ArticleTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Comparative effectiveness and safety of escalating to triple therapy versus switching to dual bronchodilators after discontinuing LABA/ICS in patients with COPD: a retrospective cohort study.
Article 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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe latest guidelines discourage the use of long-acting beta
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of switching from LABA/ICS to triple therapy (LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA)/ICS) or to dual bronchodilators (LABA/LAMA) in COPD patients.
designThis was a new-user, active-comparator, and propensity score-matched cohort study analyzing the Taiwanese nationwide healthcare insurance claims.
methodsWe recruited COPD patients switching from LABA/ICS to triple therapy or to dual bronchodilators from 2015 to 2019. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual rate of exacerbations, and safety outcomes included severe pneumonia and all-cause mortality. Stratification by prior exacerbations was conducted.
resultsAfter matching, each group comprised 1892 patients, 55% of whom experienced no exacerbations in the prior year. Treatment with LABA/LAMA/ICS versus LABA/LAMA showed comparable annual rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-1.19). However, switching to LABA/LAMA/ICS was associated with increased risks of severe pneumonia (hazard ratio (HR), 1.65; 95% CI, 1.30-2.09) and all-cause death (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.78). In patients with⩾2 prior exacerbations, LABA/LAMA/ICS versus LABA/LAMA was related to a 21% reduced rate of exacerbations but with a twofold increased pneumonia risk and a 49% elevated risk of all-cause mortality.
conclusionSwitching from LABA/ICS to triple therapy versus dual bronchodilators in COPD patients was associated with similar rates of annual exacerbations but was related to elevated risks of severe pneumonia and all-cause mortality. Among frequent exacerbators, triple therapy was associated with lower rates of exacerbation but was accompanied by increased risks of pneumonia and mortality compared to LABA/LAMA. Careful consideration of the examined safety events is necessary when switching from LABA/ICS to triple therapy in COPD management.
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.