ArticlePloS one2024
Prescription patterns and effectiveness of medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A retrospective study of real-world settings.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Diagnostic Code Definitions for Identifying Patient in Korean Health Insurance Claims Data: A Scoping Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of nebulized HL231 inhalation solution in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to define real-world prescription patterns in Korea and compare the effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) medications. We used national claims data provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea and examined patients who were first diagnosed with COPD and started treatment between May 1, 2017, and April 30, 2018, with no change in drug regimen. Among 30,784 patients with COPD, long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combined with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (32.7%), inhaled corticosteroid-LABA (ICS-LABA) (25.6%), LAMA (18.3%), ICS (5.8%), or LABA (4.6%) were prescribed as the first-choice inhalers. The use of LABA-LAMA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.248-0.584), LAMA (HR, 0.320-0.641), ICS-LABA (HR, 0.325-0.643), and xanthine (HR, 0.563-0.828) significantly reduced the total and severe exacerbation rates compared with no use of each medication. However, the use of ICS or LABA individually did not yield such effects. The continued use of LABA-LAMA, LAMA, and ICS-LABA showed a significant effect on exacerbation rate, whereas the long-term use of ICS, LABA, and xanthine did not. Moreover, some high doses of ICS-LABA did not show significant effects. This real-world study revealed that LAMA and/or LABA could be the first choice of therapy, as recommended by recent guidelines. However, ICS, xanthine, and high-dose ICS-LABA are still being prescribed frequently as first-line drugs in Korea.
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.