Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26746383›Full record

SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease2016

Comparative efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β2-agonists: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Max Schlueter, N Gonzalez-Rojas, Michael Baldwin, Lars Groenke, Florian Voss, Tim Reason

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 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. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Max SchlueterIMS Health, 210 Pentonville Road, London N1 9JY, UK mschlueter@uk.imshealth.com.
N Gonzalez-RojasBoehringer Ingelheim GmbH,  Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Michael BaldwinBoehringer Ingelheim GmbH,  Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Lars GroenkeBoehringer Ingelheim GmbH,  Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Florian VossBoehringer Ingelheim GmbH,  Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Tim ReasonIMS Health, London, UK.
Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for treatment of moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have recently become available, but none have been directly compared in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study was to assess the relative clinical benefit of all currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

methodsA systematic literature review identified RCTs investigating the efficacy, safety and quality of life associated with licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs for the treatment of moderate-to-very severe COPD. RCTs were screened for inclusion in the NMA using prespecified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted for outcomes of interest, including change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (tFEV1) from baseline, St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) percentage of responders, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) percentage of responders, change in SGRQ score from baseline, change in TDI focal score from baseline, moderate-to-severe exacerbations, all-cause discontinuation, and discontinuation due to adverse events.

resultsFollowing screening, a total of 27 trials from 26 publications with 30,361 subjects were eligible for inclusion in the NMA. Nonsignificant results were seen in most analyses comparing efficacy, exacerbations and discontinuation rates of included LAMA/LABA FDCs (i.e. aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 110/50 µg, tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg, umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg). Meta-regression controlling for post-bronchodilator percentage of tFEV1 predicted at baseline as well as meta-regression adjusting for concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids at baseline was performed to assess the magnitude of effect modification and produced similar results as observed in the base case analysis.

conclusionAll LAMA/LABA FDCs were found to have similar efficacy and safety. Definitive assessment of the relative efficacy of different treatments can only be performed through direct comparison in head-to-head RCTs. In the absence of such data, this indirect comparison may be of value in clinical and health economic decision-making.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBayes TheoremBronchodilator AgentsDrug CombinationsForced Expiratory VolumeHumansLungMuscarinic AntagonistsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSeverity of Illness IndexTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBronchodilator AgentsDrug CombinationsMuscarinic Antagonistsaclidinium/formoterolchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseglycopyrronium/indacaterolnetwork meta-analysistiotropium/olodaterolumeclidinium/vilanterol

Identifiers

PMID26746383
PMCPMC5933564
OpenAlexW2226497786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.