scholarly journals Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Koarai ◽  
Mitsuhiro Yamada ◽  
Tomohiro Ichikawa ◽  
Naoya Fujino ◽  
Tomotaka Kawayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Beta Agonist ◽  
History Of ◽  
Dyspnea Score ◽  
Long Acting

Abstract Background Recently, 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. Methods We 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. Results We 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. Conclusion Triple 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 Registration: PROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

scholarly journals Anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saad Alhumaid ◽  
Abbas Al Mutair ◽  
Zainab Al Alawi ◽  
Ali A. Rabaan ◽  
Raghavendra Tirupathi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
History Of

Abstract Background Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population. Objectives To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed. Methods Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses. Results Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I2 = 81%, p =  < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I2 = 99%, p =  < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I2 = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I2 = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I2 = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I2 = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger’s tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important. Conclusion The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for COPD: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0255545
Author(s):  
Yixuan Jiang ◽  
Hao Hu ◽  
Siu-wai Leung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Bias Analysis ◽  
Long Acting

Introduction 2021 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Reports recommends that patients with clinically significant symptoms and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should escalate to triple therapy, a combined use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting b2-agonists (LABA)(ICS/LAMA/LABA). Triple therapy in fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), i.e., combining ICS, LABA with LAMA and administrating by a single inhalation device, has appeared in recent years. This study aims to compare the efficacy of triple therapy in FDCs in treating patients with moderate to severe COPD. Methods and analyses Literature search will be conducted on PubMed, Embase and Web of science, according to pre-specified and corresponding search strategies, for relevant reports published since the inception dates of the databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) which compared the triple therapy in FDCs with other pharmacological therapies will be included. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2) will be used to assess the RCT quality. The outcomes will be analyzed as rate ratios and mean differences under a random-effects model in a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA). Additional statistical analyses including subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis will be performed to assess the evidential heterogeneity and robustness. The strength of evidence from the NMA will be evaluated with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required as this systematic review and network meta-analysis do not collect confidential personal data and do not carry out interventions in treating patients. Protocol registration number CRD42021240823.

scholarly journals The Association Between Presence of Comorbidities and COVID-19 Severity; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Honardoost ◽  
Laila Janani ◽  
Rokhsareh Aghili ◽  
Zahra Emami ◽  
Mohammad E Khamseh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Cerebrovascular Disease ◽  
Lung Disease ◽  
Chronic Lung Disease ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Group ◽  
History Of

Results: A total of 6270 individuals were assessed (1615 severe and 4655 non-severe patients). The median age was 63 (95% CI: 49-74) and 47 (95% CI: 19-63) years in the severe and non-severe groups, respectively. Moreover, about 41% of patients had comorbidities. Severity was higher in patients with history of cerebrovascular disease: OR 4.85 (95% CI: 3.11-7.57). The odds of being in severe group increase by 4.81(95% CI: 3.43-6.74) for history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This was 4.19 (95% CI: 2.84-6.19) for chronic lung disease and 3.18, 95% CI: 2.09-4.82 for cancer .The odds ratio of a diabetes and hypertension were 2.61 (95% CI: 2.02-3.3), and 2.37( 95% CI: 1.80-3.13) respectively.

Natural history of adrenal incidentalomas with and without mild autonomous cortisol excess; a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasir Elhassan ◽  
Fares Alahdab ◽  
Alessandro Prete ◽  
Danae Delivanis ◽  
Aakanksha Khanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adrenal Incidentalomas ◽  
History Of
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document