MedElevator
Войти в исследования Respiratory investigation · 2021
Treatment efficacy of LAMA versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suzuki Yasuhito, Sato Suguru, Sato Kento, Inoue Sumito, Shibata Yoko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Four long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium, are currently available for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, no integrated analysis has sought to determine the effectiveness of these LAMAs. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMA versus placebo in patients with stable COPD.
METHODS: A literature search of relevant randomized control trials that administered LAMA to stable COPD patients was conducted, and the exacerbations, quality of life (QoL), dyspnea score, lung function, and adverse event of patients were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LAMA significantly decreased the frequency of exacerbations compared to the placebo (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; P < 0.001). The mean changes in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -4.27 to -2.95; P < 0.00001), transitional dyspnea index score (mean difference 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17; P < 0.00001), and trough FEV1 (mean difference 0.12; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13; P < 0.0001) indicated significantly greater improvement in the LAMA group than the placebo group. The number of withdrawals due to adverse events in the LAMA group was significantly fewer than that in the placebo group (OR -0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: LAMA is superior to placebo due to lower frequency of exacerbations and adverse events, as well as higher trough FEV1, QoL, and dyspnea score for stable COPD.
METHODS: A literature search of relevant randomized control trials that administered LAMA to stable COPD patients was conducted, and the exacerbations, quality of life (QoL), dyspnea score, lung function, and adverse event of patients were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LAMA significantly decreased the frequency of exacerbations compared to the placebo (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; P < 0.001). The mean changes in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -4.27 to -2.95; P < 0.00001), transitional dyspnea index score (mean difference 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17; P < 0.00001), and trough FEV1 (mean difference 0.12; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13; P < 0.0001) indicated significantly greater improvement in the LAMA group than the placebo group. The number of withdrawals due to adverse events in the LAMA group was significantly fewer than that in the placebo group (OR -0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: LAMA is superior to placebo due to lower frequency of exacerbations and adverse events, as well as higher trough FEV1, QoL, and dyspnea score for stable COPD.