Management of asthma in childhood: study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank

IntroductionClinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted.Methods and analysisStandard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank.PROSPERO registration numbers CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624.</p

Prevalence and clinical implications of respiratory viruses in asthma during stable disease state and acute attacks:Protocol for a meta-analysis

Introduction Viruses are detected in over 50% of acute asthma attacks and in a notable proportion of patients with asthma during stable disease state They are associated with worse outcomes. We will conduct a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to quantify the prevalence and clinical burden of various respiratory viruses in stable asthma and acute asthma attacks. In addition, we will assess the viral loads of respiratory viruses during stable and acute asthma, to explore whether viral load could differentiate attacks triggered by viruses versus those where viruses are present as “innocent bystanders”. Materials and methods Based on a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42023375108) and following standard methodology recommended by Cochrane, we will systematically search Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant conference proceedings for studies assessing the prevalence or clinical burden of respiratory viruses in asthma. Methodological rigour of the included studies will be appraised using a tool specific for prevalence studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale respectively. In anticipation of significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we will conduct random effect meta-analyses. For evaluating the prevalence of viruses, we will perform meta-analyses of proportions using the inverse variance method, and the Freeman-Tukey transformation. We will conduct meta-regression analyses for exploring heterogeneity. Conclusion We envisage that these systematic reviews and meta-analyses will quantify the prevalence and burden of respiratory viruses in stable and acute asthma and will drive future research and clinical practice.</p

Prevalence and clinical implications of respiratory viruses in asthma during stable disease state and acute attacks: protocol for a meta-analysis

Introduction: viruses are detected in over 50% of acute asthma attacks and in a notable proportion of patients with asthma during stable disease state They are associated with worse outcomes. We will conduct a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to quantify the prevalence and clinical burden of various respiratory viruses in stable asthma and acute asthma attacks. In addition, we will assess the viral loads of respiratory viruses during stable and acute asthma, to explore whether viral load could differentiate attacks triggered by viruses versus those where viruses are present as "innocent bystanders".Materials and methods: based on a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42023375108) and following standard methodology recommended by Cochrane, we will systematically search Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant conference proceedings for studies assessing the prevalence or clinical burden of respiratory viruses in asthma. Methodological rigour of the included studies will be appraised using a tool specific for prevalence studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale respectively. In anticipation of significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we will conduct random effect meta-analyses. For evaluating the prevalence of viruses, we will perform meta-analyses of proportions using the inverse variance method, and the Freeman-Tukey transformation. We will conduct meta-regression analyses for exploring heterogeneity.Conclusion: we envisage that these systematic reviews and meta-analyses will quantify the prevalence and burden of respiratory viruses in stable and acute asthma and will drive future research and clinical practice.</p

Management of asthma in childhood : study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank

Introduction Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted. Methods and analysis Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank. PROSPERO registration numbers CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624.Peer reviewe

Management of asthma in childhood: study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank

Introduction Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted. Methods and analysis Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively. Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank. PROSPERO registration numbers CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624