ReviewCaspian journal of internal medicine2016
Efficacy and safety of conventional long acting β2- agonists: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is usually considered one of the leading causes of death worldwide, so finding proper therapeutic strategies for this disease is of high importance. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed the existing literature on the efficacy and safety of conventional long acting beta agonists (LABAs) in COPD patients.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE and Google scholar to identify relevant articles. We limited data to double-blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data of 14, 832 COPD subjects including 7540 patients under a β2 agonist (cases) and 7292 taking placebo (controls) retrieved from 20 randomized controlled trials and were enrolled into this meta-analysis. Evaluated outcomes included overall mortality, exacerbations and tolerance to the drug.
resultsThe analysis of survival showed no significant difference between those taking LABAs or placebo (relative risk (RR): 0.945, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.821-1.088, P=0.432). Exacerbation rate, however, was significantly lower among the cases than among the controls (RR: 0.859, 95%CI: 0.800-0.922, p<0.001). Similar observation was detected in analyzing the rate of drug withdrawal in patients of the two groups with patients under placebo having significantly higher rate of drug discontinuation due to adverse events or disease symptoms (RR:0.821, 95% CI: 0.774-0.871; p<0.007).
conclusionIn conclusion, we found that the use of conventional LABA therapy in COPD patients is associated with a lower exacerbation rate of the disease as well as higher tolerance to the drug, but no survival advantage is expectable. Substitution of LABAs with new agents is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27386055PMC4913706What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.