MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877054624 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009183

Comparative safety and effectiveness of long-acting inhaled agents for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2015· review· en· W1877054624 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea C. Tricco, Lisa Strifler, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki, Fatemeh Yazdi, Paul A. Khan, Alistair Scott, Carmen Ng, Jesmin Antony, Kelly Mrklas, Jennifer D’Souza, Roberta Cardoso, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesCanada Research ChairsOttawa HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineFormoterolSalmeterolCOPDTiotropium bromideFluticasoneBudesonideIndacaterolExacerbationPlaceboInternal medicineBronchodilatorAnesthesiaCorticosteroidAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of long-acting β-antagonists (LABA), long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SETTING: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). PARTICIPANTS: 208 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including 134,692 adults with COPD. INTERVENTIONS: LABA, LAMA and/or ICS, alone or in combination, versus each other or placebo. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe exacerbations. The number of patients experiencing mortality, pneumonia, serious arrhythmia and cardiovascular-related mortality (CVM) were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: NMA was conducted including 20 RCTs for moderate-to-severe exacerbations for 26,141 patients with an exacerbation in the past year. 32 treatments were effective versus placebo including: tiotropium, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol, indacaterol, fluticasone/salmeterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/fluticasone/salmeterol and tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol. Tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol was most effective (99.2% probability of being the most effective according to the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA) curve). NMA was conducted on mortality (88 RCTs, 97 526 patients); fluticasone/salmeterol was more effective in reducing mortality than placebo, formoterol and fluticasone alone, and was the most effective (SUCRA=71%). NMA was conducted on CVM (37 RCTs, 55,156 patients) and the following were safest: salmeterol versus each OF placebo, tiotropium and tiotropium (Soft Mist Inhaler (SMR)); fluticasone versus tiotropium (SMR); and salmeterol/fluticasone versus tiotropium and tiotropium (SMR). Triamcinolone acetonide was the most harmful (SUCRA=81%). NMA was conducted on pneumonia occurrence (54 RCTs, 61 551 patients). 24 treatments were more harmful, including 2 that increased risk of pneumonia versus placebo; fluticasone and fluticasone/salmeterol. The most harmful agent was fluticasone/salmeterol (SUCRA=89%). NMA was conducted for arrhythmia; no statistically significant differences between agents were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Many inhaled agents are available for COPD, some are safer and more effective than others. Our results can be used by patients and physicians to tailor administration of these agents. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO # CRD42013006725.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations70
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207