Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Triple Therapy versus Dual or Monotherapy with Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Manoj J. Mammen
  • , David R. Lloyd
  • , Sandeep Kumar
  • , Anum S. Ahmed
  • , Vandana Pai
  • , Rajesh Kunadharaju
  • , Shilpi Gupta
  • , Linda Nici
  • , Shawn D. Aaron
  • , Paul E. Alexander
  • SUNY Buffalo
  • Brown University
  • University of Ottawa
  • McMaster University

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the use of using triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting b-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist) inhaler therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate the safety and efficacy of using triple therapy compared with long-acting b-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist dual therapy or monotherapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator in patients with stable COPD who complained of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance. Methods: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials pertaining to the clinical question. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the studies. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty/quality of the evidence. Results: Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 14,145 patients). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed an increase in risk of pneumonia (relative risk, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.20-1.80; P,0.001) and decreased risk of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P,0.001) with triple therapy compared with treatment with dual and monotherapy long-acting bronchodilator therapy. No significant difference in dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI, 20.02 to 0.19; P = 0.09) or risk of hospitalization (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06; P = 0.11) was noted. When subgroup analysis based on inhaler class was performed, no significant difference was noted between the groups in any of the critical outcomes studied. For patients with a history of one or more AECOPDs in the past year, triple therapy resulted in 230 fewer AECOPDs and 16 more cases of pneumonia per 1,000 patients. Conclusions: In patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, triple therapy is not superior to maintenance long-acting bronchodilator therapy, except in patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year, in whom the benefits of reduction in AECOPD outweigh the increased risk of pneumonia.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1308-1318
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of the American Thoracic Society
Volume17
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2020

Keywords

  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • Inhaled corticosteroids
  • Long-acting b2-agonist
  • Long-acting b2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/inhaled corticosteroid triple therapy
  • Long-acting muscarinic antagonist

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Triple Therapy versus Dual or Monotherapy with Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this