Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorIsmaila, AS
dc.contributor.authorHaeussler, K
dc.contributor.authorCzira, A
dc.contributor.authorTongbram, V
dc.contributor.authorMalmenäs, M
dc.contributor.authorAgarwal, J
dc.contributor.authorNassim, M
dc.contributor.authorŽivković-Gojović, M
dc.contributor.authorShen, Y
dc.contributor.authorDong, X
dc.contributor.authorDuarte, M
dc.contributor.authorCompton, C
dc.contributor.authorVogelmeier, CF
dc.contributor.authorHalpin, DMG
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-21T09:31:51Z
dc.date.issued2022-07-20
dc.date.updated2023-06-20T08:59:17Z
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD. METHODS: A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented. RESULTS: The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipGlaxoSmithKleinen_GB
dc.format.extent4961-5010
dc.identifier.citationVol. 39, No. 11, pp. 4961-5010en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x
dc.identifier.grantnumber214886en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/133448
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-2009-4406 (Halpin, David MG)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSpringeren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35857184en_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.comen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/133450
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.en_GB
dc.subjectCOPDen_GB
dc.subjectDual bronchodilatorsen_GB
dc.subjectDual inhaler therapyen_GB
dc.subjectLABAen_GB
dc.subjectLAMAen_GB
dc.subjectNetwork meta-analysisen_GB
dc.titleComparative efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus other bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A network meta-analysisen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2023-06-21T09:31:51Z
dc.identifier.issn0741-238X
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited States
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Springer via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionData Availability: Anonymised individual participant data and study documents can be requested for further research from www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com. Extracted data summaries are available upon request to the authors.en_GB
dc.descriptionThe correction to this article is available in ORE at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/133450
dc.identifier.eissn1865-8652
dc.identifier.journalAdvances in Therapyen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-06-17
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-07-20
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2023-06-21T09:20:02Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2023-06-21T09:31:56Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-07-20


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.