Concurrent use of long-acting bronchodilators in COPD and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-agonists (LABAs) and anticholinergics (LAMAs) in COPD is uncertain. We assessed the comparative cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of adding a second long-acting bronchodilator in patients with COPD.We identified a cohort of COPD patients, new users of LABA or the LAMA tiotropium during 2002-2012, from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Using high-dimensional propensity scores, each patient adding a second bronchodilator was matched with a patient who remained on monotherapy. Patients were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, heart failure and arrhythmia.The cohorts included up to 31 174 patients adding a bronchodilator matched to 31 174 patients remaining on bronchodilator monotherapy. Adding a long-acting bronchodilator, compared to remaining on monotherapy, was not associated with an increased risk of AMI (hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.36), stroke (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.10) or arrhythmia (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.36), but the risk was elevated for heart failure (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30).Adding a second long-acting bronchodilator in the real-world-setting treatment of COPD does not increase the risk of most cardiovascular events. The modest increase for heart failure warrants further investigation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".