ReviewTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Maintenance Therapy Strategies for Quality of Life in COPD: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of triple inhaled therapy on MACE and cardiovascular events in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Real-World Long-Term Outcomes of Triple Therapy Following Hospitalization for Acute Exacerbation of COPD: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- Research Trends in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (2005-2024): From Drug Therapy to Comprehensive Rehabilitation Strategies.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Clinical and Economic Burden of COPD in Patients on Inhaled Triple Therapy in Germany - A Retrospective Claims Data Analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome systematic reviews (SRs) on triple therapy (consisting of long-acting β
objectivesTo provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy and safety of triple therapy for COPD.
designOverview of SRs.
methodsTwo independent reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant SRs that compared triple therapy with any non-triple therapy for COPD, from the inception of these databases until 1 June 2023. The AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies and the evidence for each outcome.
resultsEighteen SRs encompassing 30 original studies and involving 47,340 participants were analyzed. The overall AMSTAR 2 rating revealed that 3 SRs were of low quality, 13 SRs were of critically low quality, and 2 SRs were of high quality. No high-certainty evidence revealed a significant advantage of triple therapy in improving lung function or reducing acute exacerbations. However, all evidence, including one high certainty, supported the benefits of improving quality of life. Regarding all-cause mortality, no significant difference was found when compared to LAMA or ICS/LABA; however, high-certainty evidence confirmed its effectiveness when compared with LABA/LAMA. Notably, high-certainty evidence indicated that triple therapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia compared to LABA/LAMA.
conclusionTriple therapy demonstrated notable benefits in improving lung function, reducing exacerbations, improving quality of life, and reducing all-cause mortality. However, it is important to note that it may also significantly increase the risk of pneumonia.
trial registrationThis overview protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42023431548).
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.