Assessing Treatment Success or Failure as an Outcome in Randomised Clinical Trials of COPD Exacerbations. A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for COPD exacerbations.Following a pre-registered protocol, we appraised eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to Cochrane methodology, performed random-effects meta-analyses for all outcomes prioritised in the European Respiratory Society COPD core outcome set and rated the certainty of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.We included 20 RCTs totalling 2140 participants with moderate or severe exacerbations. All trials were at high risk of methodological bias. Low-certainty evidence did not reveal significant differences between inhaled and systemic corticosteroids for treatment failure rate (relative risk 1.75, 95% CI 0.76-4.02, n=569 participants); breathlessness (mean change: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.36-0.15, n=239; post-treatment scores: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41-0.05, n=293); serious adverse events (relative risk 1.47, 95% CI 0.56-3.88, n=246); or any other efficacy outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence implied a tendency for fewer adverse events with inhaled compared to systemic corticosteroids (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.0, n=480). Hyperglycaemia and oral fungal infections were observed more frequently with systemic and inhaled corticosteroids, respectively.Limited available evidence suggests potential noninferiority of inhaled to systemic corticosteroids in COPD exacerbations. Appropriately designed and powered RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.

Clinical trials of pneumonia management assess heterogeneous outcomes and measurement instruments

OBJECTIVES

To inform clinical practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the management of pneumonia need to address the outcomes that are most important to patients and health professionals using consistent instruments, to enable results to be compared, contrasted, and combined as appropriate. This systematic review describes the outcomes reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management and the instruments used to measure these outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Based on a prospective protocol, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries for ongoing or completed clinical trials evaluating pneumonia management in adults in any clinical setting. We grouped reported outcomes thematically and classified them following the COMET Initiative's taxonomy. We describe instruments used for assessing each outcome.

RESULTS

We found 280 eligible RCTs of which 115 (41.1%) enrolled critically ill patients and 165 (58.9%) predominantly noncritically ill patients. We identified 43 distinct outcomes and 108 measurement instruments, excluding nonvalidated scores and questionnaires. Almost all trials reported clinical/physiological outcomes (97.5%). Safety (63.2%), mortality (56.4%), resource use (48.6%) and life impact (11.8%) outcomes were less frequently addressed. The most frequently reported outcomes were treatment success (60.7%), mortality (56.4%) and adverse events (41.1%). There was significant variation in the selection of measurement instruments, with approximately two-thirds used in less than 10 of the 280 RCTs. None of the patient-reported outcomes were used in 10 or more RCTs.

CONCLUSION

This review reveals significant variation in outcomes and measurement instruments reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management. Outcomes that are important to patients and health professionals are often omitted. Our findings support the need for a rigorous core outcome set, such as that being developed by the European Respiratory Society.

Prevalence and clinical implications of respiratory viruses in asthma during stable disease state and acute attacks: Protocol for a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Viruses are detected in over 50% of acute asthma attacks and in a notable proportion of patients with asthma during stable disease state They are associated with worse outcomes. We will conduct a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to quantify the prevalence and clinical burden of various respiratory viruses in stable asthma and acute asthma attacks. In addition, we will assess the viral loads of respiratory viruses during stable and acute asthma, to explore whether viral load could differentiate attacks triggered by viruses versus those where viruses are present as "innocent bystanders".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a prospectively registered protocol (PROSPERO, ID: CRD42023375108) and following standard methodology recommended by Cochrane, we will systematically search Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant conference proceedings for studies assessing the prevalence or clinical burden of respiratory viruses in asthma. Methodological rigour of the included studies will be appraised using a tool specific for prevalence studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale respectively. In anticipation of significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we will conduct random effect meta-analyses. For evaluating the prevalence of viruses, we will perform meta-analyses of proportions using the inverse variance method, and the Freeman-Tukey transformation. We will conduct meta-regression analyses for exploring heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

We envisage that these systematic reviews and meta-analyses will quantify the prevalence and burden of respiratory viruses in stable and acute asthma and will drive future research and clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of oral corticosteroids to treat outpatients with acute exacerbations of COPD in primary care: a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled study

Aim

To compare prednisone and placebo for the treatment of outpatients treated for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a primary care setting.

Methods

A multicentre, parallel, double-blind, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was performed in France. A total of 66 general practitioners included patients aged ≥40 years with cumulative smoking of ≥10 pack-years and a diagnosis of certain or likely acute exacerbation of COPD. Oral prednisone (40 mg) or placebo were administered daily for 5 days. The main outcome was treatment failure at 8 weeks, defined as a composite criterion based on the occurrence of at least one of the following: unplanned visit to an emergency department or to a practitioner in the ambulatory setting, hospital admission or death. The planned sample size was 202 patients per group.

Results

175 patients were included from February 2015 to May 2017 (43% of the planned sample). All-cause 8-week treatment failure rate was 42.0% in the prednisone group and 34.5% in the placebo group (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 0.87-1.69, p=0.25). Respiratory-related 8-week treatment failure rate was 27.6% in the prednisone group and 13.6% in the placebo group (relative risk 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.57, p=0.015).

Conclusion

Although the planned sample size was not achieved, the study does not suggest that oral corticosteroids are more effective than placebo for the treatment of an acute exacerbation of COPD in a primary care setting.

Mucolytics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

This meta-analysis explored the safety and effectiveness of mucolytics as an add-on treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. Based on a pre-registered protocol and following Cochrane methods, we systematically searched for relevant randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We used the Risk of Bias v2 tool for appraising the studies and performed random-effect meta-analyses when appropriate. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. This meta-analysis included 24 RCTs involving 2192 patients with COPD exacerbations, entailing at least some concerns of methodological bias. We demonstrated with moderate certainty that mucolytics increase the rate of treatment success (relative risk 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.73, n=383), while they also exert benefits on overall symptom scores (standardised mean difference 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.09, n=316), presence of cough at follow-up (relative risk 1.93, 95% CI 1.15-3.23) and ease of expectoration (relative risk 2.94, 95% CI 1.68-5.12). Furthermore, low or very low certainty evidence suggests mucolytics may also reduce future risk of exacerbations and improve health-related quality of life, but do not impact on breathlessness, length of hospital stay, indication for higher level of care or serious adverse events. Overall, mucolytics could be considered for COPD exacerbation management. These findings should be validated in further, rigorous RCTs.