IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparisons of exacerbations and mortality among regular inhaled therapies for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hyun Woo Lee
  • Jimyung Park
  • Junwoo Jo
  • Eun Jin Jang
  • Chang-Hoon Lee

Abstract

Background: Although exacerbation and mortality are the most important clinical outcomes of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the drug classes that are the most efficacious in reducing exacerbation and mortality among all possible inhaled drugs have not been determined. Methods and findings: We performed a systematic review (SR) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, and the official websites of pharmaceutical companies (from inception to July 9, 2019). The eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) parallel-design randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) adults with stable COPD; (3) comparisons among long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), combined treatment (ICS/LAMA/LABA, LAMA/LABA, or ICS/LABA), or a placebo; and (4) study duration ≥ 12 weeks. This study was prospectively registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42017069087). In total, 219 trials involving 228,710 patients were included. Compared with placebo, all drug classes significantly reduced the total exacerbations and moderate to severe exacerbations. ICS/LAMA/LABA was the most efficacious treatment for reducing the exacerbation risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.50–0.64; posterior probability of OR > 1 [P(OR > 1)] 1] = 0.004; and OR = 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76–0.98, P[OR > 1] = 0.015, respectively). The results minimally changed, even in various sensitivity and covariate-adjusted meta-regression analyses. ICS/LAMA/LABA tended to lower the risk of cardiovascular mortality but did not show significant results. ICS/LAMA/LABA increased the probability of pneumonia (OR for triple therapy = 1.56; 95% CrI 1.19–2.03; P[OR > 1] = 1.000). The main limitation is that there were few RCTs including only less symptomatic patients or patients at a low risk. Conclusions: These findings suggest that triple therapy can potentially be the best option for stable COPD patients in terms of reducing exacerbation and all-cause mortality. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, Chang-Hoon Lee and colleagues compare efficacy and safety of drugs and drug combinations for treating COPD.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Hyun Woo Lee & Jimyung Park & Junwoo Jo & Eun Jin Jang & Chang-Hoon Lee, 2019. "Comparisons of exacerbations and mortality among regular inhaled therapies for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002958
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002958
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002958&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002958?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002958. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.