Search

Background This is a meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of indacaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with treatment duration of ≥ 12 weeks. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English (to September 30, 2012) were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, websites, reference lists, and manual searches. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted information. Results Five RCTs were eligible. Five involved indacaterol, two salmeterol, one formoterol, and one tiotropium. Four studies had placebos. Using trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a measure of therapeutic effect, indacaterol was superior to the other β2-agonists, tiotropium, and placebo at weeks 12, 26, and 52. Indacaterol had a greater effect on the transition dyspnoea index compared with placebo, formoterol, and salmeterol, but not open-label tiotropium. In reducing the as-needed use of salbutamol, indacaterol were superior to placebo, tiotropium, and formoterol, but not salmeterol (5, 95 % confidence interval (CI), -2.15, 12.15). Indacaterol improved St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores more than placebo and open-label tiotropium, but not formoterol. Indacaterol seemed to cause more adverse events than placebo only at a dose of 600 µg daily and a duration of 52 weeks (risk ratio 1.15; 95 % CI, 1.04, 1.26). The total and serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were comparable with open-label tiotropium and the β2-agonists. Conclusions Indacaterol is effective and well-tolerated as a bronchodilator for the maintenance of moderate to severe COPD. Keywords Indacaterol * Safety * Efficacy * COPD * Systematic review * Meta-analysis, Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive airflow limitation and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, which places a significant burden on society. It [...]

Background: Assist/control (A/C) ventilation may induce delirium in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a trial to determine whether initial synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support (SIMV + PS) could improve clinical outcomes in these patients., Methods: Intubated patients with moderate ARDS were enrolled and we compared SIMV + PS with A/C. Identical sedation, analgesia and ventilation strategies were performed. The co-primary outcomes were early (≤72 h) partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) and incidence of delirium. The secondary outcomes were all-cause in-hospital mortality, dosages of analgesics and sedatives, incidence of patient-ventilator asynchrony, and duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay., Results: We screened 2,684 patients and 40 patients were enrolled in our study. In SIMV + PS, early (≤72 h) PaO2/FiO2 was greater improved than that at baseline and that in A/C (P<0.05) with lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (8.7±3.0 vs. 10.3±3.2, P<0.001) and FiO2 (58%±18% vs. 67%±19%, P<0.001). We found more SIMV + PS success (defined as SIMV + PS successfully applied without switching to A/C) (100.0% vs. 16.7%, P<0.001), less male (46.3% vs. 85.7%, P=0.015) and pulmonary etiology of ARDS (53.8% vs. 92.9%, P=0.015), and lower PEEP (9.1±3.1 vs. 10.3±3.3, P=0.004) and FiO2 (58%±19% vs. 71%±19%, P<0.001) in survival patients. However, there were no significant differences in incidence of delirium and mortality, dosages of analgesics and sedatives, incidence of patient-ventilator asynchrony, duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay (P>0.05)., Conclusions: In patients with moderate ARDS, SIMV + PS can safely and effectively improve oxygenation, but does not decrease mortality, incidence of delirium and patient-ventilator asynchrony, dosages of analgesics and sedatives, and duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay.