Triple vs Dual Inhaler Therapy and Asthma Outcomes in Moderate to Severe Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.

Mortality and morbidity in acutely ill adults treated with liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy (IOTA): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults, but the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults. METHODS: In the Improving Oxygen Therapy in Acute-illness (IOTA) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, LILACS, PapersFirst, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Oct 25, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing liberal and conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults (aged ≥18 years). Studies limited to patients with chronic respiratory diseases or psychiatric disease, patients on extracorporeal life support, or patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or elective surgery were excluded. We screened studies and extracted summary estimates independently and in duplicate. We also extracted individual patient-level data from survival curves. The main outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, at 30 days, and at longest follow-up) and morbidity (disability at longest follow-up, risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, any hospital-acquired infection, and length of hospital stay) assessed by random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017065697. FINDINGS: 25 randomised controlled trials enrolled 16 037 patients with sepsis, critical illness, stroke, trauma, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest, and patients who had emergency surgery. Compared with a conservative oxygen strategy, a liberal oxygen strategy (median baseline saturation of peripheral oxygen [SpO2] across trials, 96% [range 94-99%, IQR 96-98]) increased mortality in-hospital (relative risk [RR] 1·21, 95% CI 1·03-1·43, I2=0%, high quality), at 30 days (RR 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, I2=0%, high quality), and at longest follow-up (RR 1·10, 95% CI 1·00-1·20, I2=0%, high quality). Morbidity outcomes were similar between groups. Findings were robust to trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: In acutely ill adults, high-quality evidence shows that liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality without improving other patient-important outcomes. Supplemental oxygen might become unfavourable above an SpO2 range of 94-96%. These results support the conservative administration of oxygen therapy. FUNDING: None.