-
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2021To present an updated overview on the safety of concurrent use of food, herbal or dietary supplement and warfarin. (Review)
Review
AIMS
To present an updated overview on the safety of concurrent use of food, herbal or dietary supplement and warfarin.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed on 5 databases from inception up to 31 December 2019. These interactions were classified depending on the likelihood of interaction and supporting evidences.
RESULTS
A total of 149 articles describing 78 herbs, food or dietary supplements were reported to interact with warfarin. These reports described potentiation with 45 (57.7%) herbs, food or dietary supplements while 23 (29.5%) reported inhibition and 10 (12.8%) reported limited impact on warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Twenty unique herb and dietary supplements also reported to result in minor bleeding events, such as purpura and gum bleeding as well as major events such as intracranial bleeding that led to death.
CONCLUSION
While most food, herbs and supplements can be safely taken in moderation, healthcare professionals should be aware of the increased risk of bleeding when taking several food and herbs. These include Chinese wolfberry, chamomile tea, cannabis, cranberry, chitosan, green tea, Ginkgo biloba, ginger, spinach, St. John's Wort, sushi and smoking tobacco. Patients should be counselled to continue to seek advice from their healthcare professionals when starting any new herbs, food or supplement.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Ginkgo biloba; Herb-Drug Interactions; Humans; Phytotherapy; Warfarin
PubMed: 32478963
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14404 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2021To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Network Meta-Analysis; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management
PubMed: 34642179
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2321 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Dementia is a common chronic condition, mainly affecting older adults, characterised by a progressive decline in cognitive and functional abilities. Medical treatments... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a common chronic condition, mainly affecting older adults, characterised by a progressive decline in cognitive and functional abilities. Medical treatments for dementia are limited. Cannabinoids are being investigated for the treatment of dementia.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register - on 8 July 2021, using the terms cannabis or cannabinoid or endocannabinoid or cannabidiol or THC or CBD or dronabinol or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or marijuana or marihuana or hashish. The register contains records from all major healthcare databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many clinical trials registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia. We included participants of any age and of either sex with diagnosed dementia of any subtype, or with unspecified dementia of any severity, from any setting. We considered studies of cannabinoids administered by any route, at any dose, for any duration, compared with placebo, no treatment, or any active control intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. When necessary, other review authors were involved in reaching consensus decisions. We conducted meta-analyses using a generic inverse variance fixed-effect model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the effect estimates.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies (126 participants) in this review. Most participants had Alzheimer's disease; a few had vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Three studies had low risk of bias across all domains; one study had unclear risk of bias for the majority of domains. The included studies tested natural delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (Namisol) and two types of synthetic THC analogue (dronabinol and nabilone). Three trials had a cross-over design. Interventions were applied over 3 to 14 weeks; one study reported adverse events over 70 weeks of follow-up. One trial was undertaken in the USA, one in Canada, and two in The Netherlands. Two studies reported non-commercial funding, and two studies were conducted with the support of both commercial and non-commercial funding. Primary outcomes in this review were changes in global and specific cognitive function, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), and adverse events. We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be little or no clinically important effect of a synthetic THC analogue on cognition assessed with the standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE) (mean difference (MD) 1.1 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 2.1; 1 cross-over trial, 28 participants). We found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be little or no clinically important effect of cannabinoids on overall behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (or its modified nursing home version) (MD -1.97, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.07; 1 parallel group and 2 cross-over studies, 110 participants). All included studies reported data on adverse events. However, the total number of adverse events, the total numbers of mild and moderate adverse events, and the total number of serious adverse events (SAEs) were not reported in a way that permitted meta-analysis. There were no clear differences between groups in numbers of adverse events, with the exception of sedation (including lethargy), which was more frequent among participants taking nabilone (N = 17) than placebo (N = 6) (odds ratio (OR) 2.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 7.48; 1 cross-over study, 38 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence for adverse event outcomes to be low or very low due to serious concerns regarding imprecision and indirectness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on data from four small, short, and heterogeneous placebo-controlled trials, we cannot be certain whether cannabinoids have any beneficial or harmful effects on dementia. If there are benefits of cannabinoids for people with dementia, the effects may be too small to be clinically meaningful. Adequately powered, methodologically robust trials with longer follow-up are needed to properly assess the effects of cannabinoids in dementia.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Dementia, Vascular; Humans
PubMed: 34532852
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012820.pub2 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jul 2022Melasma is a common pigmentary disorder with a complex pathogenesis, of which the treatment is challenging. Conventional treatment often leads to inconsistent results... (Review)
Review
Melasma is a common pigmentary disorder with a complex pathogenesis, of which the treatment is challenging. Conventional treatment often leads to inconsistent results with unexpected pigmentary side effects and high recurrence rates. Recently, the low-fluence Q-switched Nd:YAG laser (LFQSNY) has been widely used for treating melasma, especially in Asia. We reviewed literatures on the LFQSNY treatment of melasma published between 2009 and May 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events, including its combination therapy. A systematic PubMed search was conducted and a total of 42 articles were included in this study. It was hard to summarize the heterogenous studies, but LFQSNY appeared to be a generally effective and safe treatment for melasma considering the results of previous conventional therapies. However, mottled hypopigmentation has been occasionally reported to develop and persist as an adverse event of LFQSNY, which may be associated with the high accumulated laser energy. When used aggressively, even LFQSNY can induce hyperpigmentation via unwanted inflammation, especially in darker skin. Although few studies have reported considerable recurrence rates three months after treatment, unfortunately, there is a lack of the long-term follow-up results of LFQSNY in melasma. To enhance the effectiveness and reduce the adverse events, LFQSNY has been used in combination with other treatment modalities in melasma, including topical bleaching agents, oral tranexamic acid, chemical peeling, or diverse energy-based devices, which generally reduced side effects with or without significant superior efficacy compared to LFQSNY alone.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Hyperpigmentation; Lasers, Solid-State; Low-Level Light Therapy; Melanosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35888655
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58070936 -
Ageing Research Reviews Jul 2021To investigate the effects of monoclonal antibodies against Aβ on cognition, function, amyloid PET and other biomarkers, as well as risk for amyloid-related imaging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-β on clinical and biomarker outcomes and adverse event risks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III RCTs in Alzheimer's disease.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effects of monoclonal antibodies against Aβ on cognition, function, amyloid PET and other biomarkers, as well as risk for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and other adverse events, in Alzheimer's disease (AD).
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and gray literature were searched for phase III RCTs and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (12,585 patients) were included. Antibodies statistically improved the cognitive outcomes ADAS-Cog {SMD = -0.06 [95 % CI (-0.10; -0.02), I = 0%]} and MMSE {SMD = 0.05 [95 % CI (0.01; 0.09), I = 0%]} by small effect sizes, but did not improve the cognitive/functional measure CDR-SOB {SMD = -0.03 [95 % CI (-0.07; 0.01), I = 18 %]}. Moreover, antibodies decreased amyloid PET SUVR {SMD = -1.02 [95 % CI (-1.70; -0.34), I = 95 %]} and CSF p181-tau {SMD = -0.87 [95 % CI (-1.32; -0.43), I = 89 %]} by large effect sizes. They also increased risk for ARIA {RR = 4.30 [95 % CI (2.39; 7.77), I = 86 %]} by a large effect size. Antibody effects on reducing amyloid PET SUVR were correlated with their effects on improving ADAS-Cog (r = +0.68, p = 0.02). In subgroup analyses by individual drug, Aducanumab improved ADAS-Cog, CDR-SOB, ADCS-ADL by small effect sizes and decreased amyloid PET SUVR and CSF p181-tau by large effect sizes. Solanezumab improved ADAS-Cog and MMSE by small effect sizes, and increased (improved) CSF Aβ levels by a moderate effect size. Bapineuzumab, Gantenerumab and Crenezumab did not improve any clinical outcomes. Bapineuzumab and Gantenerumab decreased CSF p181-tau by a small and large effect size, respectively. All drugs except Solanezumab increased ARIA risk.
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis of phase III trials in AD, we found that monoclonal antibodies against Aβ induced clinical improvements of small effect sizes, biomarker improvements of large effect sizes, and increases in risk for the hallmark adverse event, ARIA, by a large effect size, when all drugs were pooled together. Among individual drugs, Aducanumab produced the most favorable effects followed by Solanezumab. These findings provide moderate support for the continuous development of anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies as a treatment for AD.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Amyloidogenic Proteins; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Biomarkers; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Cognition; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33831607
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101339 -
JAMA Oncology Jul 2019Programmed cell death (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have been increasingly used in cancer therapy. Understanding the treatment-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Programmed cell death (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have been increasingly used in cancer therapy. Understanding the treatment-related adverse events of these drugs is critical for clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the incidences of treatment-related adverse events of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors and the differences between different drugs and cancer types.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were searched from October 1, 2017, through December 15, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Published clinical trials on single-agent PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors with tabulated data on treatment-related adverse events were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Trial name, phase, cancer type, PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor used, dose escalation, dosing schedule, number of patients, number of all adverse events, and criteria for adverse event reporting data were extracted from each included study, and bayesian multilevel regression models were applied for data analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Incidences of treatment-related adverse events and differences between different drugs and cancer types.
RESULTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis included 125 clinical trials involving 20 128 patients; 12 277 (66.0%) of 18 610 patients from 106 studies developed at least 1 adverse event of any grade (severity), and 2627 (14.0%) of 18 715 patients from 110 studies developed at least 1 adverse event of grade 3 or higher severity. The most common all-grade adverse events were fatigue (18.26%; 95% CI, 16.49%-20.11%), pruritus (10.61%; 95% CI, 9.46%-11.83%), and diarrhea (9.47%; 95% CI, 8.43%-10.58%). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were fatigue (0.89%; 95% CI, 0.69%-1.14%), anemia (0.78%; 95% CI, 0.59%-1.02%), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (0.75%; 95% CI, 0.56%-0.99%). Hypothyroidism (6.07%; 95% CI, 5.35%-6.85%) and hyperthyroidism (2.82%; 95% CI, 2.40%-3.29%) were the most frequent all-grade endocrine immune-related adverse events. Nivolumab was associated with higher mean incidences of all-grade adverse events compared with pembrolizumab (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97-1.79) and grade 3 or higher adverse events (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.89-2.00). PD-1 inhibitors were associated with a higher mean incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events compared with PD-L1 inhibitors (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.00-2.54).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Different PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors appear to have varying treatment-related adverse events; a comprehensive summary of the incidences of treatment-related adverse events in clinical trials provides an important guide for clinicians.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; B7-H1 Antigen; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neoplasms; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
PubMed: 31021376
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0393 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2022Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious...
BACKGROUND
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal bullous disease of the skin. First-line treatment of systemic corticosteroids may cause serious adverse events. Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab should be explored as alternative treatment options to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab treatment outcomes in bullous pemphigoid.
METHODS
A PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library search were conducted on March 10, 2022. A total of 75 studies were included using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
RESULTS
Use of rituximab (n=122), omalizumab (n=53) and dupilumab (n=36) were reported in 211 patients with BP. Rituximab led to complete remission in 70.5% (n=86/122) and partial remission in 23.8% (n=29/122) of patients within 5.7 months, with a recurrence rate of 20.5% (n=25/122). 9.0% (n=11/122) of patients died and infection (6.6%, n=8/122) was the most common adverse event. Omalizumab led to complete remission in 67.9% (n=36/53) and partial remission in 20.8% (n=11/53) of patients within 6.6 months, with a recurrence rate of 5.7% (n=3/53). 1.9% (n=1/53) of patients died and thrombocytopenia (1.9%, n=1/53) was observed as the most common adverse event. Dupilumab led to complete remission in 66.7% (n=24/36) and partial remission in 19.4% (n=7/36) of patients within 4.5 months of treatment without any reported adverse events, with a recurrence rate of 5.6% (n=2/36).
CONCLUSIONS
Rituximab, omalizumab, and dupilumab have similar clinical benefits for BP patients. However, rituximab resulted in higher recurrence rates, adverse events, and mortality rates.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022316454.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Humans; Omalizumab; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Rituximab; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35769474
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.928621 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Dec 2023Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a novel antibody-drug-conjugate (ADC), primarily used in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. This study aimed to conduct a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is a novel antibody-drug-conjugate (ADC), primarily used in the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of T-DXd in treating breast cancer, based on clinical trials. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of T-DXd in breast cancer. Clinical trials of any phase were included. Outcome measures were any adverse events and survival. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible. Pooled prevalence for each adverse event of any grade and grade 3 or greater were estimated. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rates (ORRs) were also reported to evaluate the efficacy of T-DXd in breast cancer. A total of 1593 patients from 6 clinical trials were included. Common adverse events of any grade were nausea, anemia, neutropenia, vomiting, fatigue, constipation and diarrhea, occurring in greater than 30% of cases. In terms of adverse events of grade 3 or more, only anemia and neutropenia occurred at a relatively high rate. Median PFS ranged from 11.1 to 22.1 months. There was evidence of a benefit of T-DXd compared to controls in terms of both PFS (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.45) and OS (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.78). ORRs ranged from 37% to 79.9%. The present systematic review shows evidence that T-DXd is a safe and effective agent in the treatment of breast cancer based on currently available data. The most common adverse events affected the blood, lymphatic and gastrointestinal systems. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a notable and potentially serious adverse event.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Trastuzumab; Camptothecin; Neutropenia; Anemia; Receptor, ErbB-2
PubMed: 37775347
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2023.09.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic and progressive disease, often punctuated by recurrent flare-ups or exacerbations. Magnesium sulfate, having a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic and progressive disease, often punctuated by recurrent flare-ups or exacerbations. Magnesium sulfate, having a bronchodilatory effect, may have a potential role as an adjunct treatment in COPD exacerbations. However, comprehensive evidence of its effects is required to facilitate clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of magnesium sulfate for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, EU Clinical Trials Register and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. We also searched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences and reference lists of included studies up to 2 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included single- or double-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing magnesium sulfate in adults with COPD exacerbations. We excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were: hospital admissions (from the emergency room); need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV), assisted ventilation or admission to intensive-care unit (ICU); and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: length of hospital stay, mortality, adverse events, dyspnoea score, lung function and blood gas measurements. We assessed confidence in the evidence using GRADE methodology. For missing data, we contacted the study investigators.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 RCTs (10 double-blind and 1 single-blind) with a total 762 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 62 to 76 years. Trials were single- or two-centre trials conducted in Iran, New Zealand, Nepal, Turkey, the UK, Tunisia and the USA between 2004 and 2018. We judged studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains. Three studies were at high risk for blinding and other biases. Intravenous magnesium sulfate versus placebo Seven studies (24 to 77 participants) were included. Fewer people may require hospital admission with magnesium infusion compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 7; 3 studies, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous magnesium may result in little to no difference in the requirement for non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reported cases of endotracheal intubation (2 studies, 107 participants) or serious adverse events (1 study, 77 participants) in either group. Included studies did not report intensive care unit (ICU) admission or deaths. Magnesium infusion may reduce the length of hospital stay by a mean difference (MD) of 2.7 days (95% CI 4.73 days to 0.66 days; 2 studies, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence) and improve dyspnoea score by a standardised mean difference of -1.40 (95% CI -1.83 to -0.96; 2 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were uncertain about the effect of magnesium infusion on improving lung function or oxygen saturation. For all adverse events, the Peto OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.00; 102 participants); however, the event rate was too low to reach a robust conclusion. Nebulised magnesium sulfate versus placebo Three studies (20 to 172 participants) were included. Magnesium inhalation may have little to no impact on hospital admission (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or need for ventilatory support (NIV or mechanical ventilation) (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.20; very low-certainty evidence). It may result in fewer ICU admissions compared to placebo (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in dyspnoea (MD -14.37, 95% CI -26.00 to -2.74; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events reported in either group. There was one reported death in the placebo arm in one trial, but the number of participants was too small for a conclusion. There was limited evidence about the effect of magnesium inhalation on length of hospital stay, lung function outcomes or oxygen saturation. Included studies did not report adverse events. Magnesium sulfate versus ipratropium bromide A single study with 124 participants assessed nebulised magnesium sulfate plus intravenous magnesium infusion versus nebulised ipratropium plus intravenous normal saline. There was little to no difference between these groups in terms of hospital admission (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.37), endotracheal intubation (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.71) and length of hospital stay (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 2.42), all with very low-certainty evidence. There were no data available for non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and serious adverse events. Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium sulfate may be associated with fewer hospital admissions, reduced length of hospital stay and improved dyspnoea scores compared to placebo. There is no evidence of a difference between magnesium infusion and placebo for NIV, lung function, oxygen saturation or adverse events. We found no evidence for ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, serious adverse events or mortality. For nebulised magnesium sulfate, we are unable to draw conclusions about its effects in COPD exacerbations for most of the outcomes. Studies reported possibly lower ICU admissions and a lesser degree of dyspnoea with magnesium inhalation compared to placebo; however, larger studies are required to yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes. Similarly, we could not identify any robust evidence for magnesium sulfate compared to ipratropium bromide. Future well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples are required, including subgroups according to severity of exacerbations and COPD phenotypes.
Topics: Disease Progression; Dyspnea; Humans; Ipratropium; Magnesium; Magnesium Sulfate; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35616126
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013506.pub2