Dataset Information

Effect of carbocisteine on patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the world. It is a common, progressive, treatable and preventable disease. The exacerbation of COPD is associated with the peripheral muscle force, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), the quality of life and mortality. Many studies indicated that the mucoactive medicines could reduce the exacerbations of COPD. This study summarized the efficacy of carbocisteine as a treatment for COPD.We searched the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) following electronic bibliographic databases: MedLine, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We additionally searched gray literature database: OpenSIGLE. We also additionally searched the clinical trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov register and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal. We used RCTs to assess the efficacy of the treatments. We included studies of adults (older than 18 years) with COPD. We excluded studies that were published as protocol or written in non-English language (Number 42016047078).Our findings included data from four studies involving 1,357 patients. There was a decrease in the risk of the rate of total number of exacerbations with carbocisteine compared with placebo (-0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.57, -0.29, P<0.01). Carbocisteine could also improve the quality of life (-6.29; 95% CI -9.30, -3.27) and reduce the number of patients with at least one exacerbation (0.86; 95% CI 0.78, 0.95) compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the FEV1 and adverse effects and the rate of hospitalization.Long-term use of carbocisteine (500 mg TID) may be associated with lower exacerbation rates, the smaller number of patients with at least one exacerbation and higher quality of life of patients with COPD.

SUBMITTER: Zeng Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5546781 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically investigate the prevalence of pain, factors related with pain and pain management interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and study eligibility criteriaPubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO from 1966 to December 2013. Studies were included if they presented clinical data on pain or symptom burden in patients with COPD, or pain as a domain of quality of life (QoL). All types of study designs were included.ResultsOf the 1571 articles that were identified, 39 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Fourteen studies focused on pain and symptom burden (including pain) in patients with COPD and 25 studies focused on QoL using a questionnaire that included a separate pain domain. Reported pain prevalence in high-quality studies ranged from 32 to 60%. Included studies report that pain is more prevalent in patients with COPD compared to participants from the general population. Comorbidity, nutritional status, QoL and several symptoms were related to pain. None of the included studies reported a significant relationship between lung function and pain prevalence or severity. However, studies investigating pain in patients with moderate COPD reported higher pain prevalence compared to studies in patients with severe of very severe COPD.ConclusionsAlthough literature on this topic is limited and shows substantial heterogeneity, pain seems to be a significant problem in patients with COPD and is related to several other symptoms, comorbidity and QoL. Data synthesis suggests that pain is more prevalent in patients with moderate COPD compared to patients with severe or very severe COPD. Further research is needed and should focus on determining a more accurate pain prevalence, investigating the relationship between pain prevalence, disease severity and comorbidity and explore implementation and efficacy of pain management interventions in patients with COPD.

Project description:BackgroundRecently, the addition of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy has been recommended for patients with COPD who have severe symptoms and a history of exacerbations because it reduces the exacerbations. In addition, a reducing effect on mortality has been shown by this treatment. However, the evidence is mainly based on one large randomized controlled trial IMPACT study, and it remains unclear whether the ICS add-on treatment is beneficial or not. Recently, a large new ETHOS trial has been performed to clarify the ICS add-on effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety including ETHOS trial.MethodsWe searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea symptom, lung function and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality, as the outcomes of interest.ResultsWe identified a total of 6 RCTs in ICS add-on protocol (N = 13,579). ICS/LAMA/LABA treatment (triple therapy) significantly decreased the incidence of exacerbations (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83) and improved the QOL score and trough FEV1 compared to LAMA/LABA. In addition, triple therapy significantly improved the dyspnea score (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.48) and mortality (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87). However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.16-2.00). In the ICS-withdrawal protocol including 2 RCTs, triple therapy also showed a significantly better QOL score and higher trough FEV1 than LAMA/LABA. Concerning the trough FEV1, QOL score and dyspnea score in both protocols, the differences were less than the minimal clinically important difference.ConclusionTriple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia but is a more preferable treatment than LAMA/LABA due to the lower incidence of exacerbations, higher trough FEV1 and better QOL score. In addition, triple therapy is also superior to LABA/LAMA due to the lower mortality and better dyspnea score. However, these results should be only applied to patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD and a history of exacerbations.Clinical trial registrationPROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

Project description:IntroductionChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic disease characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms. A focus of COPD interventional studies is directed towards prevention of exacerbations leading to hospital readmissions. Telehealth as a method of remote patient monitoring and care delivery may be implemented to reduce hospital readmissions and improve self-management of disease. Prior reviews have not systematically assessed the efficacies of various telehealth functionalities in patients with COPD at different stages of disease severity. We aim to evaluate which COPD telehealth interventions, classified by their functionalities, are most effective in improving patient with COPD management measured by both clinical and resource utilisation outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review which will include randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of telehealth interventions versus standard care in patients with COPD with confirmed disease severity based on forced expiratory volume(%) levels. An electronic search strategy will be used to identify trials published since 2000 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINHAL. Telehealth is described as remote monitoring and delivery of care where patient data/clinical information is routinely or continuously collected and/or processed, presented to the patient and transferred to a clinical care institution for feedback, triage and intervention by a clinical specialist. Two authors will independently screen articles for inclusion, assess risk of bias and extract data. We will merge studies into a meta-analysis if the interventions, technologies, participants and underlying clinical questions are homogeneous enough. We will use a random-effects model, as we expect some heterogeneity between interventions. In cases where a meta-analysis is not possible, we will synthesise findings narratively. We will assess the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42018083671.

Project description:IntroductionNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) improves survival among patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure in hospital, but evidence for its use in domiciliary settings is limited. A patient's underlying risk of having an exacerbation may affect any potential benefit that can be gained from domiciliary NIV. This is the first comprehensive systematic review to stratify patients based on a proxy for exacerbation risk: patients in a stable state and those immediately post-exacerbation hospitalization.MethodsA systematic review of nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken in order to compare the relative effectiveness of different types of domiciliary NIV and usual care on hospital admissions, mortality, and health-related quality of life. Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying studies (until September 2014), quality appraisal, and synthesis. Data were presented in forest plots and pooled where appropriate using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsThirty-one studies were included. For stable patients, there was no evidence of a survival benefit from NIV (relative risk [RR] 0.88 [0.55, 1.43], I2=60.4%, n=7 RCTs), but there was a possible trend toward fewer hospitalizations (weighted mean difference -0.46 [-1.02, 0.09], I2=59.2%, n=5 RCTs) and improved health-related quality of life. For posthospital patients, survival benefit could not be demonstrated within the three RCTs (RR 0.89 [0.53, 1.49], I2=25.1%), although there was evidence of benefit from four non-RCTs (RR 0.45 [0.32, 0.65], I2=0%). Effects on hospitalizations were inconsistent. Post hoc analyses suggested that NIV-related improvements in hypercapnia were associated with reduced hospital admissions across both populations. Little data were available comparing different types of NIV.ConclusionThe effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain; however, some patients may benefit. Further research is required to identify these patients and to explore the relevance of improvements in hypercapnia in influencing clinical outcomes. Optimum time points for commencing domiciliary NIV and equipment settings need to be established.

Project description:Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50-100% and 14-92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device.CALL TO STANDARDISE RESEARCH INTO INHALER DEVICE ERRORS: Researchers should adopt a standardised approach to investigate the incorrect use of inhalers and its associated clinical implications. Henry Chrystyn at Plymouth University, together with scientists across the UK and the Netherlands, conducted a review of research related to inhaled medication errors made by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is widely acknowledged that many patients with lung conditions don't use their inhaler devices correctly, which affects drug effectiveness and disease control. While Chrystyn's team found high critical error rates reported across all devices, their meta-analysis and systematic review highlighted significant gaps in knowledge regarding different inhalers and associated error rates, and how these affect clinical outcomes. The researchers call for in-depth studies into device use, alongside standardised checklists and definitions for such studies to use to ensure consistency.

Dataset Information

Effect of carbocisteine on patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets