Inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low.  Long-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) -0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; I2 = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -1.22 units/year, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.60; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS  reduced the rate of decline in FEV1 in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ADVERSE EVENTS: in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV1 of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.

Gefitinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence from all randomised trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of gefitinib as first-line, second-line or maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 February 2017. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, clinical trial registries and references lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials assessing gefitinib, alone or in combination with other treatment, compared to placebo or other treatments in the first- or successive-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, excluding compassionate use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed the search results to select those with sound methodological quality. We carried out all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We recorded the following outcome data: overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, tumour response and quality of life. We also collected data for the following subgroups: Asian ethnicity and positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which examined 12,089 patients.General populationGefitinib did not statistically improve overall survival when compared with placebo or chemotherapy in either first- or second-line settings. Second-line gefitinib prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90, P < 0.0001) when compared with placebo. Maintenance gefitinib improved progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91, P = 0.007) after first-line therapy.Studies in patients of Asian ethnicity or that conducted subgroup analysesSecond-line gefitinib prolonged overall survival over placebo (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P = 0.01). In the first-line setting, progression-free survival was improved with gefitinib over chemotherapy alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, P = 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Gefitinib given in combination with a chemotherapy regimen improved progression-free survival versus either gefitinib alone or chemotherapy alone (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96, P = 0.03; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively). In the second-line setting, progression-free survival was superior in patients given gefitinib over placebo or chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.009; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, P = 0.002; moderate quality of evidence, respectively). Combining gefitinib with chemotherapy in the second-line setting was superior to gefitinib alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97, P = 0.04). As maintenance therapy, gefitinib improved progression-free survival when compared with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54, P < 0.00001).Patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumoursStudies in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours showed an improvement in progression-free survival in favour of gefitinib over first-line and second-line chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61, P < 0.00001; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib as maintenance therapy following chemotherapy improved overall and progression-free survival (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, P = 0.05; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, P < 0.0001, respectively) in one phase III study when compared to placebo.Toxicities from gefitinib included skin rash, diarrhoea and liver transaminase derangements. Toxicities from chemotherapy included anaemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity.In terms of quality of life, gefitinib improved Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 10.50, 95% CI 9.55 to 11.45, P < 0.000001), lung cancer subscale (SMD 3.63, 95% CI 3.08 to 4.19, P < 0.00001) and Trial Outcome Index (SMD 9.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 18.48, P < 0.00001) scores when compared with chemotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that gefitinib, when compared with standard first- or second-line chemotherapy or maintenance therapy, probably has a beneficial effect on progression-free survival and quality of life in selected patient populations, particularly those with tumours bearing sensitising EGFR mutations.Patients with EGFR mutations lived longer when given maintenance gefitinib than those given placebo.One study conducted subgroup analysis and showed that gefitinib improved overall survival over placebo in the second-line setting in patients of Asian ethnicity. All other studies did not detect any benefit on overall survival. The data analysed in this review were very heterogenous. We were limited in the amount of data that could be pooled, largely due to variations in study design. The risk of bias in most studies was moderate, with some studies not adequately addressing potential selection, attrition and reporting bias. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the applicability of the resultsCombining gefitinib with chemotherapy appears to be superior in improving progression-free survival to either gefitinib or chemotherapy alone, however further data and phase III studies in these settings are required.Gefitinib has a favourable toxicity profile when compared with current chemotherapy regimens. Although there is no improvement in overall survival, gefitinib compares favourably with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations with a prolongation of progression-free survival and a lesser side effect profile.