1.
Effect of N-acetylcysteine on exacerbations of bronchiectasis (BENE): a randomized controlled trial.
Qi, Q, Ailiyaer, Y, Liu, R, Zhang, Y, Li, C, Liu, M, Wang, X, Jing, L, Li, Y
Respiratory research. 2019;(1):73
Abstract
BACKGROUND N-acetylcysteine is a classic mucolytic agent. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine on reducing the risk of exacerbations in bronchiectasis patients. METHODS A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted between April 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 in five general hospitals in Shandong Province, China. Adult bronchiectasis patients with at least two exacerbations in the past year were potentially eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral N-acetylcysteine (600 mg, twice daily, 12 months) or on-demand treatment. RESULTS A total of 161 patients were eligible for randomization (81 to the N-acetylcysteine group and 80 to the control group). During the 12-month follow-up, the incidence of exacerbations in the N-acetylcysteine group was significantly lower than that in the control group (1.31 vs. 1.98 exacerbations per patient-year; risk ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; P = 0.0011). The median number of exacerbations in the N-acetylcysteine group was 1 (0.5-2), compared with 2 (1-2) in the control group (U = - 2.95, P = 0.003). A total of 24.7% of the N-acetylcysteine group patients and 11.3% of the control group patients remained exacerbation-free throughout the 12-month follow-up (χ2 = 4.924, P = 0.026). Compared with the control group, the volume of 24-h sputum in the N-acetylcysteine group was significantly reduced (t = - 3.091, P = 0.002). Additionally, the N-acetylcysteine group showed a significant improvement in the quality of life. No severe adverse events were reported in the intervention group. CONCLUSION The long-term use of N-acetylcysteine is able to reduce the risk of exacerbations for bronchiectasis patients in Shandong Province, China. The results of this study should be verified in a larger randomized controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02088216) (Registered date: March 5, 2014).
2.
Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a network meta-analysis.
Rochwerg, B, Neupane, B, Zhang, Y, Garcia, CC, Raghu, G, Richeldi, L, Brozek, J, Beyene, J, Schünemann, H
BMC medicine. 2016;:18
Abstract
BACKGROUND Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an interstitial lung disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments for IPF are limited. Several recent studies have investigated novel therapeutic agents for IPF, but very few have addressed their comparative benefits and harms. METHODS We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the effects of different treatments for IPF on mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs). We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to August 2015. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach served to assess the certainty in the evidence of direct and indirect estimates. We calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each treatment. We included parallel group RCTs, including factorial designs, but excluded quasi-randomized and cross-over trials. Studies were only included if they involved adult (≥18 years of age) patients with IPF as defined by the 2011 criteria and examined one of the 10 interventions of interest (ambrisentan, bosentan, imatinib, macitentan, N-acetylcysteine, nintedanib, pirfenidone, sildenafil, prednisone/azathioprine/N-acetylcysteine triple therapy, and vitamin K antagonist). RESULTS A total of 19 RCTs (5,694 patients) comparing 10 different interventions with placebo and an average follow-up period of 1 year fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SUCRA analysis suggests nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil are the three treatments with the highest probability of reducing mortality in IPF. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference in mortality between pirfenidone and nintedanib (NMA OR, 1.05; 95% CrI, 0.45-2.78, moderate certainty of evidence), pirenidone and sildenafil (NMA OR, 2.26; 95% CrI, 0.44-13.17, low certainty of evidence), or nintedanib and sildenafil (NMA OR 2.40; 95% CrI, 0.47-14.66, low certainty of evidence). Sildenafil, pirfenidone, and nintedanib were ranked second, fourth, and sixth out of 10 for SAEs. CONCLUSION In the absence of direct comparisons between treatment interventions, this NMA suggests that treatment with nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil extends survival in patients with IPF. The SAEs of these agents are similar to the other interventions and include mostly dermatologic and gastrointestinal manifestations. Head-to-head comparisons need to confirm these findings.