Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Unit of Pharmacology, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Respir Res. 2019 May 27;20(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s12931-019-1078-y.
To date there are no head-to-head studies comparing different mucolytic/antioxidant agents. Considering the inconsistent evidence resulting from the pivotal studies on mucolytic/antioxidant agents tested in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and the recent publication of Reducing Exacerbations and Symptoms by Treatment with ORal Erdosteine in COPD (RESTORE) study, we have performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of erdosteine 600 mg/day, carbocysteine 1500 mg/day, and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 1200 mg/day in COPD.
A pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to assess the efficacy of erdosteine, carbocysteine, and NAC on acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), duration of AECOPD, and hospitalization. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was also investigated.
Data obtained from 2753 COPD patients were extracted from 7 RCTs published between 2004 and 2017. In the pairwise meta-analysis mucolytic/antioxidant agents significantly reduced the risk of AECOPD (RR 0.74 95%CI 0.68-0.80). The network meta-analysis provided the following rank of effectiveness: erdosteine>carbocysteine>NAC. Only erdosteine reduced the risk of experiencing at least one AECOPD (P < 0.01) and the risk of hospitalization due to AECOPD (P < 0.05). Erdosteine and NAC both significantly reduced the duration of AECOPD (P < 0.01). The AEs induced by erdosteine, carbocysteine, and NAC were mild in severity and generally well tolerated. The quality of evidence of this quantitative synthesis is moderate.
The overall efficacy/safety profile of erdosteine is superior to that of both carbocysteine and NAC. Future head-to-head studies performed on the same COPD populations are needed to definitely confirm the results of this meta-analysis.
CRD42016053762 .
迄今为止,尚无头对头研究比较不同黏液溶解/抗氧化剂。鉴于在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)中测试的黏液溶解/抗氧化剂的关键研究得出的证据不一致,以及最近发表的《用口服厄多司坦治疗 COPD 减少加重和症状(RESTORE)研究》,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较厄多司坦 600mg/天、卡泊司坦 1500mg/天和 N-乙酰半胱氨酸(NAC)1200mg/天在 COPD 中的疗效和安全性。
进行了成对和网络荟萃分析,以评估厄多司坦、卡泊司坦和 NAC 对 COPD 急性加重(AECOPD)、AECOPD 持续时间和住院的疗效。还调查了不良事件(AE)的频率。
从 2004 年至 2017 年发表的 7 项 RCT 中提取了 2753 名 COPD 患者的数据。在成对荟萃分析中,黏液溶解/抗氧化剂显著降低了 AECOPD 的风险(RR 0.74,95%CI 0.68-0.80)。网络荟萃分析提供了以下有效性排名:厄多司坦>卡泊司坦>NAC。只有厄多司坦降低了至少经历一次 AECOPD 的风险(P<0.01)和因 AECOPD 住院的风险(P<0.05)。厄多司坦和 NAC 均显著降低了 AECOPD 的持续时间(P<0.01)。厄多司坦、卡泊司坦和 NAC 引起的 AE 均为轻度,且通常可耐受。本定量综合研究的证据质量为中等。
厄多司坦的总体疗效/安全性优于卡泊司坦和 NAC。需要在相同的 COPD 人群中进行头对头研究,以明确证实本荟萃分析的结果。
CRD42016053762。