Thorax · 2015
Efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combinations in COPD: a network meta-analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oba Yuji, Sarva Siva T, Dias Sofia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The place of long-acting β agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) combinations in stable patients with COPD is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA combinations.
METHODS: Several databases and manufacturers' websites were searched for relevant clinical trials. Randomised control trials, at least 12 weeks duration, comparing a LABA/LAMA combination with placebo and/or monotherapy were included. The data were pooled using a network as well as a traditional direct comparison meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-three trials with a total of 27 172 patients were included in the analysis. LABA/LAMA combinations were associated with a greater improvement in lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, and Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) than monotherapies. LABA/LAMA combinations were associated with a significantly greater proportion of SGRQ and TDI responders than monotherapies (OR 1.23 (95% credible interval (CrI) 1.06-1.39), OR 1.34 (95% CrI 1.19-1.50) versus LABAs and OR 1.24 (95% CrI 1.11-1.36), OR 1.31 (95% CrI 1.18-1.46) versus LAMAs, respectively) and fewer moderate-to-severe exacerbations compared with LABAs (HR 0.82 (95% CrI 0.73-0.93)), but not when compared with LAMAs (HR 0.92 (95% CrI 0.84-1.00)). There were no statistically significant differences associated with LABA/LAMA combinations compared with monotherapies in safety outcomes as well as in severe exacerbations.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy was the most effective strategy in improving lung function, quality of life, symptom scores and moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates, and had similar effects on safety outcomes and severe exacerbations as compared with monotherapies.
METHODS: Several databases and manufacturers' websites were searched for relevant clinical trials. Randomised control trials, at least 12 weeks duration, comparing a LABA/LAMA combination with placebo and/or monotherapy were included. The data were pooled using a network as well as a traditional direct comparison meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-three trials with a total of 27 172 patients were included in the analysis. LABA/LAMA combinations were associated with a greater improvement in lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, and Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) than monotherapies. LABA/LAMA combinations were associated with a significantly greater proportion of SGRQ and TDI responders than monotherapies (OR 1.23 (95% credible interval (CrI) 1.06-1.39), OR 1.34 (95% CrI 1.19-1.50) versus LABAs and OR 1.24 (95% CrI 1.11-1.36), OR 1.31 (95% CrI 1.18-1.46) versus LAMAs, respectively) and fewer moderate-to-severe exacerbations compared with LABAs (HR 0.82 (95% CrI 0.73-0.93)), but not when compared with LAMAs (HR 0.92 (95% CrI 0.84-1.00)). There were no statistically significant differences associated with LABA/LAMA combinations compared with monotherapies in safety outcomes as well as in severe exacerbations.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy was the most effective strategy in improving lung function, quality of life, symptom scores and moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates, and had similar effects on safety outcomes and severe exacerbations as compared with monotherapies.