ABSTRACT
Objective:To systematically evaluate the efficacy of different kinds of smoking cessation drugs by network Meta-analysis.Methods:Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wan fang database, from the establishment of the database to November 2022, and randomized controlled trials (RCT) about bupropion, varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus placebo in the treatment of smoking patients were collected. After data extraction from included literature which met inclusion criteria, and quality evaluation with Cochrane 5.1 risk bias evaluation tool, network Meta-analysis was performed by Stata15.1 software.Results:A total of 19 RCTs, involving 6106 patients and three interventions measures (bupropion, varenicline, NRT) and one control measure (placebo) were included. The results of network Meta-analysis showed that in terms of short-term abstinence rate, varenicline [ OR=4.21, 95% CI (2.32, 7.63)], bupropion [ OR=2.81, 95% CI(1.05, 7.54)] were better than placebo ( P<0.05). The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA): varenicline (90.2%)>bupropion (64.8%)>NRT (41.7%)>placebo (3.2%). In terms of the long-term abstinence rate, varenicline [ OR=3.06, 95% CI (1.59, 5.90)], NRT [ OR=3.39, 95% CI (2.20, 5.21)] were better than placebo ( P<0.05). SUCRA: varenicline (83.8%)>NRT (73.9%)>bupropion (37.2%)>placebo (5.2%). Conclusion:The existing evidence shows that compared with bupropion, NRT, varenicline has the best effect on quitting smoking, but more high-quality randomized trial evidence is needed for verification.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE：To systematically e valuate the efficacy and safety of expectorant/antioxidants in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease （COPD），and to provide evidence-based reference for clinical use. METHODS ：Retrieved from PubMed ，Embase，Cochrane Library ，Web of Science ，CBM，CNKI，VIP，Wanfang database ，etc.，randomized controlled trials（RCTs）about expectorant/antioxidants （trial group ）versus placebo （control group ）in the treatment of COPD were collected during the inception to May 2021. After literature screening and data extraction ，the quality of included literatures were evaluated with risk bias evaluation tool recommended by Cochrane systematic evaluator manual 5.1.0. The consistency check was performed by using Gemtc 14.3 software；network Meta-analysis ，clustering and hierarchical sorting were performed with Stata 15.1 software. The publication bias was analyzed by inverted funnel plot. RESULTS ：A total of 12 RCTs，involving 4 637 patients，were included. Five interventions measures were involved ，such as low-dose N-acetylcysteine （NAC），high-dose NAC ，carbo- cisteine， erdosteine and placebo. The results of network Meta-analysis showed that in terms of annual acute aggrava- tion rate ，the patients receiving high-do se NAC [MD ＝－0.45， 163.com 95％CI（－0.74，－0.17），P＜0.05]，carbocisteine [MD ＝－0.59，95％CI（－0.86，－0.32），P＜0.05] and erdosteine [MD ＝－0.26，95％CI（－0.51，－0.01），P＜0.05] in trial group were significantly lower than those in control group ；the annual acute aggravation rate of patients receiving high-dose NAC[MD ＝－0.55， 95％CI（－0.98，－0.11），P＜0.05] and carbocisteine [MD ＝－0.69，95％CI（－1.11，－0.26），P＜0.05] in trial group were significantly lower than those receiving low-dose of NAC ，there was no statistical significance among other groups （P＞0.05）； probability cumulative ranking results （calculated by the area under the curve ）of its network Meta-analysis was carbocisteine ＞ high-dose NAC ＞erdosteine＞placebo＞low-dose NAC. In terms of the incidence of ADR ，there was no statistical significance among groups （P＞0.05）；probability cumulative ranking results （calculated by the area under the curve ） of its network Meta-analysis was erdosteine ＞high-dose NAC ＞low-dose NAC ＞placebo＞carbocisteine. The results of clustering and hierarchical ranking showed that the efficacy and safety of the five interventions could be grouped into three categories ，including placebo and low-dose NAC with low efficacy and safety ，carbocisteine with good efficacy but low safety ，and high-dose NAC and erdosteine with good efficacy and safety. The results of publication bias showed that taking the annual acute exacerbation rate as the index ， there was a greater possibility of publication bias in this study ；taking the incidence of adverse event as index ，there was little possibility of publication bias in this study. CONCLUSIONS ：NAC，carbocisteine and erdosteine all can reduce the annual acute aggravation rate and have low incidence of ADR. Carbocisteine is the best in terms of annual acute aggravation rate ，erdosteine is the best in terms of safety. High-dose NAC and erdosteine are both better in term of efficacy and safety.