-
Frontiers in Public Health 2023This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences (MD) between treatment and control groups in myopia progression (D) and axial length (AL) elongation (mm).
RESULTS
The following interventions were found to be effective ( < 0.001): highly aspherical lenslets (HAL, 0.80 D, 95% CI, 0.77-0.83; -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.34), MiSight contact lenses (0.66 D, 95% CI, 0.63-0.69; -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.27), low dose atropine 0.05% (0.54 D, 95% CI, 0.38-0.70; -0.21 mm, 95% CI-0.28 to -0.14), Biofinity +2.50 D (0.45 D, 95% CI, 0.29, 0.61; -0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.15), defocus incorporated multiple segments [DIMS] (0.44 D, 95% CI, 0.42-0.46; -0.34 mm, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.33) and ortho-k lenses (-0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -01.5).
CONCLUSION
Low-dose atropine 0.01% was not effective in reducing AL progression in two studies. Treatment efficacy with low-dose atropine of 0.05% showed good efficacy. Spectacles (HAL and DIMS) and contact lenses (MiSight and Biofinity) may confer a comparable treatment benefit compared to atropine, to slow myopia progression.
Topics: Humans; Myopia; Atropine; Treatment Outcome; Contact Lenses; Eyeglasses
PubMed: 37033047
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125000 -
Journal of the Formosan Medical... Dec 2022Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), atropine eye drops and combined atropine with Ortho-K are proven to be effective ways to prevent myopic progression in many studies, but there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Orthokeratology (Ortho-K), atropine eye drops and combined atropine with Ortho-K are proven to be effective ways to prevent myopic progression in many studies, but there is scarce evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of different dosages of atropine,Ortho-K, and combined atropine with Ortho-K for childhood myopia.
METHODS
We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy of the aforementioned interventions for myopic progression; moreover, we calculated the surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) to determine the relative ranking of treatments.
RESULTS
We identified 19 randomized controlled trials (3435 patients). NMA revealed that 0.01%-1% atropine, Ortho-K, and 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K inhibited axial elongation (AL) over one year. For refractive change, SUCRA analysis revealed that the hierarchy was high-dose (0.5%-1%), moderate-dose (0.1%-0.25%), and low-dose (0.01%-0.05%) atropine. Regarding AL, SUCRA analysis revealed the following hierarchy: Ortho-K combined with 0.01% atropine, high-dose atropine, moderate-dose atropine, Ortho-K, and low-dose atropine.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we found that atropine (0.01%-1%), Ortho-K, and 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K could significantly slow down myopia progression. The atropine efficacy followed a dose-related pattern; moreover, Ortho-K and low-dose atropine showed similar efficacy. There was a synergistic effect of using 0.01% atropine combined with Ortho-K, and it showed comparable efficacy to that of high-dose atropine.
Topics: Humans; Child; Orthokeratologic Procedures; Atropine; Axial Length, Eye; Network Meta-Analysis; Myopia
PubMed: 35688780
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2022.05.005 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2024Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antipsychotic-induced akathisia (AIA) occurs in 14% to 35% of patients treated with antipsychotics and is associated with increased suicide and decreased adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, no comprehensive review and network meta-analysis has been conducted to compare the efficacy of treatments for AIA.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy associated with AIA treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Three databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched by multiple researchers for double-blind randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing active drugs for the treatment of AIA with placebo or another treatment between May 30 and June 18, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were RCTs that compared adjunctive drugs for AIA vs placebo or adjunctive treatment in patients treated with antipsychotics fulfilling the criteria for akathisia, RCTs with sample size of 10 patients or more, only trials in which no additional drugs were administered during the study, and RCTs that used a validated akathisia score. Trials with missing data for the main outcome (akathisia score at the end points) were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) through pairwise and network meta-analysis with a random-effects model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the severity of akathisia measured by a validated scale at the last available end point.
RESULTS
Fifteen trials involving 492 participants compared 10 treatments with placebo. Mirtazapine (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -1.20; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.58), biperiden (6 mg/d for ≥14 days; SMD, -1.01; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.34), vitamin B6 (600-1200 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.57 to -0.26), trazodone (50 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.14), mianserin (15 mg/d for ≥5 days; SMD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.44 to -0.19), and propranolol (20 mg/d for ≥6 days; SMD, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.22) were associated with greater efficacy than placebo, with low to moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 34.6%; 95% CI, 0.0%-71.1%). Cyproheptadine, clonazepam, zolmitriptan, and valproate did not yield significant effects. Eight trials were rated as having low risk of bias; 2, moderate risk; and 5, high risk. Sensitivity analyses generally confirmed the results for all drugs except for cyproheptadine and propranolol. No association between effect sizes and psychotic severity was found.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, mirtazapine, biperiden, and vitamin B6 were associated with the greatest efficacy for AIA, with vitamin B6 having the best efficacy and tolerance profile. Trazodone, mianserin, and propranolol appeared as effective alternatives with slightly less favorable efficacy and tolerance profiles. These findings should assist prescribers in selecting an appropriate medication for treating AIA.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Biperiden; Cyproheptadine; Gallopamil; Mianserin; Mirtazapine; Network Meta-Analysis; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trazodone; Vitamin B 6; Akathisia, Drug-Induced
PubMed: 38451521
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.1527 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2015Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD).
METHODS
A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV1 (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06-125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50-129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10-125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20-169.20]); 24-week trough FEV1 (128.10 mL [84.10-172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10-148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45-117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51-155.30]); 24-week St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (-4.60 [-6.76 to -2.54]; -3.14 [-3.83 to -2.45]; -2.43 [-2.92 to -1.93]; -4.69 [-7.05 to -2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41-1.59]; 1.01 [0.79-1.22]; 0.82 [0.62-1.02]; 1.00 [0.49-1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; -0.41 puffs/day [-0.62 to -0.20]; -0.52 puffs/day [-0.74 to -0.30]; -0.30 puffs/day [-0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV1, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were -12.8 mL (-39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (-7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (-11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (-11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (-5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (-15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered.
CONCLUSION
The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician's and patient's preference.
Topics: Aged; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Lung; Male; Middle Aged; Muscarinic Antagonists; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Spirometry; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome; Tropanes
PubMed: 26604738
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S92412 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Escalating awareness of the magnitude of the challenge posed by low levels of physical activity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) highlights... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Escalating awareness of the magnitude of the challenge posed by low levels of physical activity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) highlights the need for interventions to increase physical activity participation. The widely-accepted benefits of physical activity, coupled with the increasing availability of wearable monitoring devices to objectively measure participation, has led to a dramatic rise in the number and variety of studies that aimed to improve the physical activity of people with COPD. However, little was known about the relative efficacy of interventions tested so far.
OBJECTIVES
In people with COPD, which interventions are effective at improving objectively-assessed physical activity?
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register Register, which contains records identified from bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO. We also searched PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal and the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (from inception to June 2019). We checked reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references, as well as respiratory journals and respiratory meeting abstracts, to identify relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of interventions that used objective measures for the assessment of physical activity in people with COPD. Trials compared an intervention with no intervention or a sham/placebo intervention, an intervention in addition to another standard intervention common to both groups, or two different interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. Subgroup analyses were possible for supervised compared to unsupervised pulmonary rehabilitation programmes in clinically-stable COPD for a range of physical activity outcomes. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, adverse events and adherence. Insufficient data were available to perform prespecified subgroup analyses by duration of intervention or disease severity. We undertook sensitivity analyses by removing studies that were at high or unclear risk of bias for the domains of blinding and incomplete outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 76 studies with 8018 participants. Most studies were funded by government bodies, although some were sponsored by equipment or drug manufacturers. Only 38 studies had physical activity as a primary outcome. A diverse range of interventions have been assessed, primarily in single studies, but improvements have not been systematically demonstrated following any particular interventions. Where improvements were demonstrated, results were confined to single studies, or data for maintained improvement were not provided. Step count was the most frequently reported outcome, but it was commonly assessed using devices with documented inaccuracy for this variable. Compared to no intervention, the mean difference (MD) in time in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) following pulmonary rehabilitation was four minutes per day (95% confidence interval (CI) -2 to 9; 3 studies, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). An improvement was demonstrated following high-intensity interval exercise training (6 minutes per day, 95% CI 4 to 8; 2 studies, 275 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One study demonstrated an improvement following six months of physical activity counselling (MD 11 minutes per day, 95% CI 7 to 15; 1 study, 280 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but we found mixed results for the addition of physical activity counselling to pulmonary rehabilitation. There was an improvement following three to four weeks of pharmacological treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting beta-agonist (LAMA/LABA) compared to placebo (MD 10 minutes per day, 95% CI 4 to 15; 2 studies, 423 participants; high-certainty evidence). These interventions also demonstrated improvements in other measures of physical activity. Other interventions included self-management strategies, nutritional supplementation, supplemental oxygen, endobronchial valve surgery, non-invasive ventilation, neuromuscular electrical stimulation and inspiratory muscle training.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A diverse range of interventions have been assessed, primarily in single studies. Improvements in physical activity have not been systematically demonstrated following any particular intervention. There was limited evidence for improvement in physical activity with strategies including exercise training, physical activity counselling and pharmacological management. The optimal timing, components, duration and models for interventions are still unclear. Assessment of quality was limited by a lack of methodological detail. There was scant evidence for a continued effect over time following completion of interventions, a likely requirement for meaningful health benefits for people with COPD.
Topics: Exercise; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Telerehabilitation
PubMed: 32297320
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012626.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2011Acetylcholinesterase inhibition by organophosphorus pesticides or organophosphate nerve agents can cause acute parasympathetic system dysfunction, muscle weakness,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acetylcholinesterase inhibition by organophosphorus pesticides or organophosphate nerve agents can cause acute parasympathetic system dysfunction, muscle weakness, seizures, coma, and respiratory failure. Prognosis depends on the dose and relative toxicity of the specific compound, as well as pharmacokinetic factors.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute organophosphorus poisoning? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 62 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: activated charcoal (single or multiple doses), alpha(2) adrenergic receptor agonists, atropine, benzodiazepines, butyrylcholinesterase replacement therapy, cathartics, extracorporeal clearance, gastric lavage, glycopyrronium bromide (glycopyrrolate), ipecacuanha (ipecac), magnesium sulphate, milk or other home remedy immediately after ingestion, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists, organophosphorus hydrolases, oximes, removing contaminated clothes and washing the poisoned person, and sodium bicarbonate.
Topics: Acute Disease; Atropine; Charcoal; Gastric Lavage; Humans; Organophosphate Poisoning; Pesticides; Poisoning; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 21575287
DOI: No ID Found -
Urologia Internationalis 2023The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the main classes of drugs used at reducing morbidity related to ureteric stents.
BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the main classes of drugs used at reducing morbidity related to ureteric stents.
SUMMARY
After establishing a priori protocol, a systematic electronic literature search was conducted in July 2019. The randomized clinical trials (RCTs) selection proceeded in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered (PROSPERO ID 178130). The risk of bias and the quality assessment of the included RCTs were performed. Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and quality of life (QoL) were pooled for meta-analysis. Mean difference and risk difference were calculated as appropriate for each outcome to determine the cumulative effect size. Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis accounting for 2,842 patients. Alpha antagonist, antimuscarinic, and phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors significatively reduced all indexes of the USSQ, the IPSS and QoL scores relative to placebo. Conversely, combination therapy (alpha antagonist plus antimuscarinic) showed in all indexes of the USSQ, IPSS, and QoL over alpha antagonist or antimuscarinic alone. On comparison with alpha blockers, PDE inhibitors were found to be equally effective for urinary symptoms, general health, and body pain parameters, but sexual health parameters improved significantly with PDE inhibitors. Finally, antimuscarinic resulted in higher decrease in all indexes of the USSQ, the IPSS, and QoL relative to alpha antagonist.
KEY MESSAGE
Relative to placebo, alpha antagonist alone, antimuscarinics alone, and PDE inhibitors alone have beneficial effect in reducing stent-related symptoms. Furthermore, there are significant advantages of combination therapy compared with monotherapy. Finally, PDE inhibitors are comparable to alpha antagonist, and antimuscarinic seems to be more effective than alpha antagonist alone.
Topics: Humans; Male; Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Muscarinic Antagonists; Pain; Quality of Life; Stents; Ureter
PubMed: 34818261
DOI: 10.1159/000518387 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Middle Aged; Monte Carlo Method; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pneumonia; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30521694
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012620.pub2 -
Heliyon Jun 2022Airway inflammation is crucial in the pathogenesis of many respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Current evidence... (Review)
Review
Airway inflammation is crucial in the pathogenesis of many respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Current evidence supports the beneficial impact of muscarinic receptor antagonists against airway inflammation from bench-to-bedside. Considering the numerous sampling approaches and the ethical implications required to study inflammation in vivo in patients, the use of pre-clinical models is inevitable. Starting from our recently published systematic review concerning the impact of muscarinic antagonists, we have systematically assessed the current pharmacological models of airway inflammation and provided an overview on the advances in in vitro and ex vivo approaches. The purpose of in vitro models is to recapitulate selected pathophysiological parameters or processes that are crucial to the development of new drugs within a controlled environment. Nevertheless, immortalized cell lines or primary airway cells present major limitations, including the inability to fully replicate the conditions of the corresponding cell types within a whole organism. Induced animal models are extensively used in research in the attempt to replicate a respiratory condition reflective of a human pathological state, although considering animal models with spontaneously occurring respiratory diseases may be more appropriate since most of the clinical features are accompanied by lung pathology resembling that of the human condition. In recent years, three-dimensional organoids have become an alternative to animal experiments, also because animal models are unable to fully mimic the complexity of human pulmonary diseases. Ex vivo studies performed on human isolated airways have a superior translational value compared to in vitro and animal models, as they retain the morphology and the microenvironment of the lung in vivo. In the foreseeable future, greater effort should be undertaken to rely on more physiologically relevant models, that provide translational value into clinic and have a direct impact on patient outcomes.
PubMed: 35785239
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09760 -
Respiratory Research Nov 2017Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The new combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (TIO) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The new combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (TIO) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA) olodaterol (OLO) has been introduced as fist line therapy for COPD. This article analyses the evidence of efficacy and safety of the TIO/OLO combination.
METHODS
A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a period of treatment of at least 6 weeks, in patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry, comparing combined treatment with TIO/OLO (approved doses only), with any of the mono-components or any other active comparator administered as an inhalator.
RESULTS
A total of 10 Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified (N = 10,918). TIO/OLO significantly improved trough FEV from baseline to week 12 versus TIO, OLO and LABA/ICS (0.06 L, 0.09 L and between 0.04 and 0.05 L, respectively). TIO/OLO improved transitional dyspnea index (TDI) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) compared with mono-components, with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in TDI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.07, 1.28] versus TIO and RR: 1.14, 95%CI: [1.01, 1.28] versus OLO) and in SGRQ (RR: 1.21, 95%CI: [1.12, 1.30] versus TIO and RR: 1.28, 95%CI: [1.18, 1.40] versus OLO). Patients treated with TIO/OLO showed a significant reduction in the use of rescue medication and no significant differences in frequency of general and serious adverse events were observed between TIO/OLO and mono-components.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with TIO/OLO provided significant improvements in lung function versus mono-components and LABA/ICS with more patients achieving significant improvements in dyspnea and health status. No differences in adverse events were observed compared with other active treatments.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO register of systematic reviews ( CRD42016040162 ).
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Benzoxazines; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Combinations; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spirometry; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29178871
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-017-0683-x