Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26392761›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2015

Comparative efficacy of combination bronchodilator therapies in COPD: a network meta-analysis.

Eline L Huisman, Sarah M Cockle, Afisi S Ismaila, Andreas Karabis, Yogesh Suresh Punekar

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eline L HuismanMapi Group, Real World Strategy and Analytics and Strategic Market Access, Houten, the Netherlands.
Sarah M CockleValue Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK.
Afisi S IsmailaValue Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA ; Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Andreas KarabisMapi Group, Real World Strategy and Analytics and Strategic Market Access, Houten, the Netherlands.
Yogesh Suresh PunekarValue Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK.
GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral new fixed-dose combination bronchodilators have been recently launched, and assessing their efficacy relative to each other, and with open dual combinations is desirable. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with that of available dual bronchodilators in single/separate inhalers.

methodsA systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥10 weeks among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (≥40 years), assessing the efficacy of combination bronchodilators in single or separate inhalers. Comparative assessment was conducted on change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, transitional dyspnea index (TDI) focal scores, and rescue medication use at 12 weeks and 24 weeks using an NMA within a Bayesian framework.

resultsA systematic literature review identified 77 articles of 26 trials comparing UMEC/VI, indacaterol/glycopyrronium (QVA149), formoterol plus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg, salmeterol plus TIO, or indacaterol plus TIO, with TIO and placebo as common comparators at 12 weeks and approximately 24 weeks. The NMA showed that at 24 weeks, efficacy of UMEC/VI was not significantly different compared with QVA149 on trough FEV1 (14.1 mL [95% credible interval: -14.2, 42.3]), SGRQ total score (0.18 [-1.28, 1.63]), TDI focal score (-0.30 [-0.73, 0.13]), and rescue medication use (0.02 [-0.27, 0.32]); compared with salmeterol plus TIO on trough FEV1 (67.4 mL [-25.3, 159.4]), SGRQ total score (-0.11 [-1.84, 1.61]), and TDI focal score (0.58 [-0.33, 1.50]); and compared with formoterol plus TIO 18 μg on SGRQ total score (-0.68 [-1.77, 0.39]). Results at week 12 were consistent with week 24 outcomes. Due to lack of availability of evidence, no comparison was made with formoterol plus TIO on FEV1 or TDI at 24 weeks.

conclusionUMEC/VI has comparable efficacy to other dual-bronchodilator combinations on available efficacy endpoints.

Indexed as

Bronchodilator AgentsDrug CombinationsDrug Therapy, CombinationDyspneaForced Expiratory VolumeFormoterol FumarateGlycopyrrolateHumansIndansPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuinolonesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSalmeterol XinafoateTiotropium BromideTreatment OutcomeBronchodilator AgentsDrug CombinationsFormoterol FumarateGlycopyrrolateindacaterolindacaterol-glycopyrronium combinationIndansQuinolonesSalmeterol XinafoateTiotropium BromidefomoterolglycopyrroniumindacaterolLABA/LAMAQVA149tiotropiumumeclidiniumUMEC/VI

Identifiers

PMID26392761
PMCPMC4573199
OpenAlexW1433900029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.