ReviewDrug safety2016
Safety Considerations with Dual Bronchodilator Therapy in COPD: An Update.
Review in Drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators with cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable COPD: a meta-analysis and systematic review of 43 randomized trials.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019Pooled it
- Double bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a crude analysis from a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Pooled it
- COPD-Asthma-Heart Failure Overlap: Optimizing Bronchodilators and ICS in a High-Risk Triad.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Review
- Salbutamol attenuates arrhythmogenic effect of aminophylline in a hPSC-derived cardiac model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Oribron: An Origami-Inspired Deformable Rigid Bronchoscope for Radial Support.Micromachines · 2023Article
- Effectiveness and safety of concurrent beta-blockers and inhaled bronchodilators in COPD with cardiovascular comorbidities.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2017Review
- Study Design of VESUTOAdvances in therapy · 2017Article
- The impact of dual bronchodilation on cardiovascular serious adverse events and mortality in COPD: a quantitative synthesis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Combining a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) with a long-acting anti-muscarinic agent (LAMA) provides synergistic benefit on airway smooth muscle relaxation, which may have major implications for the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are four different approved LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs)-glycopyrronium/indacaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol, tiotropium/olodaterol, and aclidinium/formoterol-and another, glycopyrronium/formoterol, that is still under clinical development. Many pivotal trials have shown that all of these FDCs are more effective than monotherapies in inducing bronchodilation and do not amplify the possible adverse events (AEs) that are characteristic of LAMAs and LABAs when used as monotherapy. Unfortunately, these clinical trials have included a very small and highly selected fraction of the COPD patient population. Therefore, it is questionable whether such data can be extrapolated to a larger, 'real-life' population of patients with COPD, especially given that COPD patients with co-morbidities are often excluded from clinical trials, COPD is a major risk factor for most cardiovascular diseases, and both LAMAs and LABAs have a high potential to impact cardiac activities. All clinical trials have been conducted under widely varying conditions and, consequently, AE rates of a drug observed in a clinical trial cannot be directly compared with rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not reflect the rates observed in practice. Head-to-head studies comparing the different LAMA/LABA FDCs that will include the true patients that we meet in our everyday practice are absolutely essential if we wish to make a therapeutic choice that is not purely empirical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.