Shujuan Zhang, Jun Wang, Xuanlin Li, Hailong Zhang
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews.
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).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
