ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
The optimal dose of indacaterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal dose of indacaterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was in debate. We did this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of three dosages (75, 150, and 300 μg) of indacaterol in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods: We searched studies from inception until January 20, 2023 on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database. All studies comparing different doses of indacaterol for COPD were included in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), exacerbation rate, St. George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ), transitional dyspnea index (TDI), and adverse events. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was calculated by R software with gemtc package. Results: Finally, a total of 10 studies (4,991 patients) were finally included in this network meta-analysis. Indacaterol 75 μg (WMD: 0.07; 95% CrI: 0.05-0.08), indacaterol 150 μg (WMD: 0.13; 95% CrI: 0.12-0.14), and indacaterol 300 μg (WMD: 0.22; 95% CrI: 0.22-0.23) were all more effective than the placebo, and the difference was statistically significant. Indacaterol 75 μg (OR: 0.80; 95% CrI: 0.53-1.21), indacaterol 150 μg (OR: 0.59; 95% CrI: 0.45-0.78), indacaterol 300 μg (OR: 0.35; 95% CrI: 0.26-0.46) were more effective than the placebo in terms of exacerbation rate, and the difference was statistically significant. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) showed that indacaterol 300 μg ranked first, indacaterol 150 μg ranked second, indacaterol 75 μg ranked third, and placebo ranked the last for FEV1, SGRQ, TDI, exacerbation rate. There was no significant difference among the adverse events (P>0.05). Conclusions: Considering the network meta-analysis and rankings, 300 μg indacaterol is superior to the other two dosages in treating patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, the quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of different doses of indacaterol used to treat COPD. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required for further research in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.