ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
COPD from an everyday primary care point of view.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study is to use real world evidence on treatment use to evaluate drug superiority within the same treatment group.
methodsRetrospective cohort analysis using the Spanish Database for Pharmacoepidemiological Research in Primary Care (BIFAP). Data includes longitudinal routine clinical data extracted from practice records of 7,890,485 patients. All subjects with an incident diagnosis of COPD in the database BIFAP between January 1 2010 and December 31 2012 were included in the cohort study. Cox regression analysis was performed to compare the hazard of COPD exacerbation outcome of the four principal cohorts (no therapy, monotherapy, double therapies with and without corticoids, and triple therapy) and within each principal cohort between the different treatment combinations.
results27,739 patients with COPD were included in the analysis. The median age was 64 years, male proportion was 69% and 70% were smokers. 58,042.9 person--years of follow-up were obtained for the cohort with a mean follow-up of 2.09 years per subject. The strongest factor associated with an increased risk of exacerbation was suffering an exacerbation the previous year (HR = 1.82[1.76--1.87 95%CI]). No differences were found between the most frequent monotherapies, double therapies without corticoid, or triple therapy. When comparing the different combinations of double therapies with corticoid, salmeterol/fluticasone combination (HR = 1.16[1.08--1.24]) revealed a higher adjusted hazard of exacerbation when compared with formoterol/budesonide.
conclusionsTreatment with a combination of budesonide/formoterol was associated with lower exacerbations than the treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol. The analysis did not reveal any differences in terms of exacerbation in monotherapy, double therapy without corticoids, and triple therapy combinations.
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.