Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Revefenacin for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT: Background Revefenacin (REV) is a novel once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic review incorporating a dose-response meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of REV. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched from their inception to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy and safety of REV in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Outcomes consisted of the mean change in trough Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). A dose-response meta-analysis using the robust error meta-regression method was conducted. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. Results Nine RCTs (3,121 participants) were included in this systematic review. The meta-analyses indicated that 175 μg/day REV could significantly improve the trough FEV1 (MD=143.67, 95%CI: 129.67 to 157.68; I2=96%; 809 participants; studies=4; low quality) without increasing the risk of AEs (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.81 to 1.18; I2=34%; 2,286 participants; studies=7; low quality) or SAEs (OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.55 to 1.46; I2=0%; 2,318 participants; studies=7; very low quality) compared to placebo. Furthermore, the effect of REV in increasing trough FEV1 was dose-dependent with an effective threshold of 88 μg/day (R2 = 0.7017). Nevertheless, only very low-quality to low-quality evidence showed that REV at a dose of 175 μg/day was inferior to tiotropium regarding the long-term efficacy, and its safety profile was not superior to tiotropium or ipratropium. Conclusion Current evidence shows that REV is a promising option for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. Due to most evidence graded as low quality, further studies are required to compare the efficacy, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness between REV and other LAMAs in different populations. Clinical Trial Registration: [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020182793]

SUBMITTER: Zhang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8564370 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesRevefenacin is a lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of revefenacin and its major metabolite (THRX-195518) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and identify significant covariates affecting revefenacin disposition using a population pharmacokinetic approach based on plasma concentration-time data obtained after single- and repeated-dose once-daily administration in three phase II and two phase III studies.MethodsPlasma concentrations of revefenacin and THRX-195518 following once-daily administration via nebulization at a dose levels ranging from 22-700 μg in 935 patients (488 men, 447 women; age 41-88 years) were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.ResultsPlasma revefenacin pharmacokinetics was best described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. Pharmacokinetic parameters for THRX-195518 were estimated using a sequential approach, where the concentration-time profiles were fit to a combined model. The formation of the metabolite in each subject was estimated to be a fixed fraction of the individually estimated (post-hoc) clearance rate of revefenacin. Four statistically significant covariates were identified: for revefenacin, age on apparent clearance and body weight on apparent intercompartment clearance, for THRX-195518, age on apparent clearance and body weight on the fraction of revefenacin apparent clearance that was metabolized to THRX-195518.ConclusionsNone of the identified statistically significant covariates were associated with a clinically meaningful effect on revefenacin or THRX-195518 exposure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT03064113, NCT01704404, NCT02040792, NCT02459080, and NCT02512510.

Project description:Background:This literature review assessed comparative efficacy and safety of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ?2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in patients with COPD and moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation, using evidence from direct (head-to-head) and indirect treatment comparisons. Methods:Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to identify direct comparisons (head-to-head randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and indirect comparisons (network meta-analyses [NMAs]; indirect treatment comparisons; meta-analyses) in patients with COPD with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation. Study/Analysis characteristics, eligibility criteria, patient characteristics, and overall conclusions were extracted from relevant publications. The review of indirect comparisons focused on NMAs reporting efficacy outcomes at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment (established durations of symptomatic studies in COPD recommended by regulators). Results:Direct comparisons: Four RCTs that provided head-to-head comparisons of LAMA/LABA FDCs were identified, and these varied in their study design, included patient population and reported endpoints. While some differences in lung function outcomes were noted, where assessed, LAMA/LABA FDCs had comparable efficacy in improving symptoms, health status, exacerbations, and comparable safety profiles. However, the differences in study methodology and patient characteristics between these studies made it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of LAMA/LABA FDCs from the direct comparisons alone. Indirect comparisons: Six NMAs were identified that reported indirect comparisons between LAMA/LABA FDCs; five of these were within the pre-defined scope of this review. Although the scope of each NMA varied, all five concluded that LAMA/LABA FDCs were generally comparable in terms of lung function improvements, patient-reported outcomes, and safety (where assessed). Conclusion:Although there were some inconsistencies between the outcomes of RCTs and NMAs for lung function, the totality of lung function, symptoms, exacerbations, and safety data suggests that currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs have comparable efficacy and safety in patients with COPD and moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Revefenacin for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets