scholarly journals Comparative efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β2-agonists: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Schlueter ◽  
N Gonzalez-Rojas ◽  
Michael Baldwin ◽  
Lars Groenke ◽  
Florian Voss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Muscarinic Antagonists ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Β2 Agonists

scholarly journals Long-acting muscarinic antagonists vs. long-acting β 2 agonists in COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 302-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Silva Maia ◽  
Mariângela Pimentel Pincelli ◽  
Victor Figueiredo Leite ◽  
João Amadera ◽  
Anna Maria Buehler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Muscarinic Antagonists ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Exacerbation Rate ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Long Acting

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine whether long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide superior therapeutic effects over long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) for preventing COPD exacerbations. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving patients with stable, moderate to severe COPD according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria, treated with a LAMA (i.e., tiotropium bromide, aclidinium, or glycopyrronium), followed for at least 12 weeks and compared with controls using a LABA in isolation or in combination with a corticosteroid. Results: A total of 2,622 studies were analyzed for possible inclusion on the basis of their title and abstract; 9 studies (17,120 participants) were included in the analysis. In comparison with LABAs, LAMAs led to a greater decrease in the exacerbation rate ratio (relative risk [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93]; a lower proportion of patients who experienced at least one exacerbation (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.94; p < 0.00001); a lower risk of exacerbation-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87; p < 0.0001); and a lower number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.96; p = 0.0002). The overall quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. Conclusions: The major findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis were that LAMAs significantly reduced the exacerbation rate (exacerbation episodes/year), as well as the number of exacerbation episodes, of hospitalizations, and of serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for COPD: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0255545
Author(s):  
Yixuan Jiang ◽  
Hao Hu ◽  
Siu-wai Leung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Bias Analysis ◽  
Long Acting

Introduction 2021 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Reports recommends that patients with clinically significant symptoms and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should escalate to triple therapy, a combined use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting b2-agonists (LABA)(ICS/LAMA/LABA). Triple therapy in fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), i.e., combining ICS, LABA with LAMA and administrating by a single inhalation device, has appeared in recent years. This study aims to compare the efficacy of triple therapy in FDCs in treating patients with moderate to severe COPD. Methods and analyses Literature search will be conducted on PubMed, Embase and Web of science, according to pre-specified and corresponding search strategies, for relevant reports published since the inception dates of the databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) which compared the triple therapy in FDCs with other pharmacological therapies will be included. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2) will be used to assess the RCT quality. The outcomes will be analyzed as rate ratios and mean differences under a random-effects model in a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA). Additional statistical analyses including subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis will be performed to assess the evidential heterogeneity and robustness. The strength of evidence from the NMA will be evaluated with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required as this systematic review and network meta-analysis do not collect confidential personal data and do not carry out interventions in treating patients. Protocol registration number CRD42021240823.

scholarly journals Long-acting versus short-acting methylphenidate for paediatric ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative efficacy

BMJ Open ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. e002312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salima Punja ◽  
Liliane Zorzela ◽  
Lisa Hartling ◽  
Liana Urichuk ◽  
Sunita Vohra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Comparative Efficacy ◽  
Short Acting ◽  
Long Acting
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document