ArticlePulmonary therapy2017
A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting β
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of LAMA/LABA Fixed-Dose Combination Therapies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review of Direct and Indirect Treatment Comparisons.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of prior and concurrent medication on exacerbation risk with long-acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc analysis.Respiratory research · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of inhaled medications (ICS/LABA, LAMA, LAMA/LABA and SAMA) for COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasePooled it
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in comparison with other long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting βTherapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial.Respiratory research · 2019Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Respiratory research · 2018Trial
- Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.Advances in therapy · 2017Trial
- Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dualTherapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseTrial
- Mortality and exacerbation risk according to GOLD and STAR severity stages of COPD: a 5-year multicenter prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with reduction of acute exacerbation in COPD patients using a dual ultra-long-acting bronchodilators.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Benefit of dual bronchodilator therapy on exacerbations in former and current smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in real-world clinical practice: a multicenter validation study (TOReTO).Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of Rescue Medication Prescriptions in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol in Routine Clinical Practice in England.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Differences in Pulmonary Function Improvement after Once-Daily LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- Future concepts in bronchodilation for COPD: dual-European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021Review
- Dual Bronchodilator Therapy as First-Line Treatment in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Symptomatic COPD: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the EMAX Trial.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
- Compatible Stability and Aerosol Characteristics of AtroventPharmaceutics · 2020Article
- Patient-Reported Burden of Illness in a Prevalent COPD Population Treated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Monotherapy: A Claims-Linked Patient Survey Study.Pulmonary therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComparative data on the efficacies of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥8-week duration in adults aged ≥40 years with COPD that compared LAMA + LABA combinations with each other, with tiotropium (TIO), or with placebo. Data on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
resultsData from 44 RCTs were included in the NMA. All FDCs showed improvements relative to placebo in terms of trough FEV
conclusionLAMA + LABA combinations generally showed improved outcomes versus placebo and TIO. FDCs appeared to perform better than open dual combinations. A potential effectiveness gradient was observed between FDCs for objectively assessed functional outcomes, although further prospective trials are required to confirm these findings.
fundingGSK.
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.