Figure 1
Objectives. Although recent evidence suggests that management of viral bronchiolitis requires something other than guidelines-guided therapy, there is a lack of evidence supporting the economic benefits of phenotypic-guided bronchodilator therapy for treating this disease. The aim of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of phenotypic-guided versus guidelines-guided bronchodilator therapy in infants with viral bronchiolitis. Methods: A decision‐analysis model was developed in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of phenotypic-guided versus guidelines-guided bronchodilator therapy in infants with viral bronchiolitis. The effectiveness parameters and costs of the model were obtained from electronic medical records. The main outcome was avoidance of hospital admission after initial care in the ED. Results: Compared to guidelines-guided strategy, treating patients with viral bronchiolitis with the phenotypic-guided bronchodilator therapy strategy was associated with lower total costs (US$250.99 vs US$263.46 average cost per patient) and a higher probability of avoidance of hospital admission (0.7902 vs 0.7638), thus leading to dominance. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Compared to guidelines-guided strategy, treating infants with viral bronchiolitis using the phenotypic-guided bronchodilator therapy strategy is a more cost-effective strategy, because it involves a lower probability of hospital admission at lower total treatment costs.
Figure 1
International guidelines have recommended the use of inhaled beta-2 agonists and systemic corticosteroids (SC) as the first-line treatment for acute asthma. Objective: To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to SC compared to SC alone in children with acute asthma in the ED or during hospitalization. Data sources: Five electronic databases were searched. Study Selection: All RCTs that compared ICS (via nebulizer or metered dose inhaler) plus SC (oral or parenteral) with placebo (or standard care) plus SC were included without language restriction. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently reviewed all studies. The primary outcomes were hospital admission or hospital length of stay [LOS], and secondary outcomes were readmissions during follow-up, ED-LOS, lung function, asthma clinical score, oxygen saturation, and heart and respiratory rates. Results: Nine studies (n=1473) met the inclusion criteria. In all the studies, the ICS was budesonide. Compared to SC alone, adding budesonide to SC did not affect hospitalization rate, but decreased hospital LOS by more than one day (MD= -29.08 hours [-39.9 to -18.3]; I2=0%, p=<0.00001). Moreover, adding budesonide (especially with ≥2mg doses) significantly improved the acute asthma severity score among patients at ED. Conclusions: Compared to SC alone, adding budesonide to SC did not affect hospitalization rate, but decreases the LOS and improves the acute asthma score in children at ED setting.
Figure 1
Objectives: Although albuterol, the most frequently used bronchodilator, has been traditionally and generally delivered via nebulization (NEB) with compressed air/oxygen, the benefits of metered‐dose inhalers with a spacer (MDI+S) have been widely recognized as an alternative method for albuterol administration. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the response to albuterol delivered through NEB with albuterol delivered through MDI+S in pediatric patients with asthma exacerbations. Methods: We conducted an electronic search in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid and ClinicalTrials. To be included in the review, a study had to a randomized clinical trial comparing albuterol delivered via NEB versus MDI+S; and had to report the rate of hospital admission (primary outcome), or any of the following secondary outcomes: oxygen arterial saturation, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, the pulmonary index score (PIS), adverse effects, and need for additional treatment. Results: Fifteen studies (n=2057) met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found between the two albuterol delivery methods in terms of hospital admission (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.46; I2=32%; p=0.65). There was a significant reduction in the PIS score (MD -0.63; 95% CI -0.91 to -0.35; I2=0%; p < 0.00001), and a significantly smaller increase in HR (better) (MD -6.47; 95% CI -11.69 to -1.25; I2=0%; p=0.02) when albuterol was delivered through MDI+S than when it was delivered through NEB. Conclusions: This review showed a significant reduction in the PIS and a significantly smaller increase in HR when albuterol was delivered through MDI+S than when it was delivered through NEB.
Figure 1

jefferson buendia

and 2 more