-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥ 3%) may reduce these pathological changes and decrease airway obstruction. This is an update of a review first published in 2008, and updated in 2010, 2013, and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of nebulised hypertonic (≥ 3%) saline solution in infants with acute bronchiolitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science on 13 January 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using nebulised hypertonic saline alone or in conjunction with bronchodilators as an active intervention and nebulised 0.9% saline or standard treatment as a comparator in children under 24 months with acute bronchiolitis. The primary outcome for inpatient trials was length of hospital stay, and the primary outcome for outpatients or emergency department (ED) trials was rate of hospitalisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We used mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) as effect size metrics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six new trials (N = 1010) in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 34, involving 5205 infants with acute bronchiolitis, of whom 2727 infants received hypertonic saline. Eleven trials await classification due to insufficient data for eligibility assessment. All included trials were randomised, parallel-group, controlled trials, of which 30 were double-blinded. Twelve trials were conducted in Asia, five in North America, one in South America, seven in Europe, and nine in Mediterranean and Middle East regions. The concentration of hypertonic saline was defined as 3% in all but six trials, in which 5% to 7% saline was used. Nine trials had no funding, and five trials were funded by sources from government or academic agencies. The remaining 20 trials did not provide funding sources. Hospitalised infants treated with nebulised hypertonic saline may have a shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those treated with nebulised normal (0.9%) saline or standard care (mean difference (MD) -0.40 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to -0.11; 21 trials, 2479 infants; low-certainty evidence). Infants who received hypertonic saline may also have lower postinhalation clinical scores than infants who received normal saline in the first three days of treatment (day 1: MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.21; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 893 infants; day 2: MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.53; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 907 infants; day 3: MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.34; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 9 inpatient trials), 785 infants; low-certainty evidence). Nebulised hypertonic saline may reduce the risk of hospitalisation by 13% compared with nebulised normal saline amongst infants who were outpatients and those treated in the ED (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; 8 trials, 1760 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertonic saline may not reduce the risk of readmission to hospital up to 28 days after discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; 6 trials, 1084 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether infants who received hypertonic saline have a lower number of days to resolution of wheezing compared to those who received normal saline (MD -1.16 days, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.89; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence), cough (MD -0.87 days, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.44; 3 trials, 363 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and pulmonary moist crackles (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Twenty-seven trials presented safety data: 14 trials (1624 infants; 767 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 735 (96%) co-administered with bronchodilators) did not report any adverse events, and 13 trials (2792 infants; 1479 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 416 (28%) co-administered with bronchodilators and 1063 (72%) hypertonic saline alone) reported at least one adverse event such as worsening cough, agitation, bronchospasm, bradycardia, desaturation, vomiting and diarrhoea, most of which were mild and resolved spontaneously (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nebulised hypertonic saline may modestly reduce length of stay amongst infants hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis and may slightly improve clinical severity score. Treatment with nebulised hypertonic saline may also reduce the risk of hospitalisation amongst outpatients and ED patients. Nebulised hypertonic saline seems to be a safe treatment in infants with bronchiolitis with only minor and spontaneously resolved adverse events, especially when administered in conjunction with a bronchodilator. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes, mainly due to inconsistency and risk of bias.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Cough; Saline Solution; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 37014057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006458.pub5 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Sep 2023The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a black box warning on the mental health adverse effects of montelukast in 2020. Age-related effects on the risk of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a black box warning on the mental health adverse effects of montelukast in 2020. Age-related effects on the risk of developing specific neuropsychiatric events in montelukast users remain largely unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To describe the risk of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast in adults and children with asthma.
METHODS
A systematic search of all studies investigating neuropsychiatric events in montelukast users was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase from inception to 7 September 2022. Animal studies and conference abstracts were excluded.
RESULTS
59 studies (21 pharmacovigilance studies, four reviews from 172 randomised controlled trials, 20 observational studies, 10 case reports and four case series) evaluating neuropsychiatric events in patients with asthma on montelukast were reviewed. No significant association was shown between montelukast and suicide-related events in six of the observational studies. No association was found for depression as defined by the International Classification of Diseases 10 revision codes in three observational studies and a review of randomised clinical trials. However, findings from four studies using antidepressant prescriptions as the outcome identified significant associations. Consistent with nine pharmacovigilance studies, two large-scale observational studies revealed possible associations of montelukast with anxiety and sleeping disorders in adult patients with asthma, respectively. However, the results were not replicated in two observational studies on children.
CONCLUSION
Montelukast is not associated with suicide- and depression-related events in asthma patients. Older adults may be particularly susceptible to anxiety and sleeping disorders.
Topics: Child; Animals; Humans; Aged; Asthma; Acetates; Quinolines; Cyclopropanes; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 37758273
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0079-2023 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2021In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 μg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Formoterol Fumarate; Fumarates; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33929661
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01703-z -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate climates and in the rainy season in warmer countries. Bronchiolitis is a common reason for attendance at and admission to hospital.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of prophylactic interventions for bronchiolitis in high-risk children? What are the effects of measures to prevent transmission of bronchiolitis in hospital? What are the effects of treatments for children with bronchiolitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 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 59 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: antibiotics, bronchodilators (oral, inhaled salbutamol, inhaled adrenaline [epinephrine], hypertonic saline), chest physiotherapy, continuous positive airway pressure, corticosteroids, fluid management, heliox, montelukast, nasal decongestants, nursing interventions (cohort segregation, hand washing, gowns, masks, gloves, and goggles), oxygen, respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulins, pooled immunoglobulins, or palivizumab (monoclonal antibody), ribavirin, or surfactants.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 21486501
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... May 2023Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antidrug antibodies (ADAs) may worsen the efficacy and safety of biologics. However, little is known about the incidence of ADAs associated with the 6 biologics approved for the treatment of asthma in the United States.
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate the incidence of ADAs and their impact on reported clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, open-label extension studies, and nonrandomized studies of biologics in patients with asthma indexed in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL between January 1, 2000, and July 9, 2022, were carried out. The primary outcomes were treatment-emergent ADAs (incidence) and ADA prevalence.
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies met the eligibility criteria. ADA incidence over follow-up was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.60-4.55) and was highest in the benralizumab studies (8.35%), with a risk ratio of 4.9 (2.69-8.92) when compared with placebo, and lowest in the omalizumab studies (0.00%). Incidence was 7.61% in the dupilumab studies, 4.39% in reslizumab, 3.63% in mepolizumab, and 1.12% in the tezepelumab studies. Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was 0.00% to 10.74% and was highest for benralizumab (7.12%). Incidence of neutralizing antibodies was higher in the benralizumab every 8 weeks (8.17%) versus every 4 weeks arms (5.81%). Results were consistent in subgroup analyses by study type and length of follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 2.9% of individuals in the included studies developed ADAs over study follow-up period. The incidence was highest in the benralizumab group and lowest in the omalizumab group. The subcutaneous route and longer dosing intervals were associated with higher ADA development.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Omalizumab; Incidence; Asthma; Biological Products; Antibodies, Neutralizing; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 36716995
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.12.046 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent. Bronchiectasis may cause signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can also be associated with cystic fibrosis and other congenital disorders, foreign body inhalation, and other causes of lung damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with bronchiectasis but without cystic fibrosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (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). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticholinergic therapy, beta(2) agonists, bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy, corticosteroids (inhaled, oral), exercise or physical training, hyperosmolar agents (inhaled), leukotriene receptor antagonists, methyl-xanthines (oral), mucolytics (bromhexine or deoxyribonuclease), prolonged-use antibiotics, and surgery.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Lung
PubMed: 21846412
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Acute bronchitis affects over 40/1000 adults a year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute bronchitis affects over 40/1000 adults a year in the UK. The causes are usually considered to be infective, but only around half of people have identifiable pathogens. The role of smoking or of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation in predisposing to acute bronchitis is unclear. One third of people may have longer-term symptoms or recurrence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute bronchitis in people without chronic respiratory disease? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 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 21 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: analgesics, antibiotics (macrolides, tetracyclines, cephalosporins, penicillins, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [co-trimoxazole]), antihistamines, antitussives, beta(2) agonists (inhaled or oral), and expectorants/mucolytics.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antitussive Agents; Bronchitis; Humans; Penicillins; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 21711957
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2021This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Management of Schneiderian membrane perforations during maxillary sinus floor augmentation with lateral approach in relation to subsequent implant survival rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to propose a treatment protocol for repairing intraoperative perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) procedures with lateral window technique. In turn, to assess subsequent implant survival rates placed below repaired membranes compared with intact membranes and therefore determine whether membrane perforation constitutes a risk factor for implant survival.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic search for articles published between 2008 and April 30, 2020, in four databases: (1) The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) via Ovid; (2) Web of Science (WOS); (3) SCOPUS; and (4) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); also, a complementary handsearch was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed.
RESULTS
Seven articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. A total of 1598 sinus lift surgeries were included, allowing the placement of 3604 implants. A total of 1115 implants were placed under previously perforated and repaired membranes, obtaining a survival rate of 97.68%, while 2495 implants were placed below sinus membranes that were not damaged during surgery, obtaining a survival rate of 98.88%. The rate of Schneiderian membrane perforation shown in the systematic review was 30.6%. In the articles reviewed, the most widely used technique for repairing perforated membranes was collagen membrane repair.
CONCLUSIONS
Schneiderian membrane perforation during MFSA procedures with lateral approach is not a risk factor for dental implant survival (p=0.229; RR 0.977; 95% CI 0.941-1.015). The knowledge of the exact size of the membrane perforation is essential for deciding on the right treatment plan.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Nasal Mucosa; Prostheses and Implants; Sinus Floor Augmentation; Survival Rate; United States
PubMed: 34250560
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00346-7