MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417478999 · doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2025-003216

Initial treatment of COPD with LABA-ICS or LABA-LAMA: real-world comparative effectiveness

2025· article· en· W4417478999 on OpenAlexafffund
Samy Suissa, Mathew Cherian, Sophie Dell’Aniello, Pierre Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Respiratory Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsCOPDClinical PracticeBronchodilator AgentsPulmonary diseaseAsthmaMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The 2023 Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations advocate long-acting beta 2 agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combinations (LABA-LAMA) for the initial pharmacological treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with multiple exacerbations. However, this choice, rather than combinations of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA-ICS), no longer recommended in GOLD, was based on randomised trials that excluded patients with multiple prior exacerbations. Research question What is the comparative effectiveness of initiating COPD treatment with LABA-ICS versus LABA-LAMA inhalers, particularly in patients with multiple COPD exacerbations, in a real-world clinical practice setting? Study design and methods We identified a cohort of patients with COPD, 40 years of age or older, from the United Kingdom’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Treatment-naïve initiators of single-inhaler LABA-ICS or LABA-LAMA, with no prior asthma, LABA, LAMA or ICS use, were compared on the incidence of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation over 1 year, after adjustment by propensity score weighting. Results The study cohort included 20 750 initiators of LABA-ICS inhalers and 16 594 of LABA-LAMA. The overall adjusted HR of a first moderate or severe exacerbation with LABA-ICS relative to LABA-LAMA was 1.03 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.08). Among patients with two or more prior exacerbations, the HR of exacerbation with LABA-ICS versus LABA-LAMA was 0.89 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97), while it was 1.07 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.15) among patients with no prior exacerbations. The HR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99) among those with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 )≥50% predicted. Interpretation In a real-world clinical practice setting of COPD treatment, initiating therapy with LABA-ICS inhalers may be more effective than LABA-LAMA inhalers among patients with multiple exacerbations, particularly those with FEV 1 ≥50% predicted, but less effective among those with no prior exacerbations and FEV 1 <50% predicted. This study supports a targeted approach to initial therapy for COPD.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Respiratory ResearchSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207