Triple Therapy for the Management of COPD: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Triple therapy for COPD consists of a long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator, a long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilator, and an inhaled corticosteroid. Guidelines from the Canadian Thoracic Society advocate triple therapy for some patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. The objective of this review was to evaluate the evidence based clinical efficacy of triple therapy compared to dual bronchodilator therapy (long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator + beta-agonist bronchodilator) or long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy for managing COPD. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant clinical evaluations of triple therapy in the management of moderate to severe COPD. Databases searched included: Medline; EMBASE; CINAHL and PubMed (non-Medline records only). Of 2,314 publications, 4 articles evaluated triple therapy for the management of COPD. Hospitalization rates for COPD exacerbations, reported in 2 trials, were significantly reduced with triple therapy compared to long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy, with reported relative risks of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.86, p = 0.01) and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.16-0.78, p = 0.011). Exacerbation data is inconsistent between the two trials reporting this outcome. Lung function, dyspnea and quality of life data show statistical significant changes with triple therapy compared to long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy but the changes do not reach clinical importance. Triple therapy does decrease the number of hospitalizations for severe/acute COPD exacerbations compared with long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy. There is insufficient evidence to determine if triple therapy is superior to dual bronchodilator therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".