We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of triple combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy or single long-acting bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduced the risk of exacerbation (relative risk 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.94) and improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference in mL +37.94, 95% CI 18.83–53.89) versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy. The protective effect of triple combination therapy versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy against risk of exacerbation was greater in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells·µL−1 (relative risk 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.68). While ∼38 patients had to be treated for 1 year with ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy to prevent one exacerbation compared to LABA/LAMA combination therapy, the number needed to treat (NNT) was ∼21 when compared to single long-acting bronchodilator therapy. The person-based NNT per year of ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy versus LABA/LAMA combination therapy was significantly (p<0.05) lower in patients with eosinophil counts ≥300 cells·µL−1 (NNT value: 8.58) than in those with counts <300 cells·µL−1 (NNT value: 46.28). The risk of pneumonia did not differ between ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy and its comparators. The number needed to harm was ∼195. This meta-analysis suggests that patients on single long-acting bronchodilator therapy or LABA/LAMA combination therapy, who still have exacerbations and have blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells·µL−1, could benefit from ICS/LABA/LAMA combination therapy.

No abstract

No abstract

Mucolytics are potentially useful for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although there is conflicting advice on their use in different guideline documents. Furthermore, there is paucity of data comparing the efficacy of the different mucolytic agents in reducing the odds of COPD exacerbations. We performed pair-wise and network meta-analyses to evaluate the impact of mucoly-tics in COPD. Randomized clinical trials lasting at least 3 months and investigating the effects of mucolytics on COPD exacerbations were identified from published studies and repository databases. Mucolytics significantly reduced the odds of exacerbation vs. placebo (11 studies analyzed: odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.67; p < 0.001). The most effective drugs were carbocysteine, erdosteine, and N-acetylcysteine 1,200 mg/day (SUCRA 68.0-79.0%), whereas the OR was similar to placebo for ambroxol and N-acetylcysteine 600 mg/day. Only N-acetylcysteine 1,200 mg/day significantly protected against exacerbations vs. placebo (2 studies analyzed: OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.92; p < 0.05; high quality of evidence). A signal of effectiveness was detected for carbocysteine (2 studies analyzed: OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-1.01; p ≥ 0.05; moderate quality of evidence). Specific differences in study designs and patient-related characteristics, such as history of exacerbations and ethnicity, were potential effect modifiers for our statistical models, whereas neither respiratory function nor the use of corticosteroids influenced the analysis. This meta-analysis demonstrates that mucolytics are useful in preventing COPD exacerbations as maintenance add-on therapy to patients with frequent exacerbations. The effectiveness of mucolytics is independent of the severity of airway obstruction and the use of inhaled corticosteroids.

Asthma is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that affects approximately 300 million people worldwide. About 5-10% of all asthmatics suffer from severe or uncontrolled asthma, associated with increased mortality and hospitalization, reduced quality of life, and increased health care costs. In recent years, new treatments have become available, and different asthma phenotypes characterized by specific biomarkers have been identified. Biological drugs are currently indicated for patients with severe asthma that is not controlled with recommended treatments. They are mostly directed against inflammatory molecules of the type 2 inflammatory pathway and are effective at reducing exacerbations, maintaining control over asthma symptoms, and reducing systemic steroid use, which is associated with well-known adverse events. Although biological drugs for severe asthma have had a major impact on the management of the disease, there is still a need for head-to-head comparison studies of biologics and to identify new biomarkers for asthma diagnosis, prognosis, and response to treatment. Identifying novel biomarkers could facilitate the development of therapeutic strategies that are precisely tailored to each patient's requirements.

Background: There are no studies providing head-to-head comparison across SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of candidate vaccines in inducing neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the peak levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies across candidate vaccines. Data were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) since the outcome was assessed via different metrics and methods across the studies. Results: Data obtained from 836 healthy adult vaccine recipients were extracted from 11 studies. BBIBP-CorV, AZD1222, BNT162b2, New Crown COVID-19, and Sputnik V induced a very large effect on the level of neutralizing antibodies (SMD > 1.3); CoVLP, CoronaVac, NVX-CoV2373, and Ad5-nCoV induced a large effect (SMD > 0.8 to ≤1.3); and Ad26.COV2.S induced a medium effect (SMD > 0.5 to ≤0.8). BBIBP-CorV and AZD122 were more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S, Ad5–nCoV, mRNA-1237, CoronaVac, NVX–CoV2373, CoVLP, and New Crown COVID-19; New Crown COVID-19 was more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S, Ad5–nCoV, and mRNA-1237; CoronaVac was more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S and Ad5–nCoV; and Sputnik V and BNT162b2 were more effective (p < 0.05) than Ad26.COV2.S. In recipients aged ≤60 years, AZD1222, BBIBP-CorV, and mRNA-1237 were the most effective candidate vaccines. Conclusion: All the candidate vaccines induced significant levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, but only AZD1222 and mRNA-1237 were certainly tested in patients aged ≥70 years. Compared with AZD1222, BNT162b and mRNA-1237 have the advantage that they can be quickly re-engineered to mimic new mutations of SARS-CoV-2.

No abstract

No abstract