ArticleJournal of internal medicine2021
Dual versus single long-acting bronchodilator use could raise acute coronary syndrome risk by over 50%: A population-based nested case-control study.
Article in Journal of internal medicine, 2021. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac disorders associated with compound long-acting bronchodilators for inhalation: a pharmacovigilance analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system database.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Research progress in myocardial function and diseases related to muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Extrapulmonary Comorbidities Associated with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Review
- Cardiovascular Diseases in COPD: From Diagnosis and Prevalence to Therapy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Dual versus single long-acting bronchodilator use could raise acute coronary syndrome risk by over 50%: A population-based nested case-control study.Journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary heart disease occurs more frequently among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared to those without COPD. While some research suggests that long-acting bronchodilators might confer an additional risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), information from real-world clinical practice about the cardiovascular impact of using two versus one long-acting bronchodilator for COPD is limited. We undertook a population-based nested case-control study to estimate the risk of ACS in users of both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) relative to users of a LAMA.
methodsThe study was based on the primary care PREDICT Cardiovascular Disease Cohort and linked data from regional laboratories and the New Zealand Ministry of Health's national data collections. The underlying cohort (n = 29,993) comprised patients aged 45-84 years, who initiated treatment with a LAMA and/or LABA for COPD between 1 February 2006 and 11 October 2016. 1490 ACS cases were matched to 13,550 controls by date of birth, sex, date of cohort entry (first long-acting bronchodilator dispensing), and COPD severity.
resultsRelative to current use of LAMA therapy, current use of LAMA and LABA dual therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of ACS (adjusted OR = 1.72; [95% CI: 1.28-2.31]).
conclusionDual long-acting bronchodilator therapy, rather than LAMA mono-therapy, could increase the risk of ACS by more than 50%. This has important implications for decisions about the potential benefit/harm ratio of COPD treatment intensification, given the modest benefits of dual therapy.
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.