MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293524897 · doi:10.2147/copd.s378486

Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Bronchodilator Therapy in COPD: Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Safety

2022· article· en· W4293524897 on OpenAlexafffund
Samy Suissa, Sophie Dell’Aniello, Pierre Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineCOPDInhalerExacerbationRate ratioBronchodilatorInternal medicineHazard ratioMetered-dose inhalerCohortConfidence intervalAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Randomized trials report that single-inhaler triple therapy is more effective than dual bronchodilators at reducing exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, this effect may have been influenced by the forced withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at randomization. We used an adaptive selection new-user design to compare single-inhaler triple therapy with dual bronchodilators in real-world clinical practice. Patients and Methods: We identified a cohort of COPD patients, 40 years or older, treated during 2017-2020, from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a real-world practice setting. ICS-naïve patients initiating single-inhaler triple therapy or dual bronchodilators were compared on the incidence of COPD exacerbation and pneumonia over one year, after adjustment by propensity score weighting. Results: The cohort included 4106 new users of single-inhaler triple therapy and 29,702 of dual bronchodilators. Single-inhaler triple therapy was the first maintenance treatment in 44% of the users and 43% had no COPD exacerbations in the prior year. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of a first moderate or severe exacerbation with triple therapy relative to dual bronchodilators was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.16). Among patients with two or more prior exacerbations the HR was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.92), while for those with prior asthma diagnosis it was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.70-1.06) and with blood eosinophil count >300 cells/µL it was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.76-1.05). The incidence of severe pneumonia was increased with triple therapy (HR 1.50; 95% CI: 1.29-1.75). Conclusion: In a real-world setting of COPD treatment among ICS-naïve patients, thus unaffected by ICS withdrawal, single-inhaler triple therapy was not more effective than dual bronchodilators at reducing the incidence of exacerbation, except among patients with multiple exacerbations. Single-inhaler triple therapy should be initiated mainly in patients with multiple exacerbations while, for most others, dual bronchodilators are just as effective whilst avoiding the excess risk of severe pneumonias.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207