International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2015
Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Ismaila Afisi Segun, Huisman Eline L, Punekar Yogesh Suresh, Karabis Andreas
Аннотация
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.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedBayes TheoremBronchodilator AgentsDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeGlycopyrrolateHumansLungMaleMiddle AgedMuscarinic AntagonistsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuinuclidinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionSpirometrySurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTiotropium BromideTreatment OutcomeTropanes