Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for Japanese patients with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations, additional treatment with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy is recommended based on the evidence of low incidence of exacerbations but with a caution for pneumonia. However, ethnic differences may affect the response to drugs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this treatment in the Japanese population (PROSPERO: CRD42020191978). METHODS: We searched relevant randomized control trials and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, lung function, and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality as the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We identified a total of three RCTs (N = 632). Treatment with ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy significantly decreased the exacerbations (rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.85) and improved the trough FEV1 (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07) compared to LAMA/LABA therapy. However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.58 to 7.22). Concerning other adverse events including mortality, there were no significant difference between these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In the current meta-analysis of the Japanese population, we confirmed that triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia than LAMA/LABA treatment but is a more preferable treatment since it showed a lower incidence of exacerbations and higher trough FEV1 in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD. However, since the sample sizes were not statistically large enough, further trials involving Japanese patients are needed.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the addition of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy has been recommended for patients with COPD who have severe symptoms and a history of exacerbations because it reduces the exacerbations. In addition, a reducing effect on mortality has been shown by this treatment. However, the evidence is mainly based on one large randomized controlled trial IMPACT study, and it remains unclear whether the ICS add-on treatment is beneficial or not. Recently, a large new ETHOS trial has been performed to clarify the ICS add-on effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety including ETHOS trial. METHODS: We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea symptom, lung function and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality, as the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We identified a total of 6 RCTs in ICS add-on protocol (N = 13,579). ICS/LAMA/LABA treatment (triple therapy) significantly decreased the incidence of exacerbations (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.83) and improved the QOL score and trough FEV1 compared to LAMA/LABA. In addition, triple therapy significantly improved the dyspnea score (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.18-0.48) and mortality (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87). However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.16-2.00). In the ICS-withdrawal protocol including 2 RCTs, triple therapy also showed a significantly better QOL score and higher trough FEV1 than LAMA/LABA. Concerning the trough FEV1, QOL score and dyspnea score in both protocols, the differences were less than the minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSION: Triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia but is a more preferable treatment than LAMA/LABA due to the lower incidence of exacerbations, higher trough FEV1 and better QOL score. In addition, triple therapy is also superior to LABA/LAMA due to the lower mortality and better dyspnea score. However, these results should be only applied to patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD and a history of exacerbations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

Treatment with LABA versus LAMA for stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD. METHODS: We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: We carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs (N = 28,211). LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.02). In St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV1 after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Treatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV1 compared to LABA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (PROSPERO: CRD42019144764).