Effect of triple therapy on mortality and cardiovascular risk in patients with moderate to severe COPD: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Yubing Li, Jun Li, Hongxia Yang, Yong Zhang
{"title":"Effect of triple therapy on mortality and cardiovascular risk in patients with moderate to severe COPD: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Yubing Li, Jun Li, Hongxia Yang, Yong Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12890-025-03823-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the third leading cause of global mortality, remains a significant challenge in long-term management. While dual bronchodilators (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid combination therapies (ICS/LABA) alleviate symptoms, patients continue to face elevated risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. Recent studies suggest that triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA) may improve outcomes by reducing acute exacerbations and systemic inflammation. However, its long-term effects on mortality and cardiovascular safety remain controversial, highlighting the critical need for systematic evidence to inform clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (up to July 2024) identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapy with dual therapies (LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, exacerbation rates, and cardiovascular adverse events of special interest (CVAESI). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity (assessed via I² statistics). Subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity across drug combinations, supplemented by sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to LAMA/LABA dual therapy, triple therapy significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60-0.97, p = 0.03), moderate-to-severe exacerbation risk (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.90-0.97, p = 0.0003), and overall CVAESI incidence (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93, p = 0.008), with a 38% reduction in severe CVAESI (hospitalized or fatal events: RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.86, p = 0.004). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the BGF regimen achieved superior reductions in CVAESI (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.58-0.89, p = 0.003) and severe CVAESI (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.47-0.79, p = 0.0002) compared to other triple therapies. Although BGF showed only a nonsignificant trend toward mortality reduction (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.58-1.03, p = 0.08), it exhibited greater efficacy in reducing exacerbations (RR = 0.72 vs. non-BGF regimens) and cardiovascular risks. Non-BGF triple therapies yielded inconclusive results due to limited sample sizes and substantial heterogeneity (I²=62-83%, subgroup difference p < 0.05). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of pooled estimates (< 5% variation upon study exclusion), with no significant publication bias detected via funnel plots or Begg's test (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study confirms that ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy significantly reduces mortality, exacerbations, and cardiovascular risks in moderate-to-severe COPD compared to LAMA/LABA dual therapy. The BGF regimen, with optimized drug delivery and synergistic anti-inflammatory/bronchodilatory effects, shows superior clinical benefits, especially in high-risk patients. However, triple therapy did not improve survival or cardiovascular outcomes versus ICS/LABA. Differences in ICS pharmacokinetics highlight the need for personalized strategies based on eosinophil levels and adherence. BGF may be considered a preferred option for patients at high risk of exacerbations or with cardiovascular comorbidities. Future studies should compare triple therapies head-to-head and standardize cardiovascular endpoints to clarify long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9148,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"345"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276660/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-025-03823-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the third leading cause of global mortality, remains a significant challenge in long-term management. While dual bronchodilators (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid combination therapies (ICS/LABA) alleviate symptoms, patients continue to face elevated risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. Recent studies suggest that triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA) may improve outcomes by reducing acute exacerbations and systemic inflammation. However, its long-term effects on mortality and cardiovascular safety remain controversial, highlighting the critical need for systematic evidence to inform clinical decision-making.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (up to July 2024) identified 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapy with dual therapies (LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, exacerbation rates, and cardiovascular adverse events of special interest (CVAESI). Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity (assessed via I² statistics). Subgroup analyses explored heterogeneity across drug combinations, supplemented by sensitivity analyses and publication bias assessments.

Results: Compared to LAMA/LABA dual therapy, triple therapy significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60-0.97, p = 0.03), moderate-to-severe exacerbation risk (RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.90-0.97, p = 0.0003), and overall CVAESI incidence (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93, p = 0.008), with a 38% reduction in severe CVAESI (hospitalized or fatal events: RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.86, p = 0.004). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the BGF regimen achieved superior reductions in CVAESI (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.58-0.89, p = 0.003) and severe CVAESI (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.47-0.79, p = 0.0002) compared to other triple therapies. Although BGF showed only a nonsignificant trend toward mortality reduction (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.58-1.03, p = 0.08), it exhibited greater efficacy in reducing exacerbations (RR = 0.72 vs. non-BGF regimens) and cardiovascular risks. Non-BGF triple therapies yielded inconclusive results due to limited sample sizes and substantial heterogeneity (I²=62-83%, subgroup difference p < 0.05). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of pooled estimates (< 5% variation upon study exclusion), with no significant publication bias detected via funnel plots or Begg's test (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: This study confirms that ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy significantly reduces mortality, exacerbations, and cardiovascular risks in moderate-to-severe COPD compared to LAMA/LABA dual therapy. The BGF regimen, with optimized drug delivery and synergistic anti-inflammatory/bronchodilatory effects, shows superior clinical benefits, especially in high-risk patients. However, triple therapy did not improve survival or cardiovascular outcomes versus ICS/LABA. Differences in ICS pharmacokinetics highlight the need for personalized strategies based on eosinophil levels and adherence. BGF may be considered a preferred option for patients at high risk of exacerbations or with cardiovascular comorbidities. Future studies should compare triple therapies head-to-head and standardize cardiovascular endpoints to clarify long-term outcomes.

三联疗法对中重度COPD患者死亡率和心血管风险的影响:随机对照试验的荟萃分析
背景:慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)是全球第三大死亡原因,长期治疗仍然是一个重大挑战。虽然双支气管扩张剂(LAMA/LABA)和吸入皮质类固醇联合疗法(ICS/LABA)可以缓解症状,但患者仍面临全因死亡率和心血管事件的风险升高。最近的研究表明,三联疗法(ICS/LAMA/LABA)可以通过减少急性加重和全身炎症来改善预后。然而,其对死亡率和心血管安全性的长期影响仍存在争议,因此迫切需要系统的证据来为临床决策提供信息。方法:系统检索PubMed, Embase和Cochrane图书馆(截至2024年7月),确定了13项随机对照试验(rct),比较三联疗法和双疗法(LAMA/LABA或ICS/LABA)治疗中重度COPD患者。结果包括全因死亡率、加重率和心血管特殊不良事件(CVAESI)。使用基于异质性的固定效应或随机效应模型(通过I²统计量评估)计算95%置信区间(CI)的风险比(RR)。亚组分析探讨了药物组合的异质性,并辅以敏感性分析和发表偏倚评估。结果:与LAMA/LABA双重治疗相比,三联治疗显著降低了全因死亡率(RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60-0.97, p = 0.03)、中重度加重风险(RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.90-0.97, p = 0.0003)和CVAESI总发生率(RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.93, p = 0.008),严重CVAESI(住院或死亡事件:RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.86, p = 0.004)降低了38%。亚组分析表明,与其他三联疗法相比,BGF方案在CVAESI (RR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.58-0.89, p = 0.003)和严重CVAESI (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.47-0.79, p = 0.0002)方面取得了更好的降低效果。虽然BGF在降低死亡率方面仅表现出不显著的趋势(RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.58-1.03, p = 0.08),但它在降低病情恶化(RR = 0.72,与非BGF方案相比)和心血管风险方面表现出更大的疗效。非bgf三联疗法的结果不确定,因为样本量有限且存在很大的异质性(I²=62-83%,亚组差异p 0.05)。结论:本研究证实,与LAMA/LABA双重治疗相比,ICS/LAMA/LABA三联治疗可显著降低中重度COPD患者的死亡率、急性加重和心血管风险。BGF方案具有优化的药物传递和协同抗炎/支气管扩张作用,具有优越的临床效益,特别是在高危患者中。然而,与ICS/LABA相比,三联疗法并没有提高生存率或心血管预后。ICS药代动力学的差异突出了基于嗜酸性粒细胞水平和依从性的个性化策略的必要性。对于急性加重或心血管合并症的高风险患者,BGF可被视为首选方案。未来的研究应该比较三联疗法,并标准化心血管终点,以明确长期结果。
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
BMC Pulmonary Medicine
BMC Pulmonary Medicine RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
423
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pulmonary Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of pulmonary and associated disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信