In stable COPD, long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus long-acting beta-agonists resulted in less exacerbations, pneumonia and larger improvement in FEV 1 than long-acting beta-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids.

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2017-10-01 Epub Date: 2017-08-11 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110726
Mario Cazzola, Paola Rogliani
{"title":"In stable COPD, long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus long-acting beta-agonists resulted in less exacerbations, pneumonia and larger improvement in FEV <sub><sub>1</sub></sub> than long-acting beta-agonists plus inhaled corticosteroids.","authors":"Mario Cazzola,&nbsp;Paola Rogliani","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2017-110726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentary on: Horita N, Goto A, Shibata Y, et al . Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD012066.\n\nThe Global Initiative for Chronic Obstrictove Lung Disease 2017 report recommends the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) + long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), or alternatively LABA + inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations regardless of the entity of symptoms.1 However, it does not specify whether it is preferable to start with LAMA+LABA rather than LABA+ICS. In fact, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the current literature.\n\nThe aim of this study was to compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS in the treatment of COPD. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of studies published up to June 2016, including individual randomised controlled trials, parallel-group trials and crossover trials …","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":"22 5","pages":"183-184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110726","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Commentary on: Horita N, Goto A, Shibata Y, et al . Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD012066. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstrictove Lung Disease 2017 report recommends the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) + long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), or alternatively LABA + inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations regardless of the entity of symptoms.1 However, it does not specify whether it is preferable to start with LAMA+LABA rather than LABA+ICS. In fact, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the current literature. The aim of this study was to compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS in the treatment of COPD. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of studies published up to June 2016, including individual randomised controlled trials, parallel-group trials and crossover trials …
在稳定型COPD中,长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂加长效β受体激动剂比长效β受体激动剂加吸入皮质类固醇导致更少的加重、肺炎和更大的FEV 1改善。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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