Trial reportInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Exacerbation heterogeneity in COPD: subgroup analyses from the FLAME study.
Trial report in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of exacerbation history on outcomes in the IMPACT trial.The European respiratory journal · 2020Trial
- The efficacy and safety of antibiotics and glucocorticoids in the treatment of elderly patients with chronic obstructive emphysema: systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Animal Models Reflecting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Related Respiratory Disorders: Translating Pre-Clinical Data into Clinical Relevance.Journal of innate immunity · 2020Review
- A Framework For Step Down Or Therapeutic Re-Organization For Withdrawal Of Inhaled Corticosteroids In Selected Patients With COPD: A Proposal For COPD Management.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe FLAME study compared once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 μg with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) 50/500 μg in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the previous year.
methodsThis prespecified and post hoc subgroup analysis evaluated treatment efficacy on 1) moderate/severe exacerbations according to prior exacerbation history and treatment, and 2) types of exacerbations according to health care resource utilization (HCRU) during 1-year follow-up.
resultsIND/GLY reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus SFC in patients with a history of 1 exacerbation (rate ratio [RR]: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.93), ≥2 exacerbations (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.03) and ≥2 exacerbations or ≥1 hospitalization in the previous year (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74-1.00). Prolonged time-to-first exacerbation was observed in all the groups according to exacerbation history. Moderate/severe exacerbations decreased with IND/GLY versus SFC, independent of previous treatment. IND/GLY significantly reduced rates of moderate/severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.93) and systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91); rates of exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone were comparable (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.22).
conclusionOverall, IND/GLY demonstrated consistent beneficial effects versus SFC on moderate/severe exacerbations, independent of prior exacerbation history or treatment. The efficacy of IND/GLY on exacerbation prevention was superior to SFC for exacerbations treated with antibiotics with/without systemic corticosteroids and was similar for exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone.
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.