-
Chest Nov 2023Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient care must include confirming a diagnosis with postbronchodilator spirometry. Because of the clinical heterogeneity and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient care must include confirming a diagnosis with postbronchodilator spirometry. Because of the clinical heterogeneity and the reality that airflow obstruction assessed by spirometry only partially reflects disease severity, a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient should include assessment of symptom burden and risk of exacerbations that permits the implementation of evidence-informed pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. This guideline provides recommendations from a comprehensive systematic review with a meta-analysis and expert-informed clinical remarks to optimize maintenance pharmacologic therapy for individuals with stable COPD, and a revised and practical treatment pathway based on new evidence since the 2019 update of the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Guideline. The key clinical questions were developed using the Patients/Population (P), Intervention(s) (I), Comparison/Comparator (C), and Outcome (O) model for three questions that focuses on the outcomes of symptoms (dyspnea)/health status, acute exacerbations, and mortality. The evidence from this systematic review and meta-analysis leads to the recommendation that all symptomatic patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD should receive long-acting bronchodilator maintenance therapy. Those with moderate to severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council ≥ 2) and/or impaired health status (COPD Assessment Test ≥ 10) and a low risk of exacerbations should receive combination therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ẞ2-agonist (LAMA/LABA). For those with a moderate/severe dyspnea and/or impaired health status and a high risk of exacerbations should be prescribed triple combination therapy (LAMA/LABA/inhaled corticosteroids) azithromycin, roflumilast or N-acetylcysteine is recommended for specific populations; a recommendation against the use of theophylline, maintenance systemic oral corticosteroids such as prednisone and inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy is made for all COPD patients.
Topics: Humans; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bronchodilator Agents; Canada; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Muscarinic Antagonists; Administration, Inhalation; Dyspnea; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 37690008
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.08.014 -
Shock (Augusta, Ga.) Dec 2023Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background: Septic shock is a distributive shock with decreased systemic vascular resistance and MAP. Septic shock contributes to the most common causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). Current guidelines recommend the use of norepinephrine as the first-line vasopressor, whereas adrenergic agonists and vasopressin analogs are also commonly used by physicians. To date, very few studies have synthetically compared the effects of multiple types of vasoactive medications. The aim of this study was to systemically evaluate the efficacy of vasoactive agents both individually and in combination to treat septic shock. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to May 12, 2022, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasopressors. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was the ICU length of stay. Adverse events are defined as any undesirable outcomes, including myocardial infarction, cardiac arrhythmia, peripheral ischemia, or stroke and cerebrovascular events. Findings: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials comprising 4,966 patients and assessing 8 types of vasoactive treatments were included in the network meta-analysis. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve provided a ranking of vasoactive medications in terms of 28-day all-cause mortality from most effective to least effective: norepinephrine plus dobutamine, epinephrine, vasopressin, terlipressin, norepinephrine, norepinephrine plus vasopressin, dopamine, and dobutamine. Dopamine was associated with a significantly shorter ICU stay than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin, whereas other vasoactive medications showed no definite difference in ICU length of stay. Regarding adverse events, norepinephrine was associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Dopamine was associated with the highest incidence of cardiac arrhythmia. Epinephrine and terlipressin were associated with the highest incidences of myocardial infarction and peripheral ischemia. Interpretation: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that norepinephrine plus dobutamine is associated with a lower risk of 28-day mortality in septic shock patients than other vasoactive medications, and the use of dopamine is associated with a higher risk of 28-day mortality due to septic shock than norepinephrine, terlipressin, and vasopressin.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Septic; Dopamine; Terlipressin; Dobutamine; Network Meta-Analysis; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Epinephrine; Norepinephrine; Vasopressins; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Ischemia; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 37548686
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000002193 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Oct 2023Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
BACKGROUND
Pain after craniotomy can be intense and its management is often suboptimal.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after craniotomy.
DESIGN
A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken.
DATA SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021 assessing pain after craniotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Each randomised controlled trial (RCT) and systematic review was critically evaluated and included only if met the PROSPECT requirements. Included studies were evaluated for clinically relevant differences in pain scores, use of nonopioid analgesics, such as paracetamol and NSAIDs, and current clinical relevance.
RESULTS
Out of 126 eligible studies identified, 53 RCTs and seven systematic review or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion, regional analgesia techniques, including incision-site infiltration, scalp nerve block and acupuncture. Limited evidence was found for flupirtine, intra-operative magnesium sulphate infusion, intra-operative lidocaine infusion, infiltration adjuvants (hyaluronidase, dexamethasone and α-adrenergic agonist added to local anaesthetic solution). No evidence was found for metamizole, postoperative subcutaneous sumatriptan, pre-operative oral vitamin D, bilateral maxillary block or superficial cervical plexus block.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for craniotomy should include paracetamol, NSAIDs, intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion and a regional analgesic technique (either incision-site infiltration or scalp nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further RCTs are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Humans; Pain Management; Dexmedetomidine; Acetaminophen; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Craniotomy; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37417808
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001877 -
European Journal of Pharmacology Nov 2023Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is a multifactorial, complex pathophysiological process in clinical settings. In recent years, intestinal IRI has received... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) is a multifactorial, complex pathophysiological process in clinical settings. In recent years, intestinal IRI has received increasing attention due to increased morbidity and mortality. To date, there are no effective treatments. Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a highly selective α-adrenergic receptor agonist, has been demonstrated to be effective against intestinal IRI. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and potential mechanisms of DEX as a treatment for intestinal IRI in animal models.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were searched until March 15, 2023. Using the SYRCLE risk bias tool, we assessed methodological quality. Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA 12 and R 4.2.2. We analyzed the related outcomes (mucosa damage-related indicators; inflammation-relevant markers, oxidative stress markers) relied on the fixed or random-effects models.
RESULTS
There were 15 articles including 18 studies included, and 309 animals were involved in the studies. Compared to the model groups, DEX improved intestinal IRI. DEX decreased Chiu's score and serum diamine oxidase (DAO) level. DEX reduced the level of inflammation-relevant markers (interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α). DEX also improved oxidative stress (decreased malondialdehyde (MDA), increased superoxide dismutase (SOD)).
CONCLUSIONS
DEX's effectiveness in ameliorating intestinal IRI has been demonstrated in animal models. Antioxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-apoptotic, anti-pyroptosis, anti-ferroptosis, enhancing mitophagy, reshaping the gut microbiota, and gut barrier protection are possible mechanisms. However, in light of the heterogeneity and methodological quality of these studies, further well-designed preclinical studies are warranted before clinical implication.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Dexmedetomidine; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Reperfusion Injury; Inflammation; Ischemia
PubMed: 37778612
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.176090 -
The Clinical Respiratory Journal Oct 2023Montelukast is a highly selective and specific cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist used in the treatment of asthma. Whether montelukast as adjuvant therapy can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Montelukast is a highly selective and specific cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist used in the treatment of asthma. Whether montelukast as adjuvant therapy can significantly and safely treat adults with cough variant asthma (CVA) remains inconclusive.
AIMS
This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of montelukast as an adjuvant treatment for adults with CVA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on montelukast combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) to treat CVA in adults, from inception to March 6, 2023, were retrieved from the CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases and Clinical Trials website. Review Manager (version 5.4) and Stata (version 15.0) were used to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 15 RCTs were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. It was established that montelukast as adjuvant therapy raised the total effective rate (RR = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.13, 1.27], P < 0.01) and improved the FEV1% (SMD = 0.91, 95% CI [0.40, 1.41], P < 0.01), PEF% (SMD = 0.63, 95% CI [0.38, 0.88], P < 0.01), FEV1 (SMD = 1.15, 95% CI [0.53, 1.77], P < 0.01), PEF (SMD = 0.64, 95% CI [0.42, 0.86], P < 0.01), and FEV1/FVC% (SMD = 0.76, 95% CI [0.51, 1.01], P < 0.01) and reduced the recurrence rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.15, 0.53], P < 0.01). The incidence of adverse reactions was higher in the montelukast auxiliary group compared to the control group but with no statistical difference (RR = 1.32, 95% CI [0.89, 1.96], P = 0.17).
CONCLUSION
Existing evidence indicated that the use of montelukast as an adjuvant therapy had therapeutic efficacy superior to ICS + LABA alone for the treatment of adult patients with CVA. However, further research is needed, especially a combination of high-quality long-term prospective studies and carefully designed RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Cough; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Drug Therapy, Combination; Asthma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 37218346
DOI: 10.1111/crj.13629 -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... Feb 2024Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences.... (Review)
Review
Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective alpha-2-adrenoreceptor agonist, has piqued interest as a viable alternative for neonates, owing to its potential analgesic and neuroprotective attributes. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine utilization in neonates. We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL, spanning from January 2010 to September 2022. Our review encompassed six studies involving 252 neonates. Overall, dexmedetomidine may be effective in achieving sedation and analgesia. Furthermore, it may reduce the need for adjunctive sedation or analgesia, shorten the time to extubation, decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation, and accelerate the attainment of full enteral feeds. Notably, no significant adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were reported. Nevertheless, additional well-designed studies to establish both the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in neonatal care are needed.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Pain; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Pain Management; Analgesia
PubMed: 37845426
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-023-01802-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common chronic and bothersome condition. Bladder training is widely prescribed as a first-line treatment for OAB, but the efficacy has been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common chronic and bothersome condition. Bladder training is widely prescribed as a first-line treatment for OAB, but the efficacy has been systematically evaluated for urinary incontinence rather than OAB alone.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of bladder training for treating adults with OAB compared to no treatment, anticholinergics, β3-adrenoceptor agonists, or pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone or in combination.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 6 November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials involving adults aged 18 years or older with non-neurogenic OAB. We excluded studies of participants whose symptoms were caused by factors outside the urinary tract (e.g. neurologic disorders, cognitive impairment, gynecologic diseases).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported cure or improvement, 2. symptom- and condition-related quality of life (QoL), and 3.
ADVERSE EVENTS
Secondary outcomes included 4. participant-reported satisfaction, 5. number of incontinence episodes, 6. number of urgency episodes, and 7. number of micturition episodes. For the purpose of this review, we considered two time points: immediately after the treatment (early phase) and at least two months after the treatment (late phase). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 2007 participants; participants in these trials were predominantly women (89.3%). We assessed the risk of bias of results for primary and secondary outcomes, which across all studies was similar and predominantly of high risk of bias, and none were at low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, with some moderate, across measured outcomes. Bladder training versus no treatment: three studies involving 92 participants compared bladder training to no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on cure or improvement at the early phase (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 256.56; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bladder training may reduce the number of incontinence episodes (mean difference (MD) -1.86, 95% CI -3.47 to -0.25; 1 study, 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured symptom- and condition-related QoL, number of adverse events, participant-reported satisfaction, number of urgency episodes, or number of micturition episodes in the early phase. Bladder training versus anticholinergics: seven studies (602 participants) investigated the effects of bladder training versus anticholinergic therapy. Bladder training may be more effective than anticholinergics on cure or improvement at the early phase (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.70; 4 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on symptom- and condition-related QoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.77; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although the evidence is very uncertain, there were fewer adverse events in the bladder training group than in the anticholinergics group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17; 3 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.36, 95% CI -0.27 to 1.00; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the number of urgency episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.70, 95% CI -0.62 to 2.02; 2 studies, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.90 to 1.20; 3 studies, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured participant-reported satisfaction in the early phase. Bladder training versus PFMT: three studies involving 203 participants compared bladder training to PFMT. The evidence is very uncertain about the different effects between bladder training and PFMT on symptom- and condition-related QoL at the early phase (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.40; 2 studies, 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no adverse events in either group at the early phase (1 study, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, 1 study, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain about the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI -1.44 to 1.64; 1 study, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured cure or improvement, participant-reported satisfaction, or number of urgency episodes in the early phase. Although we were interested in studies examining bladder training versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists, in combination with β3-adrenoceptor agonists versus β3-adrenoceptor agonists alone, and in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone, we did not identify any eligible studies for these comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review focused on the effect of bladder training to treat OAB. However, most of the evidence was low or very-low certainty. Based on the low- or very low-certainty evidence, bladder training may cure or improve OAB compared to no treatment. Bladder training may be more effective to cure or improve OAB than anticholinergics, and there may be fewer adverse events. There may be no difference in efficacy or safety between bladder training and PFMT. More well-designed trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion.
Topics: Female; Adult; Humans; Male; Urinary Bladder, Overactive; Quality of Life; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Urinary Bladder; Pelvic Floor; Urinary Incontinence; Cholinergic Antagonists; Receptors, Adrenergic
PubMed: 37811598
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013571.pub2 -
European Journal of Clinical... Mar 2024Brown adipose tissue (BAT) has emerged as a potential therapeutic target for metabolic disorders due to its thermogenic and anti-obesity properties. β3-adrenergic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Brown adipose tissue (BAT) has emerged as a potential therapeutic target for metabolic disorders due to its thermogenic and anti-obesity properties. β3-adrenergic receptor (β3-AR) agonists have also gained attention as potential agents for BAT activation and metabolic regulation. Mirabegron, a selective β3-AR-agonist used clinically for overactive bladder syndrome, has been explored for its utility in metabolic disorders. However, the controversy surrounding the ability of mirabegron to activate BAT to accelerate metabolism requires further investigation. The aim of this systematic review is to characterize comprehensively the impact of mirabegron on human BAT and its metabolism.
METHODS
We searched PubMed Central, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant papers published from the date of database inception to March 2023 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We extracted data on primary outcome indicators such as BAT volume, BAT activity, body temperature, and resting energy expenditure (REE), as well as secondary outcome indicators such as heart rate (HR), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), blood glucose, and blood insulin from relevant studies. For studies that did not provide suitable data for meta-analysis, we used narrative data synthesis. For studies that provided suitable data for meta-analysis, we conducted meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software.
RESULTS
We reviewed 10 papers and included 6 in our meta-analysis. Our findings revealed no significant changes in BAT volume (p = 0.72) or blood glucose (p = 0.52) with mirabegron when compared to the placebo or pre-dose population. However, patients showed significant increases in BAT activity (p < 0.01), blood NEFA (p < 0.01), body temperature (p < 0.01), REE (p < 0.01), HR (p < 0.01), DBP (p < 0.01), SBP (p = 0.25), and blood insulin (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Through our meta-analysis of 6 papers, we found that mirabegron has the potential to increase human BAT activity, REE, NEFA content, body temperature, HR, blood pressure, and blood insulin content. These effects may lead to reductions in blood glucose levels in obese/overweight and diabetic patients. Additionally, the activation of BAT by mirabegron could represent a novel approach for treating obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE
CRD42023413446, 04/11/2023.
Topics: Humans; Acetanilides; Adipose Tissue, Brown; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus; Fatty Acids, Nonesterified; Insulins; Obesity; Thiazoles
PubMed: 38159219
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03614-0 -
Neurourology and Urodynamics Mar 2024Antimuscarinics and the β3-adrenoreceptor agonist, mirabegron, are commonly used for treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) and α -adrenoreceptor antagonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Safety and efficacy of an α -blocker plus mirabegron compared with an α -blocker plus antimuscarinic in men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
AIM
Antimuscarinics and the β3-adrenoreceptor agonist, mirabegron, are commonly used for treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) and α -adrenoreceptor antagonists (α -blockers) are the main pharmacological agents used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As these conditions commonly occur together, the aim of this systematic review was to identify publications that compared the use of an α -blocker plus mirabegron with an α -blocker plus antimuscarinic in men with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. A meta-analysis was subsequently conducted to explore the safety and efficacy of these combinations.
METHODS
Included records had to be from a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial that was ≥8 weeks in duration. Participants were male with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. The indirect analyses that were identified compared an α -blocker plus OAB agent with an α -blocker plus placebo. The PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, the Excerpta Medica Database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for relevant records up until March 5, 2020. Safety outcomes included incidences of overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and urinary retention, postvoid residual volume, and maximum urinary flow (Q ). Primary efficacy outcomes were micturitions/day, incontinence episodes/day, and urgency episodes/day, and secondary outcomes were Overactive Bladder Symptom Score and International Prostate Symptom Score. A Bayesian network meta-analysis approach was used for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Out of a total of 1039 records identified, 24 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the α -blocker plus mirabegron and α -blocker plus antimuscarinic groups in terms of the comparisons identified for all the safety and efficacy analyses conducted. Numerically superior results were frequently observed for the α -blocker plus mirabegron group compared with the α -blocker plus antimuscarinic group for the safety parameters, including TEAEs, urinary retention, and Q . For some of the efficacy parameters, most notably micturitions/day, numerically superior results were noted for the α -blocker plus antimuscarinic group. Inconsistency in reporting and study variability were noted in the included records, which hindered data interpretation.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that an α -blocker plus mirabegron and an α -blocker plus antimuscarinic have similar safety and efficacy profiles in male patients with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. Patients may, therefore, benefit from the use of either combination within the clinical setting.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Urinary Bladder, Overactive; Muscarinic Antagonists; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Urinary Retention; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Drug Therapy, Combination; Acetanilides; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Adrenergic beta-3 Receptor Agonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles
PubMed: 38291827
DOI: 10.1002/nau.25399 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2023Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Muscarinic Antagonists; Bronchodilator Agents; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Quality of Life; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dyspnea; Pneumonia; Disease Progression
PubMed: 38054551
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011600.pub3