-
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Sep 2022Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common disorders of gut-brain interaction, with a complex pathophysiology. Antispasmodics are prescribed as first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common disorders of gut-brain interaction, with a complex pathophysiology. Antispasmodics are prescribed as first-line therapy because of their action on gut dysmotility. In this regard, peppermint oil also has antispasmodic properties.
AIM
To update our previous meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of peppermint oil, particularly as recent studies have cast doubt on its role in the treatment of IBS METHODS: We searched the medical literature up to 2nd April 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of peppermint oil in IBS. Efficacy and safety were judged using dichotomous assessments of effect on global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain, and occurrence of any adverse event or of gastro-oesophageal reflux. Data were pooled using a random effects model, with efficacy and safety reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
We identified 10 eligible RCTs (1030 patients). Peppermint oil was more efficacious than placebo for global IBS symptoms (RR of not improving = 0.65; 95% CI 0.43-0.98, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4; 95% CI 2.5-71), and abdominal pain (RR of abdominal pain not improving = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.93, NNT = 7; 95% CI 4-24). Adverse event rates were significantly higher with peppermint oil (RR of any adverse event = 1.57; 95% CI 1.04-2.37).
CONCLUSIONS
Peppermint oil was superior to placebo for the treatment of IBS, but adverse events were more frequent, and quality of evidence was very low. Adequately powered RCTs of peppermint oil as first-line treatment for IBS are needed.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Mentha piperita; Parasympatholytics; Plant Oils; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35942669
DOI: 10.1111/apt.17179 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Nov 2022To determine the diagnostic agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine the diagnostic agreement of non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in children.
METHOD
The study methodology followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases were searched for comparative studies exploring refraction performed on children under non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic conditions. There was no restriction on the year of publication; however, only publications in the English language were eligible. Inclusion criteria consisted of children aged ≤12 years, any degree or type of refractive error, either sex and no ocular or binocular co-morbidities. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to synthesise data from all included studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were undertaken for those studies with a risk of bias.
RESULTS
Ten studies consisting of 2724 participants were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The test for overall effect was not significant when comparing non-cycloplegic Plusoptix and cycloplegic autorefractors (Z = 0.34, p = 0.74). The pooled mean difference (MD) was -0.08 D (95% CI -0.54 D, +0.38 D) with a prediction interval of -1.72 D to +1.56 D. At less than 0.25 D, this indicates marginal overestimation of myopia and underestimation of hyperopia under non-cycloplegic conditions. When comparing non-cycloplegic autorefraction with a Retinomax and Canon autorefractor to cycloplegic refraction, a significant difference was found (Z = 9.79, p < 0.001) and (Z = 4.61, p < 0.001), respectively.
DISCUSSION
Non-cycloplegic Plusoptix is the most useful autorefractor for estimating refractive error in young children with low to moderate levels of hyperopia. Results also suggest that cycloplegic refraction must remain the test of choice when measuring refractive error ≤12 years of age. There were insufficient data to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. Further research is needed to investigate the agreement between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction in relation to the type and level of refractive error at different ages.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Hyperopia; Mydriatics; Myopia; Refraction, Ocular; Refractive Errors; Vision Tests
PubMed: 35913773
DOI: 10.1111/opo.13022 -
Diabetologia Oct 2022The physiological counterregulatory response to hypoglycaemia is reported to be organised hierarchically, with hormone responses usually preceding symptomatic awareness... (Review)
Review
AIM/HYPOTHESIS
The physiological counterregulatory response to hypoglycaemia is reported to be organised hierarchically, with hormone responses usually preceding symptomatic awareness and autonomic responses preceding neuroglycopenic responses. To compare thresholds for activation of these responses more accurately between people with or without type 1 diabetes, we performed a systematic review on stepped hyperinsulinaemic-hypoglycaemic glucose clamps.
METHODS
A literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted. We included articles published between 1980 and 2018 involving hyperinsulinaemic stepped hypoglycaemic glucose clamps among people with or without type 1 diabetes. Key exclusion criteria were as follows: data were previously published; other patient population; a clamp not the primary intervention; and an inadequate clamp description. Glycaemic thresholds for counterregulatory hormone and/or symptom responses to hypoglycaemia were estimated and compared using generalised logrank test for interval-censored data, where the intervals were either extracted directly or calculated from the data provided by the study. A glycaemic threshold was defined as the glucose level at which the response exceeded the 95% CI of the mean baseline measurement or euglycaemic control clamp. Because of the use of interval-censored data, we described thresholds using median and IQR.
RESULTS
A total of 63 articles were included, whereof 37 papers included participants with type 1 diabetes (n=559; 67.4% male sex, aged 32.7±10.2 years, BMI 23.8±1.4 kg/m) and 51 papers included participants without diabetes (n=733; 72.4% male sex, aged 31.1±9.2 years, BMI 23.6±1.1 kg/m). Compared with non-diabetic control individuals, in people with type 1 diabetes, the median (IQR) glycaemic thresholds for adrenaline (3.8 [3.2-4.2] vs 3.4 [2.8-3.9 mmol/l]), noradrenaline (3.2 [3.2-3.7] vs 3.0 [2.8-3.1] mmol/l), cortisol (3.5 [3.2-4.2]) vs 2.8 [2.8-3.4] mmol/l) and growth hormone (3.8 [3.3-3.8] vs. 3.2 [3.0-3.3] mmol/l) all occurred at lower glucose levels in people with diabetes than in those without diabetes (all p≤0.01). Similarly, although both autonomic (median [IQR] 3.4 [3.4-3.4] vs 3.0 [2.8-3.4] mmol/l) and neuroglycopenic (median [IQR] 3.4 [2.8-N/A] vs 3.0 [3.0-3.1] mmol/l) symptom responses were elicited at lower glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes, the thresholds for autonomic and neuroglycopenic symptoms did not differ for each individual subgroup.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION
People with type 1 diabetes have glycaemic thresholds for counterregulatory hormone and symptom responses at lower glucose levels than people without diabetes. Autonomic and neuroglycopenic symptoms responses are generated at about similar levels of hypoglycaemia. There was a considerable variation in the methodology of the articles and the high insulin doses in most of the clamps may affect the counterregulatory responses.
FUNDING
This article has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement no. 777460.
REGISTRATION
This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019120083).
Topics: Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Epinephrine; Female; Growth Hormone; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Male; Norepinephrine
PubMed: 35867127
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-022-05749-8 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2022Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.
RESULTS
The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.
CONCLUSION
UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35857184
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x -
Advances in Therapy Sep 2022Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.
METHODS
This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).
RESULTS
The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).
CONCLUSION
The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Androstadienes; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines
PubMed: 35849317
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02231-0 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Oct 2022Switching inhaler regimens can be driven by poor disease control but also by nonclinical factors, such as cost and environmental impact. The consequences of switching...
BACKGROUND
Switching inhaler regimens can be driven by poor disease control but also by nonclinical factors, such as cost and environmental impact. The consequences of switching for nonclinical reasons are largely unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the real-world consequences of switching inhaler regimens for nonclinical reasons in asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, and EconLit were searched to November 21, 2020. Conference searches and reference checking were also performed. Real-world studies of asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients undergoing a switch in inhaler regimen for any reason apart from clinical need were included. Two reviewers screened and extracted data. Key outcomes included symptom control, exacerbations, and patient-doctor relationships.
RESULTS
A total of 8,958 records were screened and 21 studies included. Higher-quality (matched comparative) studies were prioritized. Five matched studies (6 datasets) reported on symptom control: 5 datasets (n = 7,530) with unclear patient consent reported improved disease control following switching, and 1 dataset (n = 1,648) with non-consented patients reported significantly worsened disease control. Three matched studies (5 datasets, n = 10,084) reported on exacerbation rate ratios; results were heterogeneous depending on the definition used. Two studies (n = 137) reported that switching inhaler regimens could have a negative impact on the doctor-patient relationship, especially when the switches were non-consented. Study quality was generally low.
CONCLUSIONS
Switching inhaler regimens is a complex issue that can have variable clinical consequences and can harm the patient-doctor relationship. Limited high-quality evidence was identified, and study designs were heterogeneous. A robust framework is needed to guide the personalized switching of inhalers.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Clinical Protocols; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Physician-Patient Relations; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 35750323
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.039 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Respiratory disease is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF), and many different therapies are used by people with CF in the management of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Respiratory disease is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF), and many different therapies are used by people with CF in the management of respiratory problems. Bronchodilator therapy is used to relieve symptoms of shortness of breath and to open the airways to allow clearance of mucus. Despite the widespread use of inhaled bronchodilators in CF, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy. A Cochrane Review looking at both short- and long-acting inhaled bronchodilators for CF was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library in 2016. That review has been replaced by two separate Cochrane Reviews: one on long-acting inhaled bronchodilators for CF, and this review on short-acting inhaled bronchodilators for CF. For this review 'inhaled' includes the use of pressurised metered dose inhalers (MDIs), with or without a spacer, dry powder devices and nebulisers.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate short-acting inhaled bronchodilators in children and adults with CF in terms of clinical outcomes and safety.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books on 28 March 2022 and searched trial registries for any new or ongoing trials on 12 April 2022. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that looked at the effect of any short-acting inhaled bronchodilator delivered by any device, at any dose, at any frequency and for any duration compared to either placebo or another short-acting inhaled bronchodilator in people with CF. We screened references as per standard Cochrane methodology.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Where we were not able to enter data into our analyses we reported results directly from the papers. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials from our systematic search, with 191 participants meeting our inclusion criteria; three of these trials had three treatment arms. Eight trials compared short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists to placebo and four trials compared short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists to placebo. Three trials compared short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists to short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists. All were cross-over trials with only small numbers of participants. We were only able to enter data into the analysis from three trials comparing short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists to placebo. Short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists versus placebo All eight trials (six single-dose trials and two longer-term trials) reporting on this comparison reported on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV), either as per cent predicted (% predicted) or L. We were able to combine the data from two trials in a meta-analysis which showed a greater per cent change from baseline in FEV L after beta-2 agonists compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 6.95%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 12.02; 2 trials, 82 participants). Only one of the longer-term trials reported on exacerbations, as measured by hospitalisations and courses of antibiotics. Only the second longer-term trial presented results for participant-reported outcomes. Three trials narratively reported adverse events, and these were all mild. Three single-dose trials and the two longer trials reported on forced vital capacity (FVC), and five trials reported on peak expiratory flow, i.e. forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% (FEF). One trial reported on airway clearance in terms of sputum weight. We judged the certainty of evidence for each of these outcomes to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the effect of short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists on any of the outcomes we assessed. Short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists versus placebo All four trials reporting on this comparison looked at the effects of ipratropium bromide, but in different doses and via different delivery methods. One trial reported FEV % predicted; three trials measured this in L. Two trials reported adverse events, but these were few and mild. One trial reported FVC and three trials reported FEF. None of the trials reported on quality of life, exacerbations or airway clearance. We judged the certainty of evidence for each of these outcomes to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the effect of short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists on any of the outcomes we assessed. Short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists versus short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists None of the three single-dose trials reporting on this comparison provided data we could analyse. The original papers from three trials report that both treatments lead to an improvement in FEV L. Only one trial reported on adverse events; but none were experienced by any participant. No trial reported on any of our other outcomes. We judged the certainty of evidence to be very low, meaning we are very uncertain about the effect of short-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists compared to short-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonists on any of the outcomes we assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
All included trials in this review are small and of a cross-over design. Most trials looked at very short-term effects of inhaled bronchodilators, and therefore did not measure longer-term outcomes. The certainty of evidence across all outcomes was very low, and therefore we have been unable to describe any effects with certainty.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adult; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists
PubMed: 35749226
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013666.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Physicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Physicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients. Prophylactic antiemetics may be one option to reduce opioid-associated nausea and vomiting. However, these medications also have their own adverse effects, so it is important to understand their efficacy and safety prior to routine use. This is a review of randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care for preventing opioid-associated nausea and vomiting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in adults (aged 16 years or older) receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) from inception to January 2022, and Google Scholar (17 January 2022). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and screened reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care in adults prior to receiving an intravenous opioid.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MG, JNC) independently determined the eligibility of each study according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MG, GDP) then independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, number of vomiting episodes, and number of participants requiring antiemetic rescue therapy. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (e.g. presence of vomiting, presence of nausea, number of participants requiring rescue medication, adverse events) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference for continuous data (e.g. number of vomiting episodes, nausea severity) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies involving 527 participants (187 women and 340 men) with a mean age of 42 years. All studies used intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) as the intervention and a placebo for the comparator. No studies assessed any other antiemetic or compared the intervention to standard care. Compared to placebo, metoclopramide did not reduce vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.32; low-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; low-certainty evidence) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.61; low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding the number of vomiting episodes. Metoclopramide did reduce the severity of nausea compared with placebo (MD -0.49, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.23; low-certainty evidence) but did not reduce the need for rescue medication (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.16; low-certainty evidence). Two studies were at unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, one for blinding of outcome assessors, one for incomplete outcome data, and two for selective reporting. The studies were at low risk of bias for all remaining components.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence that prophylactic metoclopramide affected the risk of vomiting, nausea, or the need for rescue medication when provided prior to intravenous opioids in the acute care setting. There was a clinically insignificant difference in nausea severity when comparing prophylactic metoclopramide with placebo. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. Future research could better delineate the effects of prophylactic antiemetics on specific populations, and new studies are needed to evaluate the use of other prophylactic antiemetic agents, for which there were no data.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Vomiting
PubMed: 35588093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013860.pub2 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2022Several large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination regimens versus non-ICS therapy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination regimens versus non-ICS therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at increased risk of exacerbation risk with mixed results.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the effect of ICS-containing combination therapy and non-ICS regimen in patients with COPD.
RESULTS
A total of 54 RCTs (N = 57,333) reported treatment effects on various outcomes and were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the number of patients experiencing moderate/severe exacerbations was significantly lower for ICS-containing combination therapy versus non-ICS therapy (RR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.80-0.93]). The annual rate of exacerbations was also significantly reduced by 22% (0.78 [0.72-0.86]) with ICS-containing versus non-ICS therapy. The annual rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation was reduced by 31% versus non-ICS therapy (0.69 [0.54-0.88]); similar reduction was observed for exacerbations requiring oral steroids (0.69 [0.66-0.73]). Overall, the effect on trough FEV1 was comparable between ICS-containing and non-ICS therapies (follow-up: 6-52 weeks); however, a significant improvement in lung function (trough FEV1) was observed for ICS/LABA versus LABA (MD: +0.04 L [0.03-0.05]) and ICS/LABA/LAMA versus LAMA (MD: +0.09 L [0.05-0.13]) regimens. In addition, a significant improvement in QoL was observed with ICS-containing versus non-ICS therapy (MD in SGRQ score: -0.90 [-1.50, -0.31]).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that a wide range of patients with COPD could benefit from dual and triple ICS-containing therapy.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35547781
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S347588 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2022Spontaneous pneumomediastinum (SPM) during pregnancy or labor is a rare event. We presented a case report and a systematic review of the literature to provide... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spontaneous pneumomediastinum (SPM) during pregnancy or labor is a rare event. We presented a case report and a systematic review of the literature to provide comprehensive symptoms, treatments, and complications analysis in the pregnant population affected by SPM.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of four databases for published papers in all languages from the beginning to 1 September 2021; Results: We included 76 papers with a total of 80 patients. A total of 76% patients were young primiparous, with a median age of 24 ± 5.4 years. The median gestational age was 40 ± 2.4 weeks, with a median duration of labor of 7.4 ± 4.2 h. In 86%, the ethnic origin was not specified. SPM develops in 55% of cases during the second stage of labor. Subcutaneous swelling and subcutaneous emphysema were present in 91.4%. Chest pain and dyspnea were present in 51.4% and 50% of the patients, respectively. We found that 32.9% patients had crepitus, and less common symptoms were dysphonia and tachycardia (14.3% and 14.3%, respectively). Oxygen and bronchodilators were used in 37.7% of the cases. Analgesics or sedatives were administered in 27.1%. Conservative management or the observation was performed in 21.4% and 28.6%, respectively. Antibiotics treatment was offered in 14.3%, whereas invasive procedures such as chest-tube drainage were used in just 5.7% of patients. There were no complications documented in most SPM (70.0%). We found that 16.7% of the SPM developed a pneumothorax and 5% developed a pneumopericardium.; Conclusions: In pregnancy, SPM occurs as subcutaneous swelling or emphysema during the second stage of labor. The treatment is usually conservative, with oxygen and bronchodilators and a low sequela rate. A universal consensus on therapy of spontaneous pneumomediastinum in pregnancy is necessary to reduce the risk of complications.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bronchodilator Agents; Child, Preschool; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Mediastinal Emphysema; Oxygen; Pregnancy; Subcutaneous Emphysema; Syndrome; Young Adult
PubMed: 35457486
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084618