Search

Background Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice. Objectives We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation. Search methods The search (inception to May 7, 2012) was standardised and not limited by language and included electronic searching (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Functional Bowel Disorders Group Specialized Trials Register), reference searching of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives with either placebo or another intervention, with patients aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. Data collection and analysis Relevant papers were identified and the authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.The Cochrane RevMan software was used for analyses. Patients with final missing outcomes were assumed to have relapsed. For continuous outcomes we calculated a mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. The chi square and I2 statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity Main results Eighteen RCTs (1643 patients) were included in the review. Nine studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Meta-analysis of 4 studies with 338 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed significantly greater stools per week with PEG (MD 0.95 stools per week, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.44), although follow up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 30% of lactulose patients (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.89). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools/wk was significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69 stools per week, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference is quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring paraffin (MD 4.94 stools per week, 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), and PEG and liquid paraffin (1 study, 158 patients, MD 0.70, 95% CI -0.38 to 1.78). Authors' conclusions The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow up. However, PEG appears safe and well tolerated. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil), which was also well tolerated.There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. Plain Language Summary Laxatives for the management of childhood constipation Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing lack of evidence to support this practice.This review included eighteen studies with a total of 1643 patients that compared nine different agents to either placebo (inactive medications) or each other. The results of this review suggest that polyethylene glycol preparations may increase the frequency of bowel motions in constipated children. Polyethylene glycol was generally safe, with lower rates of minor side effects compared to other agents. Common side effects included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. There was also some evidence that liquid paraffin (mineral oil) increased the frequency of bowel motions in constipated children and was also safe. Common side effects with liquid paraffin included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. There was no evidence to suggest that lactulose is superior to the other agents studied, although there were no trials comparing it to placebo. The results of the review should be interpreted with caution due to methodological quality and statistical issues in the included studies. In addition, these studies were relatively short in duration and so it is difficult to assess the long term effectiveness of these agents for the treatment of childhood constipation. Long term effectiveness is important, given the often chronic nature of this problem in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Health professionals frequently recommend fever treatment regimens for children that either combine paracetamol and ibuprofen or alternate them. However, there is uncertainty about whether these regimens are better than the use of single agents, and about the adverse effect profile of combination regimens. Objectives To assess the effects and side effects of combining paracetamol and ibuprofen, or alternating them on consecutive treatments, compared with monotherapy for treating fever in children. Search methods In September 2013, we searched Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (2009-2011). Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials comparing alternating or combined paracetamol and ibuprofen regimens with monotherapy in children with fever. Data collection and analysis One review author and two assistants independently screened the searches and applied inclusion criteria. Two authors assessed risk of bias and graded the evidence independently. We conducted separate analyses for different comparison groups (combined therapy versus monotherapy, alternating therapy versus monotherapy, combined therapy versus alternating therapy). Main results Six studies, enrolling 915 participants, are included. Compared to giving a single antipyretic alone, giving combined paracetamol and ibuprofen to febrile children can result in a lower mean temperature at one hour after treatment (MD -0.27 °Celsius, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.08, two trials, 163 participants, moderate quality evidence). If no further antipyretics are given, combined treatment probably also results in a lower mean temperature at four hours (MD -0.70 °Celsius, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.35, two trials, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence), and in fewer children remaining or becoming febrile for at least four hours after treatment (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.42, two trials, 196 participants, moderate quality evidence). Only one trial assessed a measure of child discomfort (fever associated symptoms at 24 hours and 48 hours), but did not find a significant difference in this measure between the treatment regimens (one trial, 156 participants, evidence quality not graded). In practice, caregivers are often advised to initially give a single agent (paracetamol or ibuprofen), and then give a further dose of the alternative if the child's fever fails to resolve or recurs. Giving alternating treatment in this way may result in a lower mean temperature at one hour after the second dose (MD -0.60 °Celsius, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.26, two trials, 78 participants, low quality evidence), and may also result in fewer children remaining or becoming febrile for up to three hours after it is given (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55, two trials, 109 participants, low quality evidence). One trial assessed child discomfort (mean pain scores at 24, 48 and 72 hours), finding that these mean scores were lower, with alternating therapy, despite fewer doses of antipyretic being given overall (one trial, 480 participants, low quality evidence) Only one small trial compared alternating therapy with combined therapy. No statistically significant differences were seen in mean temperature, or the number of febrile children at one, four or six hours (one trial, 40 participants, very low quality evidence). There were no serious adverse events in the trials that were directly attributed to the medications used. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence that both alternating and combined antipyretic therapy may be more effective at reducing temperatures than monotherapy alone. However, the evidence for improvements in measures of child discomfort remains inconclusive. There is insufficient evidence to know which of combined or alternating therapy might be more beneficial. Future research needs to measure child discomfort using standardized tools, and assess the safety of combined and alternating antipyretic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension is a major risk factor for stroke, coronary artery disease and kidney damage in adults. There is a paucity of data on the long-term sequelae of persistent hypertension in children, but it is known that children with hypertension have evidence of end organ damage and are at risk of hypertension into adulthood. The prevalence of hypertension in children is rising, most likely due to a concurrent rise in obesity rates. In children with hypertension, non-pharmacological measures are often recommended as first-line therapy, but a significant proportion of children will eventually require pharmacological treatment to reduce blood pressure, especially those with evidence of end organ damage at presentation or during follow-up. A systematic review of the effects of antihypertensive agents in children has not previously been conducted. Objectives To determine the dose-related effects of different classes of antihypertensive medications, as monotherapy compared to placebo; as combination therapy compared to placebo or a single medication; or in comparisons of various doses within the same class, on systolic or diastolic blood pressure (or both) in children with hypertension. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October 2013), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to October 2013) and bibliographic citations. Selection criteria The selection criteria were deliberately broad due to there being few clinical trials in children. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least two weeks duration comparing antihypertensive agents either as monotherapy or combination therapy with either placebo or another medication, or comparing different doses of the same medication, in children with hypertension. Hypertension was defined as an average (over a minimum of three readings) systolic or diastolic blood pressure (or both) on the 95 percentile or above for age, height and gender. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We summarised data, where possible, using a random-effects model. Formal assessment of heterogeneity was not possible because of insufficient data. Main results A total of 21 trials evaluated antihypertensive medications of various drug classes in 3454 hypertensive children with periods of follow-up ranging from three to 24 weeks. There were five RCTs comparing an antihypertensive drug directly with placebo, 12 dose-finding trials, two trials comparing calcium channel blockers with angiotensin receptor blockers, one trial comparing a centrally acting alpha blocker with a diuretic and one trial comparing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker. No randomised trial was identified that evaluated the effectiveness of antihypertensive medications on target end organ damage. The trials were of variable quality and most were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Among the angiotensin receptor blockers, candesartan (one trial, n = 240), when compared to placebo, reduced systolic blood pressure by 6.50 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.44 to -3.56) and diastolic blood pressure by 5.50 mmHg (95% CI -9.62 to -1.38) (low-quality evidence). High dose telmisartan (one trial, n = 76), when compared to placebo, reduced systolic blood pressure by -8.50 (95% CI -13.79 to -3.21) but not diastolic blood pressure (-4.80, 95% CI -9.50 to 0.10) (low-quality evidence). Beta blocker (metoprolol, one trial, n = 140), when compared with placebo, significantly reduced systolic blood pressure by 4.20 mmHg (95% CI -8.12 to -0.28) but not diastolic blood pressure (-3.20 mmHg 95% CI -7.12 to 0.72) (low-quality evidence). Beta blocker/diuretic combination (Bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide, one trial, n = 94)when compared with placebo, did not result in a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (-4.0 mmHg, 95% CI -8.99 to -0.19) but did have an effect on diastolic blood pressure (-4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -8.26 to -0.74) (low-quality evidence). Calcium channel blocker (extended-release felodipine,one trial, n = 133) was not effective in reducing systolic blood pressure (-0.62 mmHg, 95% CI -2.97 to 1.73) or diastolic blood pressure (-1.86 mmHg, 95% CI -5.23 to 1.51) when compared with placebo. Further, there was no consistent dose response observed among any of the drug classes. The adverse events associated with the antihypertensive agents were mostly minor and included headaches, dizziness and upper respiratory infections. Authors' conclusions Overall, there are sparse data informing the use of antihypertensive agents in children, with outcomes reported limited to blood pressure and not end organ damage. The most data are available for candesartan, for which there is low-quality evidence of a modest lowering effect on blood pressure. We did not find evidence of a consistent dose response relationship for escalating doses of angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. All agents appear safe, at least in the short term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and nosocomial sepsis are associated with increased morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Through prevention of bacterial migration across the mucosa, competitive exclusion of pathogenic bacteria, and enhancing the immune responses of the host, prophylactic enteral probiotics (live microbial supplements) may play a role in reducing NEC and the associated morbidity. Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic enteral probiotics administration versus placebo or no treatment in the prevention of severe NEC or sepsis, or both, in preterm infants. Search methods For this update, searches were made of MEDLINE (1966 to October 2013), EMBASE (1980 to October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 10), and abstracts of annual meetings of the Society for Pediatric Research (1995 to 2013). Selection criteria Only randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that enrolled preterm infants < 37 weeks gestational age or < 2500 g birth weight, or both, were considered. Trials were included if they involved enteral administration of any live microbial supplement (probiotics) and measured at least one prespecified clinical outcome. Data collection and analysis Standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Group were used to assess the methodologic quality of the trials and for data collection and analysis. Main results Twenty-four eligible trials were included. Included trials were highly variable with regard to enrolment criteria (that is birth weight and gestational age), baseline risk of NEC in the control groups, timing, dose, formulation of the probiotics, and feeding regimens. In a meta-analysis of trial data, enteral probiotics supplementation significantly reduced the incidence of severe NEC (stage II or more) (typical relative risk (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.56; 20 studies, 5529 infants) and mortality (typical RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.81; 17 studies, 5112 infants). There was no evidence of significant reduction of nosocomial sepsis (typical RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03; 19 studies, 5338 infants). The included trials reported no systemic infection with the supplemental probiotics organism. Probiotics preparations containing either lactobacillus alone or in combination with bifidobacterium were found to be effective. Authors' conclusions Enteral supplementation of probiotics prevents severe NEC and all cause mortality in preterm infants. Our updated review of available evidence strongly supports a change in practice. Head to head comparative studies are required to assess the most effective preparations, timing, and length of therapy to be utilized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Cochrane Collaboration has been at the forefront of developing methods for knowledge synthesis internationally. Objectives We discuss three approaches to synthesize evidence for healthcare interventions: systematic reviews (SRs), overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews. Methods We illustrate these approaches with examples from knowledge syntheses on interventions for bronchiolitis, a common acute paediatric condition. Some of the differences among these approaches are subtle and methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive to a single review type. Results and Conclusions: Systematic reviews bring together evidence from multiple studies in a rigorous fashion for a single intervention or group of interventions. Systematic reviews, as they have developed within healthcare, often focus on single or select interventions and direct pairwise comparisons; therefore, end-users may need to read several individual SRs to inform decision making. Overviews of reviews compile information from multiple SRs relevant to a single health problem. Overviews provide the end-user with a quick overview of the available evidence; however, overviews are dependent on the methods and decisions employed at the SR level. Furthermore, overviews do not often integrate evidence from different SRs quantitatively. Comparative effectiveness reviews, as we define them here, synthesize relevant evidence from individual studies to describe the relative benefits (or harms) of a range of interventions. Comparative effectiveness reviews may use statistical methods (network meta-analysis) to incorporate direct and indirect evidence; therefore, they can provide stronger inferences about the relative effectiveness (or safety) of interventions. While potentially more expensive and time-consuming to produce, a comparative effectiveness review provides a synthesis of a range of interventions for a given condition and the relative efficacy across interventions using consistent and standardized methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]