IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/120024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficacy of Revefenacin in treatment of moderate-to-very-severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bernardini, Claudio
  • Lang, Jacob
  • Kim, Jina
  • Kousta, Marina
  • Jackson, Audrey

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a major global health issue responsible for 5% of global deaths each year, and novel treatments are at a premium. Long acting-muscarinic antagonists are a standard treatment for COPD, and the recent approval of Revefenacin, a novel, once-daily, nebulized LAMA, prompts a need for a systematic review and meta-analysis of results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of Revefenacin, a novel, once-daily, nebulized LAMA in the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases, as well as grey literature sources Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: No age, geographical, contextual or other restrictions were imposed on populations. All human subjects diagnosed with moderate to severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were eligible. Intervention: a novel bronchodilator (Revefenacin). Comparator: Placebo. Outcomes: the efficacy of Revefenacin, measured as the endpoint change in trough FEV1 from baseline. Study design: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). Only studies written in English were considered. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: 1571 records were initially screened, with 27 being eligible for full text review. Eventually, 12 articles for 7 trials were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted with the primary outcome of difference in means for change in trough FEV1 from baseline to study endpoint. RESULTS: 1472 patients were analysed, and the overall difference in means was an increase of 119.073 mL in change in trough FEV1 from baseline to study endpoint for the Revefenacin group compared to the placebo. This result was statistically significant, with a 95% confidence interval of 102.254 mL to 135.893 mL. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study include possible risk of publication bias and placebo as the only comparator, relatively few trials (7), and a low generalizability of findings due to the specific nature of RCT populations excluding multi-morbid, and other complicated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Revefenacin is an efficacious intervention when compared to placebo in the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. Further research is needed in order to assess its efficacy compared to current standard of care, through RCTs or network meta-analysis. What is known: - Existing COPD treatments aim to relief symptoms and improve quality of life. - Revefenacin a novel bronchodilator, was approved in 2018 by the US FDA. - Mong-acting muscarinic antagonists are often used in the management of COPD symptoms. What this study adds: - Revefenacin is a novel drug and no systematic review has been conducted on its efficacy. - The meta-analysis utilised a novel method which accounts for the unit-of-analysis error, when comparing multi- arms studies to a single placebo group (technique of exact adjustment.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernardini, Claudio & Lang, Jacob & Kim, Jina & Kousta, Marina & Jackson, Audrey, 2021. "Efficacy of Revefenacin in treatment of moderate-to-very-severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120024, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/120024/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    5. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    7. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    8. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    9. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    11. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    12. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    14. Wesam Salah Alaloul & Muhammad Altaf & Muhammad Ali Musarat & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement and a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    15. Claudia Peters & Agnessa Kozak & Albert Nienhaus & Anja Schablon, 2020. "Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
    16. Sehee Kim & Mihyeon Park & Sukhee Ahn, 2022. "The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, June.
    17. Habarurema Jean Baptiste & Yan Guang Cai & A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam & Nzabalirwa Wenceslas, 2022. "A Systematic Review of University Social Responsibility in Post-Conflict Societies: The Case of the Great Lakes Region of East Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 439-475, November.
    18. Yafei Shen & Weide Shao, 2022. "Influence of Hybrid Pedagogical Models on Learning Outcomes in Physical Education: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.
    19. Nicola Andreij Rieg & Birgitta Gatersleben & Ian Christie, 2021. "Organizational Change Management for Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Quantitative Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COPD; Revefenacin; meta-analysis; respiratory; lungs; pharmaceutical; long-acting-muscarinic antagonist;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120024. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.