Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Oba Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6517098 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6481546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinicians are faced with an increasingly difficult choice regarding the optimal bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) given the number of new treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75/150/300 μg once daily (OD), glycopyrronium bromide 50 μg OD, tiotropium bromide 18 μg/5 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for moderate to severe COPD.MethodsForty randomized controlled trials were combined in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest were trough and post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and responders (≥4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score and responders (≥1 point) at 6 months.ResultsIndacaterol was associated with a higher trough FEV1 than other active treatments (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: 152 mL (95% credible interval (CrI): 126, 179); 160 mL (95% CrI: 133, 187)) and the greatest improvement in SGRQ score (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: -3.9 (95% CrI -5.2, -2.6); -3.6 (95% CrI -4.8, -2.3)). Glycopyrronium and tiotropium 18 μg resulted in the next best estimates for both outcomes with minor differences (difference for glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for trough FEV1 and SGRQ: 18 mL (95% CrI: -16, 51); -0.55 (95% CrI: -2.04, 0.92).ConclusionIn terms of trough FEV1 and SGRQ score indacaterol, glycopyrronium, and tiotropium are expected to be the most effective bronchodilators.
| S-EPMC4014806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fixed dose combination (FDC) dual bronchodilators that co-administer a long acting ?2 -adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) and a long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) are a new class of inhaled treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This review focuses on the clinical evidence for the benefit of LABA/LAMA FDCs compared with monocomponent treatments, and also compared with active comparators that are widely used for the treatment of COPD, namely tiotropium and salmeterol-fluticasone. Novel FDC dual bronchodilators include QVA149 and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). Long term clinical trials show that QVA149 and UMEC/VI are superior to monocomponent therapy in terms of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), although the FEV1 improvement was limited to approximately 80-90% of the added monocomponent values. This suggests that the effect of combining a LABA and a LAMA is not fully additive. LABA/LAMA FDC were associated with the largest mean changes in symptoms and health status that were above the minimal clinically important difference, in contrast to the monocomponents. Furthermore, these LABA/LAMA FDCs demonstrated superiority over the active comparators tiotropium and salmeterol-fluticasone in terms of trough FEV1 and patient-reported outcomes. LABA/LAMA FDCs offer a simplified means of maximizing bronchodilation for COPD patients, with the improvements in lung function being mirrored by benefits in terms of symptoms and exacerbations. The use of LABA/LAMA FDCs in clinical practice is set to grow and further studies are needed to define their optimal place in treatment guidelines.
| S-EPMC4415707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the 4th leading cause of mortality worldwide. Long-acting bronchodilators are considered first line therapies for patients with COPD but their effects on mortality are not well known. We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of long-acting bronchodilators on total mortality in stable COPD. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Systematic Review databases, we identified high quality randomized controlled trials of tiotropium, formoterol, salmeterol, formoterol/budesonide or salmeterol/fluticasone in COPD that had a follow-up of 6 months or longer and reported on total mortality. Two reviewers independently abstracted data from the original trials and disagreements were resolved by iteration and consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials that included 30,495 patients were included in the review. Relative risk (RR) for total mortality was calculated for each of the study and pooled together using a random-effects model. The combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) therapy was associated with reduced total mortality compared with placebo (RR, 0.80; p = 0.005). Neither tiotropium (RR, 1.08; p = 0.61) nor LABA by itself (RR, 0.90; p = 0.21) was associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of ICS and LABA reduced mortality by approximately 20%. Neither tiotropium nor LABA by itself modifies all-cause mortality in COPD.
| S-EPMC2876086 | biostudies-other
Project description:Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (sPIFR) may not benefit optimally from dry powder inhalers (DPI) because of inadequate inspiratory flow. Nebulized bronchodilators may provide a better alternative. We compared bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) revefenacin for nebulization versus the DPI LAMA tiotropium, in patients with COPD and sPIFR (< 60 L/min against the resistance of Diskus®). This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 28-day Phase 3b study in patients with COPD enrolled based on sPIFR. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on Day 29 for revefenacin for nebulization versus tiotropium HandiHaler® DPI. We enrolled 206 patients with mean (standard deviation) age, 65 (8) years; percent predicted FEV1, 37 (16)%; PIFR, 45 (12) L/min. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, revefenacin improved trough FEV1 from baseline; however, the difference versus tiotropium was not significant (least squares [LS] mean difference [standard error], 17.0 [22.4] mL, P=0.4461). In a prespecified analysis of patients with FEV1 < 50% predicted, revefenacin produced an LS mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]), 49.1 (6.3-91.9) mL in trough FEV1 and 103.5 (7.7-199.3) mL in forced vital capacity versus tiotropium. Revefenacin produced >100 mL increase in FEV1 in 41.6% versus 34.4% of patients with tiotropium in ITT and 41.4% versus 25.7% of patients in FEV1 < 50% predicted populations. Revefenacin did not produce significant improvements in FEV1 versus tiotropium in the ITT population, but increased trough FEV1 in patients with FEV1 < 50% predicted and sPIFR. Clinical Trial Registration (www.Clinicaltrials.gov): Study 0149 (NCT03095456).
| S-EPMC7006701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Both long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their co-administration in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens and to improve efficacy. Three preparations are currently available: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS). budesonide/formoterol (BDF) and mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F). OBJECTIVES:To assess the efficacy and safety of combined long-acting beta2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) preparations, as measured by clinical endpoints and pulmonary function testing, compared with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, which is compiled from systematic searches of multiple literature databases. The search was conducted in June 2013. In addition, we checked the reference lists of included studies and contacted the relevant manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA:Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Compared studies combined LABA/ICS with the ICS component. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia. Health-related quality of life (as measured by validated scales), lung function and side effects were secondary outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences or rate ratios and 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS:A total of 15 studies of good methodological quality met the inclusion criteria by randomly assigning 7814 participants with predominantly poorly reversible, severe COPD. Data were most plentiful for the FPS combination. Exacerbation rates were significantly reduced with combination therapies (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, 6 studies, N = 5601) compared with ICS alone. The mean exacerbation rate in the control (ICS) arms of the six included studies was 1.21 exacerbations per participant per year (range 0.88 to 1.60), and we would expect this to be reduced to a rate of 1.05 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.14) among those given combination therapy. Mortality was also lower with the combination (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, 12 studies, N = 7518) than with ICS alone, but this was heavily weighted by a three-year study of FPS. When this study was removed, no significant mortality difference was noted. The reduction in exacerbations did not translate into significantly reduced rates of hospitalisation due to COPD exacerbation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, 10 studies, N = 7060). Lung function data favoured combination treatment in the FPS, BDF and MF/F trials, but the improvement was small. Small improvements in health-related quality of life were measured on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with FPS or BDF compared with ICS, but this was well below the minimum clinically important difference. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two treatments arms, and rates of pneumonia when it was diagnosed by chest x-ray (CXR) were lower than those reported in earlier trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Combination ICS and LABA offer some clinical benefits in COPD compared with ICS alone, especially for reduction in exacerbations. This review does not support the use of ICS alone when LABAs are available. Adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. Further long-term assessments using practical outcomes of current and new 24-hour LABAs will help determine their efficacy and safety. For robust comparisons as to their relative effects, long-term head-to-head comparisons are needed.
| S-EPMC6486274 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6464543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trials of COPD pharmacotherapy typically involve aging populations with moderate-to-severe COPD, but the latter is often diagnosed by spirometric criteria that are not age-appropriate across the continuum of lung function. We have therefore re-evaluated the clinical effect of combination therapy (salmeterol plus fluticasone) in moderate-to-severe COPD, using more age-appropriate spirometric criteria from the Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) and trial data from Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH).MethodsOf the 6112 TORCH participants, 5688 (93.1%) had GLI-based moderate-to-severe COPD (mean age 64.8 years). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the primary comparison was combination therapy vs. placebo. Secondary outcomes included COPD and cardiovascular (CV) mortality and pneumonia. A modified intention-to-treat analysis evaluated differences in time-to-event over a three-year period, using Cox proportional hazards models with statistical significance at p < 0.010 (acknowledging repeated significance testing).ResultsRelative to placebo, combination therapy yielded a statistically non-significant reduction in all-cause mortality-adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 0.95), p = 0.012. Relative to placebo, combination therapy also yielded statistically non-significant reductions in COPD and CV mortality-adjHR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55, 1.02), p = 0.068 and adjHR 0.76 (95% CI: 0.53, 1.09), p = 0.135, respectively. In contrast, combination therapy yielded a statistically significant increased risk of pneumonia, relative to placebo-adjHR 1.80 (95% CI: 1.46, 2.21), p < 0.001.ConclusionIn GLI-based moderate-to-severe COPD, combination therapy yields a statistically significant increased risk of pneumonia but the reductions in mortality are not statistically significant, although could potentially be clinically meaningful.
| S-EPMC6519718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Currently, there is a lack of guidelines for the use of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in people admitted to hospital for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), despite routine use in practice and risk of cardiac adverse events. AIM:To review the evidence that underpins use and optimal dose, in terms of risk versus benefit, of SABD for inpatient management of AECOPD and collate the results for future guidelines. METHODS:Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched (inception to November 2017) for published and ongoing studies. Included studies were randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials investigating the effect of SABD (?2-agonist and/or ipratropium) on inpatients with a diagnosis of AECOPD. This review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a pre-defined protocol. Due to heterogeneous methodologies, meta-analysis was not possible so the results were synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS:Of 1378 studies identified, 10 met inclusion criteria. Narrative synthesis of 10 studies revealed no significant differences in most outcomes of interest relative to dose, delivery via inhaler or nebuliser, and type of ?2-agonist used. However, some evidence demonstrated significantly increased cardiac side effects with increased dosage of ?2-agonist (45% versus 24%), P<0.05). CONCLUSION:This review identified a paucity of methodologically rigorous evidence evaluating use of SABD among AECOPD. The available evidence did not identify any additional benefits for participants receiving higher doses of short-acting ?2-agonists compared to lower doses, or based on type of delivery method or ?2-agonists used. However, there was a small increase in some adverse events for participants using higher doses of ?2-agonists.
| S-EPMC6264607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Metagenome
| PRJNA647843 | ENA