Summary

This AI-generated content is provided without warranty, with no liability accepted for reliance on it. Learn more.

• This summary is based on the review of one systematic review(s)/meta-analysis(es). ^[1]
• Trough FEV(1) Improvement: Revefenacin (REV) at a dose of 175 µg/day significantly improved trough Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV), with a mean difference (MD) of 143.67 (95% CI: 129.67 to 157.68; I²=96%) compared to placebo, based on a meta-analysis of 809 participants from four studies. The improvement in trough FEV(1) was dose-dependent, with an effective threshold identified at 88 µg/day (R² = 0.7017).
• Comparison with Other Drugs: Although evidence was rated as very low to low quality, REV at 175 µg/day was found to be inferior to tiotropium regarding long-term efficacy in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
• Safety Profile: Revefenacin did not significantly increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) or serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to placebo, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.81 to 1.18; I²=34%; 2,286 participants; 7 studies) and an OR of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.55 to 1.46; I²=0%; 2,318 participants; 7 studies), respectively, indicating a comparable safety profile to tiotropium and ipratropium.
• The studies included in the systematic review focused on patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comprising a total of 3,121 participants across 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of evidence for most outcomes was rated as low to very low, highlighting the need for further studies to evaluate the efficacy, long-term safety, and cost-effectiveness of Revefenacin (REV) compared to other long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) in varied populations.