Antibiotics for preventing suppurative complications from undifferentiated acute respiratory infections in children under five years of age.

BACKGROUND: Undifferentiated acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are a large and heterogeneous group of infections not clearly restricted to one specific part of the upper respiratory tract, which last for up to seven days. They are more common in pre-school children in low-income countries and are responsible for 75% of the total amount of prescribed antibiotics in high-income countries. One possible rationale for prescribing antibiotics is the wish to prevent bacterial complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics in preventing bacterial complications in children aged two months to 59 months with undifferentiated ARIs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August week 1, 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic prescriptions with placebo or no treatment in children aged two months to 59 months with an undifferentiated ARI for up to seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia.The use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials.Ampicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated, so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out.Harm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages.We found no studies assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to October 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with no intervention, placebo, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of amantadine or rimantadine in children and the elderly with influenza A. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 studies (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly) comparing amantadine and rimantadine with placebo, paracetamol (one trial: 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials: 545 elderly) to treat influenza A.Amantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children (773 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza A in the control group was 10 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). Nevertheless, the quality of the evidence was low and the safety of the drug was not well established.For treatment, rimantadine was beneficial in abating fever on day three of treatment in children: one selected study with low risk of bias, moderate evidence quality and 69 participants (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 14 per 100 (95% CI 5 to 34).Rimantadine did not show any prophylactic effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low: 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41). The assumed risk was 17 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 7 per 100 (95% CI 2 to 23).There was no evidence of adverse effects caused by treatment with amantadine or rimantadine.We found no studies assessing amantadine in the elderly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence combined with a lack of knowledge about the safety of amantadine and the limited benefits of rimantadine, do not indicate that amantadine and rimantadine compared to control (placebo or paracetamol) could be useful in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.

Antibiotics for preventing suppurative complications from undifferentiated acute respiratory infections in children under five years of age.

BACKGROUND: Undifferentiated acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are a large and heterogeneous group of infections not clearly restricted to one specific part of the upper respiratory tract, which last for up to seven days. They are more common in pre-school children in low-income countries and are responsible for 75% of the total amount of prescribed antibiotics in high-income countries. One possible rationale for prescribing antibiotics is the wish to prevent bacterial complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics in preventing complications in children aged two to 59 months with undifferentiated ARIs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4, MEDLINE (1950 to May week 2, 2013) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic prescriptions with placebo or non-treatment in children up to 59 months with an undifferentiated ARI for up to seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia.The use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials.Ampicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out.Harm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages.No studies were found assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of evidence currently available does not provide strong support for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

[Scholar absenteeism and use of health services in children and adolescents with wheezing]. / Ausentismo escolar y uso del servicio de salud en niños y adolescentes con sibilancias.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is an important problem at the primary care level where almost 97% of the cases are managed. Brazil shows high rates of the disease nevertheless few is known about the characteristics related to school absenteeism and the health care usage among urban pediatric population of Duque de Caxias County, Rio de Janeiro. OBJECTIVES: To obtain an estimate of the prevalence of school absenteeism and to evaluate the use of health care related to wheezing in asthmatic and non asthmatic children and adolescents. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was carried out using a questionnaire for a prospective data collection. The gold standard for asthma was a minimal increment of 12% in the forced expiratory volume of the first second (FEV1), after a bronchodilatation test. RESULTS: 211 patients seeking emergency care for a number of conditions with ages between 5 and 15 years were evaluated. Sample asthma prevalence and reported wheezing rates were: 22% (47/211) and 47% (98/211). About 67% (141/211) of the families had an annual income lesser than US dollar 3600. Asthmatic and non-asthmatic patients showed, respectively, the following averages and rates: 1) emergency department visits: 40.4% (19/47) and 29.3% (48/164), 2) ambulatory visits: 34% (16/47) and 14.6% (24/164) (p = 0.003), 3) hospitalizations: 6.4% (3/47) and 4.9% (8/164), 4) number of consultations in ambulatory: 1.74 (SD = 2.71) and 0.47 (SD = 1.44) (p = 0.00003), 5) number of visits in emergency department: 1.47 (SD = 2.36) and 0.95 (SD = 2.15). CONCLUSION: The results are relevant as they describe asthma morbidity, showing that wheezing is a heavy burden to the population of Duque de Caxias. Further studies are needed to better evaluate the group of children and adolescents that although being classified as non-asthmatic presented some characteristics that were to the asthmatic patients.