as there is variability between centres with respect to assessment of pancreatic function, time of commencing treatment, dose and choice of supplements. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in children and adults with cystic fibrosis and to compare the efficacy and safety of different formulations of this therapy and their appropriateness in different age groups. Also, to compare the effects of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in cystic fibrosis according to different diagnostic subgroups (e.g. different ages at introduction of therapy and different categories of pancreatic function). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Most recent search: 14 August 2014.We also searched an ongoing trials website and the websites of the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture pancreatic enzyme replacements for any additional trials. Most recent search: 12 May 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with cystic fibrosis and receiving pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, at any dosage and in any formulation, for a period of not less than four weeks, compared to placebo or other pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy preparations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials and extracted outcome data. They also assessed the risk of bias of the trials included in the review. MAIN RESULTS: One parallel trial and 11 cross-over trials of children and adults with cystic fibrosis were included in the review. The number of participants in each trial varied between 14 and 129 with a total of 426 participants included in the review. All the included trials were for a duration of four weeks. The included trials had mostly an unclear risk of bias from the randomisation process as the details of this were not given; they also mostly had a high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias.We could not combine data from all the trials as they compared different formulations. Findings from individual studies provided insufficient evidence to determine the size and precision of the effects of different formulations. Ten studies reported information on the review's primary outcome (nutritional status); however, we were only able to combine data from two small cross-over studies (n = 41). The estimated gain in body weight was imprecise, 0.32 kg (95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.67, P = 0.07). Combined data from the same studies gave statistically significant results favouring enteric-coated microspheres over enteric-coated tablets for our secondary outcomes stool frequency, abdominal pain and fecal fat excretion. Data from another single small cross-over study also favoured enteric-coated microspheres over non-enteric-coated tablets with adjuvant cimetidine in terms of stool frequency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence of benefit from enteric-coated microspheres when compared to non-enteric coated pancreatic enzyme preparations up to one month. In the only comparison where we could combine any data, the fact that these were cross-over studies is likely to underestimate the level of inconsistency between the results of the studies due to over-inflation of confidence intervals from the individual studies.There is no evidence on the long-term effectiveness and risks associated with pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy. There is also no evidence on the relative dosages of enzymes needed for people with different levels of severity of pancreatic insufficiency, optimum time to start treatment and variations based on differences in meals and meal sizes. There is a need for a properly designed trial that can answer these questions.

Inspiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is the most common life-limiting genetic condition in Caucasians and the life-expectancy of those newly diagnosed is increasing. Inspiratory muscle training may be a way of improving the lung function and quality of life of people with cystic fibrosis. Hence there is a need to establish whether this intervention is beneficial. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training on health-related quality of life, pulmonary function and exercise tolerance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 08 July 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical controlled trials comparing different inspiratory muscle training regimens with each other or a control in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to publications and assessed the quality of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified. Of these eight studies with 180 participants met the review inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the quality of the included studies. Data were not published in sufficient detail or with sufficiently similar outcome measures in these studies to perform meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found any evidence to suggest that this treatment is either beneficial or not. We would advise that practitioners evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether or not to employ this therapy. We recommend that future studies make more use of health-related quality of life and exercise tolerance measures; and that there is an agreement upon a single standard measure of classifying the clinical status of the participants.

Macrolide antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics may have a modifying role in diseases which involve airway infection and inflammation, like cystic fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To 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 METHODS: We 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 RESULTS: Ten 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' CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Macrolide antibiotics for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics may have a modifying role in diseases which involve airway infection and inflammation, like cystic fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To 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 METHODS: We 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: 09 February 2011. 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 RESULTS: Ten 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' CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Inspiratory muscle training for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is the most common life-limiting genetic condition in Caucasians and the life-expectancy of those newly diagnosed is increasing. Inspiratory muscle training may be a way of improving the lung function and quality of life of people with cystic fibrosis. Hence there is a need to establish whether this intervention is beneficial. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of inspiratory muscle training on health-related quality of life, pulmonary function and exercise tolerance. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: April 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical controlled trials comparing different inspiratory muscle training regimens with each other or a control in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to publications and assessed the quality of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were identified. Of these six studies with 140 participants met the review inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the quality of the included studies. Data were not published in sufficient detail or with sufficiently similar outcome measures in these studies to perform meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found any evidence to suggest that this treatment is either beneficial or not. We would advise that practitioners evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether or not to employ this therapy. We recommend that future studies make more use of health-related quality of life and exercise tolerance measures; and that there is an agreement upon a single standard measure of classifying the clinical status of the participants.