Dataset Information

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies versus tiotropium in moderate-to-severe COPD.

ABSTRACT: Dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy may benefit patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. The efficacy and safety of US-approved LAMA/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combinations versus tiotropium (TIO), a LAMA, were assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis (GSK: 206938), conducted in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, and EMBASE following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified randomized clinical trials (>8 weeks) in moderate-to-severe COPD (per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines), receiving LAMA/LABA or TIO.

Endpoints

difference in change from baseline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]; trough, peak, area under the curve 0-3 h post-dose (AUC_0-3), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responder rate (≥4-unit improvement), SGRQ total score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. From 5683 citations, the meta-analysis included eight clinical trials. LAMA/LABA significantly improved FEV₁ trough (Week 12: 63.0 mL, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 39.2, 86.8; Week 24: 66.1 mL, 95% CI: 40.0, 92.3), peak (Week 12: 91.5 mL, 95% CI: 70.5, 112.4; Week 24: 92.4 mL, 95% CI: 72.9, 111.9), AUC_0-3 (Week 12: 126.8 mL, 95% CI: 108.1, 145.4), SGRQ responder rate at Week 12 (risk ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.28), mean SGRQ total score (Week 12: -1.87, 95% CI: -2.72, -1.02; Week 24: -1.05, 95% CI: -2.02, -0.09), and rescue medication use (Week 24: -0.47 puffs/day, 95% CI: -0.64, -0.30) versus TIO (all p ≤ 0.03). The SGRQ responder rate at 24 weeks and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies improved lung function, SGR,Q and rescue medication use versus TIO, without compromising safety.

SUBMITTER: Han MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6110857 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionTriple 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 registrationPROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the current evidence for long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment of COPD.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials published in English up to September 2017 of LABA/LAMA FDCs vs LABA or LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs in COPD patients was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Outcomes including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) scores, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, exacerbations, exercise tolerance (endurance time [ET]), inspiratory capacity (IC), and rescue medication use were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 27 studies were included in the review. LABA/LAMA FDCs significantly improved lung function (FEV1) at 12 weeks compared with LABA or LAMA or LABA/ICS. These effects were maintained over time. Significant improvements with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs each evaluated comparator were also observed in TDI and SGRQ scores, even if significant differences between different LABA/LAMA FDCs were detected. Only the LABA/LAMA FDC indacaterol/glycopyrronium has shown superiority vs LAMA and LABA/ICS for reducing exacerbation rates, while olodaterol/tiotropium and indacaterol/glycopyrronium have been shown to improve ET and IC vs the active comparators. Rescue medication use was significantly reduced by LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the evaluated comparators. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe, with no increase in the risk of adverse events with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the monocomponents.ConclusionEvidence supporting the efficacy of LABA/LAMA FDCs for COPD is heterogeneous, particularly for TDI and SGRQ scores, exacerbation rates, ET, and IC. So far, indacaterol/glycopyrronium is the LABA/LAMA FDC that has the strongest evidence for superiority vs LABA, LAMA, and LABA/ICS FDCs across the evaluated outcomes. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe; however, more data should be collected in a real-world setting to confirm their safety.

Project description:IntroductionIn patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves lung function versus LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). To investigate whether LAMA/LABA could provide better clinical outcomes than LABA/ICS, this non-interventional database study assessed the risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy in patients with COPD initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus any LABA/ICS combination.MethodsAdministrative healthcare claims and laboratory results data from the US HealthCore Integrated Research Databasesm were evaluated for patients with COPD initiating tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS treatment (January 2013-March 2019). Patients were aged at least 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD (but not asthma) at cohort entry. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used (as-treated analysis) to assess risk of COPD exacerbation, community-acquired pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy, both individually and as a combined risk of any one of these events. Potential imbalance of confounding factors between cohorts was handled using fine stratification, reweighting, and trimming by exposure propensity score (high-dimensional); subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of blood eosinophil levels and exacerbation history.ResultsThe total population consisted of 61,985 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2684; LABA/ICS n = 59,301); after reweighting, the total was 42,953 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2600; LABA/ICS n = 40,353; mean age 65 years; female 54.5%). Patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS experienced a reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbations (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]), pneumonia (0.74 [0.57, 0.97]), escalation to triple therapy (0.22 [0.19, 0.26]), and any one of these events (0.45 [0.41, 0.49]); the combined risk was similar irrespective of baseline eosinophils and exacerbation history.ConclusionsIn patients with COPD, tiotropium/olodaterol was associated with a lower risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy versus LABA/ICS, both individually and in combination; the combined risk was reduced irrespective of baseline eosinophils or exacerbation history.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04138758 (registered 23 October 2019).

Dataset Information

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies versus tiotropium in moderate-to-severe COPD.

Endpoints

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets