Background: Complementary and alternative therapy is widely used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Chinese herbal medicine, JianPiYiFei (JPYF) II granules, have been shown to improve COPD patients' quality of life, however long-term effectiveness has not been examined. Purpose: To investigate whether long-term treatment with JPYF II granules is effective and safe for patients with stable, moderate to very severe COPD. Study design and methods: A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Eligible participants from six hospitals were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either JPYF II granules or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score during treatment. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of acute exacerbations during treatment, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), 6-minute walking test (6MWT), lung function, body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea, exercise capacity (BODE) index, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the end of treatment. Results: A total of 276 patients (138 in each group) were included in the analysis. JPYF II granules led to a significantly greater reduction in SGRQ score (-7.33 points, 95% CI -10.59 to -4.07; p < 0.0001) which reflects improved quality of life. JPYF II granules improved CAT (-3.49 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.86; p < 0.0001) and 6MWT (45.61 metres, 95% CI 20.26 to 70.95; p = 0.0005), compared with placebo. Acute exacerbations were less frequent with JPYF II granules than with placebo (0.87 vs. 1.34 events per patient; p = 0.0043). There were no significant differences between the groups in lung function, BODE index and SpO2. JPYF II granules were well tolerated and no significant adverse effects were noted. Conclusions: Long-term treatment with JPYF II granules is effective in moderate to very severe COPD, improving quality of life and exercise capacity, decreasing the risk of acute exacerbation, and relieving symptoms.

Background and objectives:Smoking is responsible for 9 out of 10 deaths related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and this number can be reduced by quitting smoking. In this study, the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was assessed through a network meta-analysis. Methods:Eight databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials involving different interventions for smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. The Cochrane Handbook tool was employed to assess the risk bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA software. Results:A total of 23 studies involving 13,480 patients were included. Eight studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, seven studies had a low risk, and in eight studies, the risk was unclear. All studies employed 13 different interventions, including eight monotherapies and five combination therapies. Network meta-analysis showed that a combination of behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy was superior in achieving patients' smoking cessation compared to monotherapy. Moreover, varenicline was more helpful for smoking cessation than other single interventions. The final surface under the cumulative ranking curve value indicated that cognitive behavior therapy combined with bupropion achieved the best smoking cessation effect. Conclusions:The obtained results indicate that a combination of behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy is most powerful in helping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients to quit smoking. Researchers should focus more on the safety of pharmacotherapeutic interventions. Moreover, more high-quality trials investigating the stability of evidence levels of different interventions on abstinence must be conducted.

Background Revefenacin (REV) is a novel once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic review incorporating a dose-response meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of REV. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched from their inception to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy and safety of REV in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Outcomes consisted of the mean change in trough Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). A dose-response meta-analysis using the robust error meta-regression method was conducted. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. Results Nine RCTs (3,121 participants) were included in this systematic review. The meta-analyses indicated that 175 mu g/day REV could significantly improve the trough FEV1 (MD=143.67, 95%CI: 129.67 to 157.68; I-2=96%; 809 participants; studies=4; low quality) without increasing the risk of AEs (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.81 to 1.18; I-2=34%; 2,286 participants; studies=7; low quality) or SAEs (OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.55 to 1.46; I-2=0%; 2,318 participants; studies=7; very low quality) compared to placebo. Furthermore, the effect of REV in increasing trough FEV1 was dose-dependent with an effective threshold of 88 mu g/day (R-2 = 0.7017). Nevertheless, only very low-quality to low-quality evidence showed that REV at a dose of 175 mu g/day was inferior to tiotropium regarding the long-term efficacy, and its safety profile was not superior to tiotropium or ipratropium. Conclusion Current evidence shows that REV is a promising option for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. Due to most evidence graded as low quality, further studies are required to compare the efficacy, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness between REV and other LAMAs in different populations.

Authors' objectives: HTW undertook an evidence review to address the following question: are oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) devices more clinically and cost-effective than other techniques for airway clearance in chronic hypersecretory lung conditions?