Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Shujuan Zhang, Jun Wang, Xuanlin Li, Hailong Zhang
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews.","authors":"Shujuan Zhang, Jun Wang, Xuanlin Li, Hailong Zhang","doi":"10.1177/17534666241259634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some systematic reviews (SRs) on triple therapy (consisting of long-acting β<sub>2</sub>-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and inhaled corticosteroid, LABA/LAMA/ICS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have reported conflicting results. As the number of syntheses increases, the task of identifying and interpreting evidence becomes increasingly complex and demanding.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy and safety of triple therapy for COPD.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Overview of SRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two independent reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant SRs that compared triple therapy with any non-triple therapy for COPD, from the inception of these databases until 1 June 2023. The AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies and the evidence for each outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen SRs encompassing 30 original studies and involving 47,340 participants were analyzed. The overall AMSTAR 2 rating revealed that 3 SRs were of low quality, 13 SRs were of critically low quality, and 2 SRs were of high quality. No high-certainty evidence revealed a significant advantage of triple therapy in improving lung function or reducing acute exacerbations. However, all evidence, including one high certainty, supported the benefits of improving quality of life. Regarding all-cause mortality, no significant difference was found when compared to LAMA or ICS/LABA; however, high-certainty evidence confirmed its effectiveness when compared with LABA/LAMA. Notably, high-certainty evidence indicated that triple therapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia compared to LABA/LAMA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Triple therapy demonstrated notable benefits in improving lung function, reducing exacerbations, improving quality of life, and reducing all-cause mortality. However, it is important to note that it may also significantly increase the risk of pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This overview protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42023431548).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11179455/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666241259634","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Some systematic reviews (SRs) on triple therapy (consisting of long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and inhaled corticosteroid, LABA/LAMA/ICS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have reported conflicting results. As the number of syntheses increases, the task of identifying and interpreting evidence becomes increasingly complex and demanding.

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy and safety of triple therapy for COPD.

Design: Overview of SRs.

Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant SRs that compared triple therapy with any non-triple therapy for COPD, from the inception of these databases until 1 June 2023. The AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies and the evidence for each outcome.

Results: Eighteen SRs encompassing 30 original studies and involving 47,340 participants were analyzed. The overall AMSTAR 2 rating revealed that 3 SRs were of low quality, 13 SRs were of critically low quality, and 2 SRs were of high quality. No high-certainty evidence revealed a significant advantage of triple therapy in improving lung function or reducing acute exacerbations. However, all evidence, including one high certainty, supported the benefits of improving quality of life. Regarding all-cause mortality, no significant difference was found when compared to LAMA or ICS/LABA; however, high-certainty evidence confirmed its effectiveness when compared with LABA/LAMA. Notably, high-certainty evidence indicated that triple therapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia compared to LABA/LAMA.

Conclusion: Triple therapy demonstrated notable benefits in improving lung function, reducing exacerbations, improving quality of life, and reducing all-cause mortality. However, it is important to note that it may also significantly increase the risk of pneumonia.

Trial registration: This overview protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42023431548).

慢性阻塞性肺病三联疗法和非三联疗法干预措施的有效性和安全性比较:系统综述。
背景:一些关于慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)三联疗法(包括长效β2-受体激动剂、长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂和吸入性皮质类固醇,LABA/LAMA/ICS)的系统综述(SR)报告了相互矛盾的结果。随着综述数量的增加,识别和解释证据的任务也变得越来越复杂和艰巨:全面概述慢性阻塞性肺病三联疗法的疗效和安全性:设计:SRs 综述:两名独立审稿人在 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 中进行了全面检索,以确定从这些数据库建立之初到 2023 年 6 月 1 日期间比较 COPD 三联疗法和任何非三联疗法的相关 SR。利用 AMSTAR 2 和 GRADE 工具评估纳入研究的质量和每项结果的证据:结果:分析了包含 30 项原创研究的 18 项 SR,涉及 47,340 名参与者。AMSTAR 2 的总体评级显示,3 项 SR 为低质量,13 项 SR 为极低质量,2 项 SR 为高质量。没有高确定性证据显示三联疗法在改善肺功能或减少急性加重方面有显著优势。不过,所有证据(包括一项高确定性证据)都支持改善生活质量的益处。在全因死亡率方面,与LAMA或ICS/LABA相比,没有发现显著差异;但与LABA/LAMA相比,高确定性证据证实了其有效性。值得注意的是,高确定性证据表明,与 LABA/LAMA 相比,三联疗法与肺炎风险的显著增加有关:结论:三联疗法在改善肺功能、减少病情恶化、提高生活质量和降低全因死亡率方面具有显著疗效。结论:三联疗法在改善肺功能、减少病情恶化、提高生活质量和降低全因死亡率方面疗效显著,但值得注意的是,三联疗法也可能显著增加肺炎的风险:本综述方案已在 PROSPERO 进行了前瞻性注册(编号:CRD42023431548)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信