Real-World Effectiveness of Triple Extrafine Fixed-Dose Combination with Beclomethasone/Formoterol/Glycopyrronium on Symptoms and Lung Function in COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a significant global health issue characterized by persistent airflow limitation and inflammation. Triple fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β 2-agonists (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) show promise by potentially enhancing bronchodilation and anti-inflammatory effects. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide efficacy data, they may not fully represent real-world clinical practice, highlighting the value of real-world evidence (RWE). Methods: This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational multicenter studies to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a triple extrafine FDC containing beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF), and glycopyrronium (G) in moderate-to-severe COPD patients. Databases MEDLINE and SCOPUS were searched for relevant studies reporting on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 ). Results: The meta-analysis included seven studies with 5952 patients, indicating high methodological quality with Newcastle–Ottawa Scale scores ≥ 7. Results showed significant improvement in CAT scores (− 5.82 95% CI − 7.61 - − 4.03; P < 0.001) and FEV 1 (127 mL 95% CI 42– 212; P < 0.001) for extrafine BDP/FF/G FDC compared to any prior treatments (ICS/LABA, ICS+LABA, LABA/LAMA, LABA+LAMA, multiple-inhaler triple therapy, single-inhaler triple therapy), exceeding minimal clinically important differences. Heterogeneity was significant, but Egger’s test suggested no significant publication bias. Conclusion: The triple extrafine BDP/FF/G FDC effectively improves health status and lung function in real-world COPD patients, supporting its use as a viable therapeutic strategy. Further research should explore long-term outcomes and investigate specific patient subgroups to optimize individualized treatment approaches. Keywords: COPD, symptoms, lung function, real-world evidence, meta-analysis
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".