ArticleERJ open research2024
Effectiveness of ICS/LABA and LAMA/LABA in COPD due to biomass.
Article in ERJ open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COPD due to biomass exposure (COPD-B) is highly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, and there are no clinical trials designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments currently recommended for patients with COPD due to cigarette smoking (COPD-C). The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/V) 100/25 μg and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 μg on the rate of exacerbations, the time to first exacerbation, on dyspnoea, health-related quality of life (HRQL), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV Methods: A pilot, single-centre, open-label, parallel-group study included 132 patients with a history of at least two exacerbations. They were randomised to receive one of four treatment groups: 33 COPD-B patients received FF/VI 100/25 μg, 31 COPD-B patients received UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg, 34 COPD-C patients received FF/V and 34 COPD-C patients received UMEC/VI. Results: There were no differences in exacerbation rates between patients receiving FF/VI or UMEC/VI in either the COPD-B (0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.13), 0.06 (95% CI 0.03-0.12)) or COPD-C group (0.06 (95% CI 0.04-0.11), 0.08 (95% CI 0.05-0.13)), nor in the time of first exacerbation, nor FEV Conclusions: Among patients with COPD-B and COPD-C with a history of exacerbation, FF/VI was equally effective as UMEC/VI in preventing exacerbations and improving dyspnoea and HRQL.
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.