-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Asthma is an illness that commonly affects adults and children, and it serves as a common reason for children to attend emergency departments. An asthma exacerbation is...
BACKGROUND
Asthma is an illness that commonly affects adults and children, and it serves as a common reason for children to attend emergency departments. An asthma exacerbation is characterised by acute or subacute worsening of shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness and may be triggered by viral respiratory infection, poor compliance with usual medication, a change in the weather, or exposure to allergens or irritants. Most children with asthma have mild or moderate exacerbations and respond well to first-line therapy (inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and systemic corticosteroids). However, the best treatment for the small proportion of seriously ill children who do not respond to first-line therapy is not well understood. Currently, a large number of treatment options are available and there is wide variation in management.
OBJECTIVES
Main objective - To summarise Cochrane Reviews with or without meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of second-line treatment for children with acute exacerbations of asthma (i.e. after first-line treatments, titrated oxygen delivery, and administration of intermittent inhaled short-acting beta-agonists and oral corticosteroids have been tried and have failed) Secondary objectives - To identify gaps in the current evidence base that will inform recommendations for future research and subsequent Cochrane Reviews - To categorise information on reported outcome measures used in trials of escalation of treatment for acute exacerbations of asthma in children, and to make recommendations for development and reporting of standard outcomes in future trials and reviews - To identify relevant randomised controlled trials that have been published since the date of publication of each included review METHODS: We included Cochrane Reviews assessing interventions for children with acute exacerbations of asthma. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search is current to 28 December 2019. We also identified trials that were potentially eligible for, but were not currently included in, published reviews. We assessed the quality of included reviews using the ROBIS criteria (tool used to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews). We presented an evidence synthesis of data from reviews alongside an evidence map of clinical trials. Primary outcomes were length of stay, hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, and adverse effects. We summarised all findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 17 potentially eligible Cochrane Reviews but extracted data from, and rated the quality of, 13 reviews that reported results for children alone. We excluded four reviews as one did not include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one did not provide subgroup data for children, and the last two had been updated and replaced by subsequent reviews. The 13 reviews included 67 trials; the number of trials in each review ranged from a single trial up to 27 trials. The vast majority of comparisons included between one and three trials, involving fewer than 100 participants. The total number of participants included in reviews ranged from 40 to 2630. All studies included children; 16 (24%) included children younger than two years of age. Most of the reviews reported search dates older than four years. We have summarised the published evidence as outlined in Cochrane Reviews. Key findings, in terms of our primary outcomes, are that (1) intravenous magnesium sulfate was the only intervention shown to reduce hospital length of stay (high-certainty evidence); (2) no evidence suggested that any intervention reduced the risk of intensive care admission (low- to very low-certainty evidence); (3) the risk of hospital admission was reduced by the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta-agonists (moderate-certainty evidence), the use of intravenous magnesium sulfate (high-certainty evidence), and the use of inhaled heliox (low-certainty evidence); (4) the addition of inhaled magnesium sulfate to usual bronchodilator therapy appears to reduce serious adverse events during hospital admission (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) aminophylline increased vomiting compared to placebo (moderate-certainty evidence) and increased nausea and nausea/vomiting compared to intravenous beta-agonists (low-certainty evidence); and (6) the addition of anticholinergic therapy to short-acting beta-agonists appeared to reduce the risk of nausea (high-certainty evidence) and tremor (moderate-certainty evidence) but not vomiting (low-certainty evidence). We considered 4 of the 13 reviews to be at high risk of bias based on the ROBIS framework. In all cases, this was due to concerns regarding identification and selection of studies. The certainty of evidence varied widely (by review and also by outcome) and ranged from very low to high.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on interventions for escalation of therapy for acute exacerbations of asthma in children from Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials. A vast majority of comparisons involved between one and three trials and fewer than 100 participants, making it difficult to assess the balance between benefits and potential harms. Due to the lack of comparative studies between various treatment options, we are unable to make firm practice recommendations. Intravenous magnesium sulfate appears to reduce both hospital length of stay and the risk of hospital admission. Hospital admission is also reduced with the addition of inhaled anticholinergic agents to inhaled beta-agonists. However, further research is required to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from these therapies. Due to the relatively rare incidence of acute severe paediatric asthma, multi-centre research will be required to generate high-quality evidence. A number of existing Cochrane Reviews should be updated, and we recommend that a new review be conducted on the use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Important priorities include development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future trials in acute severe asthma exacerbations and determination of clinically important differences in these outcomes, which can then inform adequately powered future trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Aminophylline; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asthma; Bias; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholinergic Antagonists; Disease Progression; Helium; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Leukotriene Antagonists; Magnesium Sulfate; Nausea; Oxygen; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Vomiting; Work of Breathing
PubMed: 32767571
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012977.pub2 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Sep 2021Prostatitis seriously endangers the health of men. While they have been widely used in recent years, there remains a lack of systematic evaluation of the clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Prostatitis seriously endangers the health of men. While they have been widely used in recent years, there remains a lack of systematic evaluation of the clinical efficacy of α-receptor blockers (α-RBs)/α-adrenergic receptor blockers (α-ARBs) in its treatment. Based on this, this study was developed to systematically evaluate the clinical effect of α-ARB in the treatment of prostatitis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying α-RBs or α-ARBs, placebos, or other measures to treat prostatitis were searched in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and CBM databases from establishment to December 2020. The quality of included articles was evaluated using the Cochrane System Review Manual and Jadad tools, and a meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of six articles meeting the requirements were found and included 450 patients. Meta-analysis showed that the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score [mean difference (MD) =-1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-3.35 to -0.17), and P=0.03], pain score [MD =-2.24, 95% CI: (-3.65 to -0.83), and P=0.002], voiding symptom score [MD =-1.21, 95% CI: (-2.06 to -0.35), and P=0.006], and quality of life score [MD =-1.40, 95% CI: (-1.48 to -1.33), and P<0.00001] for patients in the experimental group were lower in contrast to those in the control group after the treatment.
DISCUSSION
The use of α-ARB could significantly improve the treatment effect of patients with prostatitis and improve their quality of life.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Chronic Disease; Humans; Male; Prostatitis; Receptors, Adrenergic, alpha; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 34628913
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2160 -
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 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2022Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles... (Review)
Review
Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I2 = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I2 = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I2 = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm.
Topics: Humans; Tamsulosin; Ureteral Calculi; Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36556996
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58121794 -
Drugs in Context 2022Few randomized controlled trials evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for overactive bladder (OAB). This network meta- analysis compares the...
BACKGROUND
Few randomized controlled trials evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for overactive bladder (OAB). This network meta- analysis compares the long-term (52-week) efficacy and safety of vibegron, mirabegron and anticholinergics for the treatment of OAB.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and terms related to OAB. Efficacy outcomes included change from baseline to week 48-52 in mean daily total urinary incontinence (UI) episodes, mean daily number of micturitions and volume voided/micturition. Efficacy outcomes were analysed using Bayesian models. Commonly reported adverse events (AEs) are described.
RESULTS
Of 2098 hits retrieved, 5 publications and 1 study report describing 5 unique randomized controlled trials were included in the analyses. Mean (95% credible interval) change from baseline in total UI episodes for vibegron 75 mg (-2.2; -2.9 to -1.5) showed a significantly greater reduction than mirabegron 50 mg (-1.3; -1.9 to -0.8) and tolterodine 4 mg extended release (-1.6; -2.1 to -1.1). No significant differences were observed between vibegron and comparators for daily micturitions or volume voided/micturition. Within the manuscripts, the 4 most common AEs (range) for anticholinergics included dry mouth (5.2-90.0%), constipation (7.7-65.0%), blurred vision (3.8-35.0%) and hypertension (8.6-9.6%); the 4 most commonly reported AEs for β-adrenergic agonists included hypertension (8.8-9.2%), urinary tract infection (5.9-6.6%), headache (5.5%) and nasopharyngitis (4.8-5.2%).
CONCLUSION
Vibegron was associated with significantly greater improvement in daily total UI episodes at 52 weeks than mirabegron and tolterodine. When reported, the most common AE for anticholinergics was dry mouth and for β-adrenergic agonists was hypertension. Hypertension incidence was similar between drug classes.
PubMed: 36303599
DOI: 10.7573/dic.2022-4-2 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Oct 2021AKI is a common complication after pediatric cardiac surgery and has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the efficacy of available... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
AKI is a common complication after pediatric cardiac surgery and has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the efficacy of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies to prevent AKI after pediatric cardiac surgery.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for randomized controlled trials from inception until August 2020. Random effects traditional pairwise, Bayesian network meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty randomized controlled trials including 2339 patients and 11 preventive strategies met the eligibility criteria. No overall significant differences were observed compared with control for corticosteroids, fenoldopam, hydroxyethyl starch, or remote ischemic preconditioning in traditional pairwise meta-analysis. In contrast, trial sequential analysis suggested a 80% relative risk reduction with dexmedetomidine and evidence of <57% relative risk reduction with remote ischemic preconditioning. Nonetheless, the network meta-analysis was unable to demonstrate any significant differences among the examined treatments, including also acetaminophen, aminophylline, levosimendan, milrinone, and normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve probabilities showed that milrinone (76%) was most likely to result in the lowest risk of AKI, followed by dexmedetomidine (70%), levosimendan (70%), aminophylline (59%), normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (57%), and remote ischemic preconditioning (55%), although all showing important overlap.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the efficacy of most strategies to prevent AKI in the pediatric population, apart from limited evidence for dexmedetomidine and remote ischemic preconditioning.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Age Factors; Bayes Theorem; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Ischemic Preconditioning; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34620647
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05800421 -
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology : HJC =... 2023Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a fatal X-linked recessive disease affecting approximately 1 in 3500 births. It is characterized by a genetic lack of dystrophin, which is... (Review)
Review
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a fatal X-linked recessive disease affecting approximately 1 in 3500 births. It is characterized by a genetic lack of dystrophin, which is an essential protein for maintaining muscle integrity. The lack of dystrophin plays a pathophysiological role in the development of dilated cardiomyopathy in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Currently, no consensus exists on specific pharmacological therapy guidelines for these patients; however, it centers around the guidelines for heart failure management. This systematic review investigated 12 randomized control trials dating back to 2005 in the pharmacotherapy of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This review specifically included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aldosterone receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Despite their limitations, these studies have shown promising effects in improving the overall heart function and prognosis in patients with this condition. However, to attain higher statistical significance, future studies should investigate larger populations and for longer periods.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Dystrophin; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists
PubMed: 37406964
DOI: 10.1016/j.hjc.2023.06.007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clonidine is a presynaptic alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been used for many years to treat hypertension and other conditions, including chronic pain. Adverse events associated with systemic use of the drug have limited its application. Topical use of drugs has been gaining interest since the beginning of the century, as it may limit adverse events without loss of analgesic efficacy. Topical clonidine (TC) formulations have been investigated for almost 20 years in clinical trials. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 8, 2015.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of TC compared with placebo or other drugs in adults aged 18 years or above with chronic neuropathic pain.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid) databases, and reference lists of retrieved papers and trial registries. We also contacted experts in the field. The most recent search was performed on 27 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least two weeks' duration comparing TC versus placebo or other active treatment in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author if necessary. Where required, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with P values. We used Review Manager Web software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. The review primary outcomes were: participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater; participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater; much or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC); and very much improved on PGIC. Secondary outcomes included withdrawals due to adverse events; participants experiencing at least one adverse event; and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. All outcomes were measured at the longest follow-up period. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies in the review (two new in this update), with a total of 743 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). TC (0.1% or 0.2%) was applied in gel form to the painful area two to three times daily. The double-blind treatment phase of three studies lasted 8 weeks to 85 days and compared TC versus placebo. In the fourth study, the double-blind treatment phase lasted 12 weeks and compared TC versus topical capsaicin. We assessed the studies as at unclear or high risk of bias for most domains; all studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment; one study was at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel; two studies were at high risk of attrition bias; and three studies were at high risk of bias due to notable funding concerns. We judged the certainty of evidence (GRADE) to be moderate to very low, downgrading for study limitations, imprecision of results, and publication bias. TC compared to placebo There was no evidence of a difference in number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.86; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). However, the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater during longest follow-up period (8 to 12 weeks) was higher in the TC group compared with placebo (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.77; 344 participants; 2 studies, very low certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for this comparison was 8.33 (95% CI 4.3 to 50.0). Also, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for the outcomes much or very much improved on the PGIC during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) or very much improved on PGIC during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49 and RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.72, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). We observed no evidence of a difference between groups in withdrawals due to adverse events and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy during the longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.18 and RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.92, respectively; 179 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence) and participants experiencing at least one adverse event during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.05; 344 participants; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). TC compared to active comparator There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater during longest follow-up period (12 weeks) between groups (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.0; 139 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This is an update of a review published in 2015, for which our conclusions remain unchanged. Topical clonidine may provide some benefit to adults with painful diabetic neuropathy; however, the evidence is very uncertain. Additional trials are needed to assess TC in other neuropathic pain conditions and to determine whether it is possible to predict who or which groups of people will benefit from TC.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Clonidine; Diabetic Neuropathies; Humans; Neuralgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35587172
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010967.pub3 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology May 2024To evaluate efficacy and safety of beta-3 adrenergic agonists in adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate efficacy and safety of beta-3 adrenergic agonists in adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to a protocol (CRD42022350079), we searched multiple data sources for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 2nd August 2022. Two review authors independently screened studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE).
RESULTS
We found data to inform two comparisons: beta-3 adrenergic agonists versus placebo (4 RCTs) and anticholinergics (2 RCTs). Only mirabegron was used for intervention in all included studies. Compared to placebo, beta-3 adrenergic agonists may have a clinically unimportant effect on urinary symptoms score (mean difference [MD] -2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.78 to -0.22; ²=92%; 2 RCTs; 192 participants; low CoE) based on minimal clinically important difference of 3. We are very uncertain of the effects of beta-3 adrenergic agonists on quality of life (MD 10.86, 95% CI 1.21 to 20.50; ²=41%; 2 RCTs; 98 participants; very low CoE). Beta-3 adrenergic agonists may result in little to no difference in major adverse events (cardiovascular adverse events) (risk ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.37; ²=0%; 4 RCTs; 310 participants; low CoE). Compared to anticholinergics, no study reported urinary symptom scores and quality of life. There were no major adverse events (cardiovascular adverse events) in either study group (1 study; 60 participants; very low CoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, beta-3 adrenergic agonists may have similar effects on urinary symptom scores and major adverse events. There were uncertainties about their effects on quality of life. Compared to anticholinergics, we are either very uncertain or have no evidence about urinary symptom scores, quality of life, and major adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Adrenergic beta-3 Receptor Agonists; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic; Treatment Outcome; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38714512
DOI: 10.4111/icu.20230271 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.
Topics: Adult; Male; Adolescent; Humans; Middle Aged; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Asthma; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Administration, Inhalation
PubMed: 36472162
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013799.pub2