Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction with Valves and Coils. A Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Coils and endobronchial valves are the most widely used bronchoscopic lung volume reduction devices in patients with advanced emphysema. However, the choice of each specific device depends on emphysema characteristics (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous) and presence of lobar collateral ventilation (CV). These devices have not been compared in a head-to-head study design.Objectives: To conduct a network comparative meta-analysis studying the effect of valves in patients with heterogeneous emphysema without CV, and to also study the effects of valves and coils in patients with mixed homogeneous and heterogeneous emphysema.Data Sources and Data Extraction: PubMed and Web of Science were searched for potentially includable randomized active comparator trials from inception to January 20, 2020, and data were extracted in the working sheets of Comprehensive Meta-analysis.Synthesis: Network meta-analysis was conducted in R program using package "netmeta."Results: In patients with heterogeneous emphysema without CV, both Spiration and Zephyr valves showed significant increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (0.11 L [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05 to 0.16] and 0.14 L [0.08 to 0.19], respectively) and in reducing St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores (-9.32 [-14.18 to -4.45] and -8.14 [-11.94 to -4.35], respectively) as compared with control, with no significant interintervention differences. Only Zephyr valves showed significant improvement (52.3 m [95% CI, 26.53 to 77.93]) in six-minute walk distance (6MWD). Both were ranked as equally efficacious in these patients. In the mixed homogeneous and heterogeneous emphysema group of patients, both Zephyr valves and coils showed significant increases in FEV1 and 6MWD and reduction in SGRQ, as compared with control. Although there were no significant interintervention differences, the magnitude of improvement in these parameters was highest with Zephyr valves (e.g., 6MWD increased by 56.74 m [23.66 to 89.81] vs. 30.31 m [4.00 to 56.63]) in coils), ranking them first. In both populations, these interventions showed a statistically significant association with procedure-related pneumothorax but not with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.Conclusions: In patients with heterogeneous emphysema without CV, both Zephyr and Spiration valves were equally efficacious in FEV1 and SGRQ improvement. However, in the mixed patients with homogeneous and heterogeneous emphysema, Zephyr valves show relative superiority over coils especially with respect to improvement in 6MWD.

A Network Comparative Meta-analysis of Percutaneous Dilatational Tracheostomies Using Anatomic Landmarks, Bronchoscopic, and Ultrasound Guidance Versus Open Surgical Tracheostomy.

BACKGROUND: Several different tracheostomy techniques (percutaneous and surgical) have been studied extensively in previous direct pairwise meta-analyses. However, a network comparative meta-analysis comparing all has not been conducted before. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare three percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy techniques with open surgical tracheostomy technique (performed in the operating room or in the intensive care unit by bedside) in terms of their association with procedure-related major complications and procedure time. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed and Cochrane register of randomized active comparator trials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A network comparative meta-analysis was performed in Stata using frequentist methodology. Major complications were defined as a composite of a priori-selected procedure-related complications. Tracheostomy techniques that did not require any direct bronchoscopic or ultrasonographic visualization of the entire procedure were grouped under the heading-anatomic landmark-based dilatational tracheostomy (ALDT). This along with bronchoscopic-guided dilatational tracheostomy (BDT), ultrasound-guided (UDT), and surgical tracheostomy (SGT) were compared with each other using network meta-analysis in Stata after all major assumptions (similarity, transitivity, and consistency) for performing a network were met. Log odds ratio (and standard errors) of the comparison of major complications between any two tracheostomy techniques (using indirect estimates) was statistically insignificant. Pairwise meta-analysis showed significant differences in procedure times between SGT and ALDT [mean difference: 9.96 min (SE 3.18)] and between SGT and BDT [15.67 min (SE 3.85)]. The indirect network meta-analysis comparing one versus the other also showed a statistically significant time difference between surgical tracheostomy when compared with every other technique. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our network meta-analysis show that all tracheostomy techniques are comparable with respect to associated procedure-related complications, but all three percutaneous techniques take far less procedure time compared to the surgical tracheostomy.

Comparative Efficacy of Anti IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 Drugs for Treatment of Eosinophilic Asthma: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several new biologics have been studied in patients with eosinophilic asthma with varying degrees of response on clinical outcomes. No head-to-head trial has directly compared the efficacy of these drugs. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize data on the relative efficacy of benralizumab, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and tralokinumab using network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed from inception to December 15th, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used the 'frequentist' methodology with random effect models using primarily 'netmeta' function in R to generate network meta-analysis results. Outcomes assessed included changes in forced expiratory volume-in 1 s (FEV1), asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ). We also separately analyzed the annualized rate ratios for asthma exacerbations for each drug and compared to placebo. For all outcomes assessed, all drugs were superior to placebo except tralokinumab. In terms of magnitude of effect, dupilumab, followed by reslizumab and benralizumab showed the greatest increase in FEV1, 0.16L (95% CIs: 0.08-0.24), 0.13L (0.10-0.17), and 0.12L (0.08-0.17), compared to placebo. While mepolizumab, followed by dupliumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab showed reductions in ACQ scores, in order of magnitude of effect, dupilumab, followed by mepolizumab, benralizumab, and reslizumab showed the greatest increase in AQLQ scores. All drugs decreased asthma exacerbations but the results were only significant for reslizumab and dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: All drugs except for tralokinumab showed improvements in FEV1, ACQ, and AQLQ. Only reslizumab and dupilumab were associated with statistically significant reductions in asthma exacerbation rates.