Comparative efficacy of inhalers in mild-to-moderate asthma: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Park HJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8993836 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparative efficacy of inhalers in mild-to-moderate asthma: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Park Hyung Jun HJ Huh Jin-Young JY Lee Ji Sung JS Lee Jae Seung JS Oh Yeon-Mok YM Lee Sei Won SW
Scientific reports 20220408 1
The comparative effectiveness of different inhaler therapies in mild-to-moderate asthma remains unclear. To assess this, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the use of inhalers for mild-to-moderate asthma by searching PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. A total of 29 trials including 43,515 patients and 12 types of inhaler therapies were included. For the prevention of severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/lo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of patients with ulcerative colitis have mildly to moderately active disease. To inform the management of patients with left-sided or extensive mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis, we assessed the comparative efficacy and tolerability of different therapies. METHODS:In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Epub, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Dec 14, 2015, and updated on MEDLINE on March 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials in adults (age ≥17 years) with left-sided or extensive mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Studies were included if patients were treated with oral sulfasalazine, diazo-bonded 5-aminosalicylates (5-ASAs), mesalazine (low dose <2 g/day, standard dose 2-3 g/day, or high dose >3 g/day), controlled ileal-release budesonide, or budesonide multimatrix, alone or in combination with rectal 5-ASA therapy, and were compared with each other or placebo for induction or maintenance of clinical remission. The minimum duration of therapy was 4 weeks for trials of induction and 24 weeks for trials of maintenance therapy. We did pairwise and random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs; agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to appraise quality of evidence. We examined heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. FINDINGS:Our search identified 1316 unique studies, from which 75 randomised trials with 12 215 patients were eligible for analysis. Based on 48 induction randomised trials (8020 participants) that met inclusion criteria, combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs (SUCRA 0·99) and high-dose mesalazine (>3 g/day; SUCRA 0·82) were ranked highest for induction of remission. Both interventions were superior to standard-dose mesalazine (2-3 g/day; failure to induce remission with combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs OR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·77; high-dose mesalazine 0·78, 0·66-0·93) with moderate confidence in estimates. On the basis of 28 randomised trials (4218 participants) that met inclusion criteria, all interventions were superior to placebo for maintenance of remission; however, neither combined oral and rectal 5-ASAs nor high-dose mesalazine were superior to standard-dose mesalazine. INTERPRETATION:In patients with mildly to moderately active left-sided or extensive ulcerative colitis, combined oral and topical mesalazine therapy and high-dose mesalazine are superior to standard-dose mesalazine for induction of remission, but not maintenance of remission. Standard-dose mesalazine might be preferred for maintenance in most patients. FUNDING:None.
| S-EPMC6821871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) indicated for maintenance bronchodilator treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium was compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium, using a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in moderate-to-severe COPD patients.A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs evaluating aclidinium 400 ?g twice daily (BID), glycopyrronium 50 ?g once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 ?g OD, or tiotropium 5 ?g OD in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. The outcomes of interest were: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1); St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and proportion of patients achieving ?4 unit change; Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and proportion of patients achieving ?1 point change. The results were synthesized by means of a Bayesian NMA.Twenty-one studies (22,542 patients) were included: aclidinium 400 ?g BID (three studies); tiotropium 5 ?g OD (three studies); tiotropium 18 ?g OD (13 studies); and glycopyrronium 50 ?g OD (two studies). Regarding trough FEV1 at 24 weeks, aclidinium demonstrated comparable efficacy to tiotropium 5 ?g (difference in change from baseline [CFB]), (0.02 L [95% credible interval CrI -0.05, 0.09]); tiotropium 18 ?g (0.02 L [95% CrI -0.05, 0.08]); and glycopyrronium (0.00 L [95% CrI -0.07, 0.07]). Aclidinium resulted in higher improvement in SGRQ score at 24 weeks, compared to tiotropium 5 ?g (difference in CFB, -2.44 [95% CrI -4.82, -0.05]); and comparable results to tiotropium 18 ?g (-1.80 [95% CrI -4.52, 0.14]) and glycopyrronium (-1.52 [95% CrI -4.08, 1.03]). Improvements in TDI score were comparable for all treatments.Maintenance treatment with aclidinium 400 ?g BID is expected to produce similar improvements in lung function, health-related quality of life, and dyspnea compared to tiotropium 5 ?g OD; tiotropium 18 ?g OD; and glycopyrronium 50 ?g OD.
| S-EPMC3772873 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimsThe comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability of budesonide-MMX and oral mesalamine in active, mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis (UC) are unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to fill this evidence gap.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries, regulatory agencies' websites and international conference proceedings, up to July 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adult patients with active, mild-to-moderate UC, comparing budesonide-MMX or mesalamine against placebo, or against each other, or different dosing strategies, for induction of remission. Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and outcomes, and assessed each trial's risk-of-bias.ResultsWe identified and synthesized evidence from 15 eligible trials including 4083 participants. Budesonide-MMX 9 mg/day and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission (OR = 0.97; 0.59-1.60), both showing superiority over placebo (OR = 2.68; 1.75-4.10, and OR = 2.75; 1.94-3.90, respectively). Furthermore, mesalamine >2.4 g/day was more efficacious than mesalamine 1.6-2.4 g/day (odds ratio = 1.27; 1.03-1.56). Secondary analyses showed that mesalamine >2.4 g/day ranks at the top among comparator treatments regarding safety (serious adverse events; surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 79.2%) and tolerability (treatment discontinuations or withdrawals from the study due to adverse events; SUCRA 96.7%). There was no evidence of inconsistency, while heterogeneity between studies and risk of publication bias were low.ConclusionBudesonide-MMX and mesalamine >2.4 g/day had similar efficacy for induction of clinical and endoscopic remission in active, mild-to-moderate UC; however, mesalamine >2.4 g/day showed better tolerability. Further high-quality research is warranted.
| S-EPMC6783624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData are needed to inform the positioning of biologic therapy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease, both first line and after previous biologic exposure. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of biologics in patients with Crohn's disease.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 randomised controlled trials done in adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] 220-450) treated with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, anti-integrin, anti-interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23p40, or anti-IL23p19 agents, either alone or in combination with immunosuppressants, as their first-line biologic or after previous biologic exposure, compared with placebo or an active comparator. The minimum duration of therapy was 14 days for trials reporting induction of remission in active disease and 22 weeks in trials reporting maintenance of remission. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, trial registries, and unpublished data from inception to June 3, 2021, without any language restrictions. Summary estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from the published reports; individual patient-level data were not sought. The primary endpoint was induction of clinical remission in patients with active disease (CDAI <150) and maintenance of remission in patients with response to induction therapy, with data extracted from published reports. A network meta-analysis with multivariate consistency model random-effects meta-regression was done, with rankings based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values.FindingsThe search strategy yielded 18 382 citations, of which 31 trials were eligible for inclusion. On the basis of 15 randomised controlled trials including 2931 biologic-naive patients, infliximab monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 4·53 [95% CI 1·49-13·79]), infliximab combined with azathioprine (7·49 [2·04-27·49]), adalimumab (3·01 [1·25-7·27]), and ustekinumab (2·63 [1·10-6·28]) were associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission compared to certolizumab pegol (all moderate confidence); infliximab and azathioprine combination therapy was also associated with significantly higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab (3·76 [1·01-14·03]; low confidence). On the basis of ten randomised controlled trials including 2479 patients with previous biologic exposure, adalimumab after loss of response to infliximab (OR 2·82 [95% CI 1·20-6·62]; low confidence), and risankizumab (2·10 [1·12-3·92]; moderate confidence), were associated with higher odds of inducing remission than vedolizumab. No differences between active interventions were observed in maintenance trials. Most trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias.InterpretationAlthough biologic treatment choices in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease must be individualised for each patient, this analysis suggests that either infliximab with azathioprine or adalimumab might be preferred as a first-line therapy, and adalimumab (after infliximab loss of response) or risankizumab might be preferred as a second-line therapy, for induction of clinical remission.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC8933137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been systematically assessed using recent phase 3 data. This network meta-analysis assesses the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies without the addition of topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in adults with moderate to severe AD.MethodsThe systematic literature review searched through 17 May 2021 for phase 3/4 trials with upadacitinib, interleukin-4 (IL-4), interleukin-13 (IL-13), or JAK inhibitors compared with placebo or active intervention for adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD with inadequate response to TCS/TCI or for whom TCS/TCI was medically inadvisable, without restrictions on year or region. Researchers assessed data using PRISMA guidelines. The proportion of patients achieving trial co-primary endpoints [Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and reduction of ≥ 2 points from baseline; proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement ≥ 75% from baseline (EASI-75)]; EASI improvement ≥ 90% from baseline (EASI-90); and ≥ 4-point improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥ 4) were evaluated using Bayesian network meta-analysis.ResultsOf 3415 initially identified records, network meta-analysis (NMA) ultimately included 6 records representing 9 unique studies. Two upadacitinib trials were also included. Eleven clinical trials including 6254 patients were analyzed. Upadacitinib 30 mg daily was the most efficacious therapy across all endpoints at the primary endpoint (week 12 or 16) and at earlier timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily.DiscussionMany factors need to be considered for treatment selection for AD. These findings can help healthcare providers when personalizing a patient's treatment.ConclusionUpadacitinib 30 mg daily, upadacitinib 15 mg daily, and abrocitinib 200 mg daily may be the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies over 12-16 weeks of therapy in AD.
| S-EPMC9110624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStress urinary incontinence (SUI), the most common form of urinary incontinence, is a condition that affects many women. It is characterized by involuntary urine leakage during activities that increase abdominal pressure, such as sneezing, coughing, or physical exertion, according to the International Continence Society. SUI affects patients' quality of life and causes depression and emotional disorders, which negatively influences physical and mental health. The participants in the studies in this review comprised women with mild to moderate SUI, because there are more female patients than male patients, and most patients with severe SUI are treated surgically. Moreover, after retrieval, there were no systematic reviews or network meta-analyses (NMAs) of conservative treatments, such as electroacupuncture (EA), in women with mild to moderate SUI.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the efficacy of electroacupuncture among women with mild to moderate SUI using an NMA.MethodsRandomized clinical trials related to conservative treatments for SUI will be searched in 5 English and 3 Chinese literature databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. The search period for these 8 electronic databases will be from 2002 to 2022. The PROSPERO database and the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) database will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently complete the research selection. After screening the studies, 2 other researchers will extract the data, and the quality of the included studies will be evaluated according to the quality standards specified in the Cochrane Collaboration Tool (version 2). The primary outcomes will be the change in urine leakage determined by a 1-hour pad test and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) scores at baseline and at the conclusion of the follow-up. The secondary outcomes will be 72-hour incontinence episodes, residual bladder volume, effective rate, urodynamic indexes, and other reported measurements. Stata (version 14.0; StataCorp) and Review Manager (RevMan version 5.3; Cochrane) will be implemented for data synthesis and meta-analysis.ResultsThe results are not yet accessible because this is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The protocol was registered on INPLASY on February 22, 2023. By April 6, 2023, we had completed the literature search of the 8 databases and completed the selection and data extraction of the articles.ConclusionsThe results of this systematic review will demonstrate the efficacy of EA among women with mild to moderate SUI. The results will provide evidence for clinicians and guideline makers to choose suitable treatments for SUI.Trial registrationInternational Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) 202320098; https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-2-0098/.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/55870.
| S-EPMC11574501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing regimens are the mainstay for treating asthma despite usually being ineffective in noneosinophilic asthma (NEA). Data on the prevalence of NEA versus eosinophilic asthma (EA) in mild-to-moderate asthma are limited.ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review of the prevalence of mild-to-moderate asthma in adolescents and adults using sputum inflammatory cell analysis and their responses to ICS.MethodsWe searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane) for studies in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. The primary outcome was the prevalence of asthma subtypes based on sputum inflammatory cell analysis, categorized into EA and NEA. The secondary outcome involved comparing asthma outcomes between different subtypes after ICS therapy. Certainty of evidence was reported for each pooled analysis.ResultsEighteen studies involving 3,533 adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma were reviewed. The pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval) of NEA was estimated at 40.39% (27.54, 53.93) in patients with ICS naive with very low certainty of evidence. On reevaluating sputum cytology, the disease of approximately 20% to 30% of patients initially diagnosed as NEA transitioned to the EA subtype. EA patients showed significant improvements in asthma symptoms after ICS therapy: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (standardized mean difference, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.30, 1.27), and airway hyperresponsiveness (standardized mean difference, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29, 2.40). NEA patients exhibited limited response.ConclusionA high proportion of adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma were identified with NEA subtype disease, which exhibited a poor response to ICS. A thorough diagnostic evaluation before initiating treatment should be integrated into clinical practice.Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023484334).
| S-EPMC11625304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13. It is approved for treating asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. There is a conflict in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of dupilumab. Thus, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov registry) were searched until January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that compared dupilumab with the placebo in moderate to severe asthma patients. We extracted the data at 12 and 24 weeks and analyzed them using review manager 5.4. Findings: Thirteen trials were included. Dupilumab significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, asthma control questionnaire score, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide level, and immunoglobulin E level at 12 and 24 weeks (p < 0.05). However, it was associated with increased blood eosinophils at 12 and 24 weeks. Dupilumab was generally a safe agent for asthmatic patients. It showed no significant difference compared with the placebo regarding most adverse events. Conclusion: Dupilumab improves pulmonary function and reduces local and systemic inflammatory markers with minimal adverse events in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
| S-EPMC9574251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:No evidence shows that one intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) is better than another for treating moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This network meta-analysis assessed the comparative efficacy and acceptability of licensed dose aqueous INCSs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until 31 March 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing INCSs with placebo or other types of INCSs in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline. A random-effects model was used for data pooling. Continuous outcomes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). The primary outcomes were the efficacy in improving total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and treatment acceptability (the study dropout). We included 26 studies, 13 with 5,134 seasonal AR patients and 13 with 4,393 perennial AR patients. Most placebo-controlled studies had a moderate quality of evidence. In seasonal AR, mometasone furoate (MF) was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by fluticasone furoate (FF), ciclesonide (CIC), fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide (TAA) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; -0.46, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.33; -0.44, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.13; -0.42, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17 and -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.00), In perennial AR, budesonide was ranked the highest efficacy, followed by FF, TAA, CIC, and MF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.75 to -0.11; -0.36, 95% CI: -0.53 to -0.19; -0.32, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10; -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11; and -0.28, 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.01). The acceptability of all included INCSs was not inferior to the placebo. According to our indirect comparison, some INCSs have superior efficacy to others with moderate quality of evidence in most placebo-controlled studies for treating moderate-to-severe AR.
| S-EPMC10242043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data to inform clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 24 October 2019 were identified by a systematic literature review. Short-term (12-16 weeks) efficacy (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] and Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] responses), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data from each trial were abstracted and analysed separately for monotherapy and combination therapy (systemic plus topical anti-inflammatory therapy). RCTs were analysed in fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian NMA models. Overall, 19 phase 2 and phase 3 RCTs of abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib were included. In monotherapy RCTs, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (QD) had the numerically highest efficacy (83.6% achieved ≥50% improvement in EASI [EASI-50 response]), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg QD (74.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg QD (70.5%), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (63.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (56.7%). Similar trends in EASI-75 and EASI-90 response were observed. In combination therapy RCTs, abrocitinib 200 mg QD had the highest EASI-50 (86.6%), followed by dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (82.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (79.7%). Similar findings were observed for IGA response and PROs. In monotherapy and combination therapy RCTs, the probability of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher among all active treatments than with placebo (except for dupilumab 300 mg Q2W [odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.45-2.18] and abrocitinib 100 mg QD [OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.35-2.66] in combination therapy RCTs), although active treatments did not significantly differ from one another. Abrocitinib, dupilumab and upadacitinib were consistently the most effective systemic therapies in adult and adolescent patients with AD, with no significant TEAE differences in short-term RCTs.
| S-EPMC8453983 | biostudies-literature