scholarly journals Comparative efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for COPD: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0255545
Author(s):  
Yixuan Jiang ◽  
Hao Hu ◽  
Siu-wai Leung
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Bias Analysis ◽  
Long Acting

Introduction 2021 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Reports recommends that patients with clinically significant symptoms and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should escalate to triple therapy, a combined use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting b2-agonists (LABA)(ICS/LAMA/LABA). Triple therapy in fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), i.e., combining ICS, LABA with LAMA and administrating by a single inhalation device, has appeared in recent years. This study aims to compare the efficacy of triple therapy in FDCs in treating patients with moderate to severe COPD. Methods and analyses Literature search will be conducted on PubMed, Embase and Web of science, according to pre-specified and corresponding search strategies, for relevant reports published since the inception dates of the databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) which compared the triple therapy in FDCs with other pharmacological therapies will be included. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2) will be used to assess the RCT quality. The outcomes will be analyzed as rate ratios and mean differences under a random-effects model in a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA). Additional statistical analyses including subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis will be performed to assess the evidential heterogeneity and robustness. The strength of evidence from the NMA will be evaluated with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is required as this systematic review and network meta-analysis do not collect confidential personal data and do not carry out interventions in treating patients. Protocol registration number CRD42021240823.

scholarly journals Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Koarai ◽  
Mitsuhiro Yamada ◽  
Tomohiro Ichikawa ◽  
Naoya Fujino ◽  
Tomotaka Kawayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Beta Agonist ◽  
History Of ◽  
Dyspnea Score ◽  
Long Acting

Abstract Background Recently, the addition of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy has been recommended for patients with COPD who have severe symptoms and a history of exacerbations because it reduces the exacerbations. In addition, a reducing effect on mortality has been shown by this treatment. However, the evidence is mainly based on one large randomized controlled trial IMPACT study, and it remains unclear whether the ICS add-on treatment is beneficial or not. Recently, a large new ETHOS trial has been performed to clarify the ICS add-on effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety including ETHOS trial. Methods We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea symptom, lung function and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality, as the outcomes of interest. Results We identified a total of 6 RCTs in ICS add-on protocol (N = 13,579). ICS/LAMA/LABA treatment (triple therapy) significantly decreased the incidence of exacerbations (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.64–0.83) and improved the QOL score and trough FEV1 compared to LAMA/LABA. In addition, triple therapy significantly improved the dyspnea score (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.18–0.48) and mortality (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87). However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.16–2.00). In the ICS-withdrawal protocol including 2 RCTs, triple therapy also showed a significantly better QOL score and higher trough FEV1 than LAMA/LABA. Concerning the trough FEV1, QOL score and dyspnea score in both protocols, the differences were less than the minimal clinically important difference. Conclusion Triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia but is a more preferable treatment than LAMA/LABA due to the lower incidence of exacerbations, higher trough FEV1 and better QOL score. In addition, triple therapy is also superior to LABA/LAMA due to the lower mortality and better dyspnea score. However, these results should be only applied to patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD and a history of exacerbations. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

scholarly journals LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations versus LAMA monotherapy in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175346662093719
Author(s):  
Ching-Yi Chen ◽  
Wang-Chun Chen ◽  
Chi-Hsien Huang ◽  
Yi-Ping Hsiang ◽  
Chau-Chyun Sheu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Copd Exacerbations ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
History Of ◽  
Long Acting

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with high risk of exacerbations. It is unclear whether long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are more effective than LAMAs alone in preventing exacerbations. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate whether LABA/LAMA FDCs are more effective than LAMA monotherapy in preventing exacerbations. Methods: We searched several databases and manufacturers’ websites to identify relevant randomized clinical trials comparing LABA/LAMA FDC treatment with LAMAs alone ⩾24 weeks. Outcomes of interest were time to first exacerbation and rates of moderate to severe, severe and all exacerbations. Results: We included 10 trials in 9 articles from 2013 to 2018 with a total of 19,369 patients for analysis in this study. Compared with LAMA monotherapy, LABA/LAMA FDCs demonstrated similar efficacy in terms of time to first exacerbation [hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.18; p = 0.71], moderate to severe exacerbations [risk ratio (RR), 0.96; 95% CI 0.90–1.03; p = 0.28], severe exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.81–1.03; p = 0.15), and a marginal superiority in terms of all exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86–1.00; p = 0.04). The incidence of all exacerbation events was lower in the LABA/LAMA FDC group for the COPD patients with a history of previous exacerbations and those with a longer treatment period (52–64 weeks). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that LABA/LAMA FDCs are marginally superior in the prevention of all exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

scholarly journals Perceptions of COPD patients of the proposed withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids prescribed outside guidelines: A qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 147997311985588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gill Gilworth ◽  
Timothy Harries ◽  
Chris Corrigan ◽  
Mike Thomas ◽  
Patrick White
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease ◽  
Airflow Limitation ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
Global Initiative ◽  
Long Acting

Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines support the prescription of fixed combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β-agonists in symptomatic COPD patients with frequent or severe exacerbations, with the aim of preventing them. ICS are frequently also prescribed to COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation, outside guidelines, with the risk of unwanted effects. No investigation to date has addressed the views of these milder COPD patients on ICS withdrawal. The objective is to assess the views of COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation on the staged withdrawal of ICS prescribed outside guidelines. One-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring COPD patients’ views about ICS use and their attitudes to proposed de-prescription were conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was completed. Seventeen eligible COPD patients were interviewed. Many participants were not aware they were using an ICS. None was aware that prevention of exacerbations was the indication for ICS therapy or the risk of associated side effects. Some were unconcerned by what they perceived as low individual risk. Others expressed fears of worsening symptoms on withdrawal. Most with mild or moderate airflow limitation would have been willing to attempt withdrawal or titration to a lower dosage of ICS if advised by their clinician, particularly if a reasoned explanation were offered. Attitudes in this study to discontinuing ICS use varied. Knowledge of the drug itself, the indications for its prescription in COPD and potential for side effects, was scant. The proposed withdrawal of ICS is likely to be challenging and requires detailed conversations between patients and respiratory healthcare professionals.

scholarly journals LABA/LAMA combination in COPD: a meta-analysis on the duration of treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (143) ◽  
pp. 160043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigino Calzetta ◽  
Paola Rogliani ◽  
Josuel Ora ◽  
Ermanno Puxeddu ◽  
Mario Cazzola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Meta Analyses

When there are no randomised clinical trials directly comparing all relevant treatment options, an indirect treatment comparison via meta-analysis of the available clinical evidence is an acceptable alternative. However, meta-analyses may be very misleading if not adequately performed. Here, we propose and validate a simple and effective approach to meta-analysis for exploring the effectiveness of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.14 articles with 20 329 patients (combinations n=9292; monocomponents n=11 037) were included in this study. LABA/LAMA combinations were always more effective than the monocomponents in terms of the improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, transition dyspnoea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. No significant publication bias was identified. Significant discrepancies with previous network meta-analyses have been found, with overall differences ranging from 26.7% to 43.3%.Results from previous network meta-analyses were misleading because no adequate attention was given to formulating the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, correctly identifying studies, collecting appropriate information and deciding what it would be pharmacologically relevant to analyse. The real gradient of effectiveness of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations remains an unmet medical need; however, it can be investigated indirectly using a high-quality meta-analytic approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document