{"title":"Long-acting B-2 agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA): which one may be the first option in group A COPD patients?","authors":"Onur Turan, Nalan Ogan, Fulsen Bozkus, Nurhan Sarıoğlu, Pakize Ayşe Turan, Celal Satıcı","doi":"10.1007/s00228-024-03637-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) or beta-2 agonists (LABA) have been recommended for symptom control in group A COPD patients as a first-line bronchodilator treatment in GOLD guidelines. However, there is no mention of priority/superiority between the two treatment options. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of these treatments in this group.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study cohort was formed of all subjects from six pulmonology clinics with an initial diagnosis of COPD who were new users of a LAMA or LABA from January 2020 to December 2021. Seventy-six group A COPD patients, in whom LABA or LAMA therapy had been started in the last 1 month as a first-line treatment, were included in our study. Participants were evaluated with spirometry, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), mMRC scale, and St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for three times (baseline, 6-12<sup>th</sup> months).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 76 group A COPD patients with LAMA (67.1%) and LABA (32.9%). The number of patients who improved in CAT score at the end of the first year was significantly higher in patients using LAMA than those using LABA (p = 0.022); the improvement at minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in CAT score of LAMA group at 1<sup>st</sup> year was also significant (p = 0.044). SGRQ total and impact scores were found to be statistically lower at 1<sup>st</sup> year compared to baseline in patients using LAMA (p = 0.010 and 0.006, respectively). Significant improvement was detected in CAT and SGRQ scores at the 6<sup>th</sup> month visit in the LAMA group having emphysema (p = 0.032 and 0.002, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According to significant improvements in CAT and SGRQ score, LAMA may be preferred over LABA as a bronchodilator agent in group A COPD patients, especially in emphysema-dominant phenotype.</p>","PeriodicalId":11857,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03637-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) or beta-2 agonists (LABA) have been recommended for symptom control in group A COPD patients as a first-line bronchodilator treatment in GOLD guidelines. However, there is no mention of priority/superiority between the two treatment options. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of these treatments in this group.
Methods: The study cohort was formed of all subjects from six pulmonology clinics with an initial diagnosis of COPD who were new users of a LAMA or LABA from January 2020 to December 2021. Seventy-six group A COPD patients, in whom LABA or LAMA therapy had been started in the last 1 month as a first-line treatment, were included in our study. Participants were evaluated with spirometry, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), mMRC scale, and St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for three times (baseline, 6-12th months).
Results: There were 76 group A COPD patients with LAMA (67.1%) and LABA (32.9%). The number of patients who improved in CAT score at the end of the first year was significantly higher in patients using LAMA than those using LABA (p = 0.022); the improvement at minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in CAT score of LAMA group at 1st year was also significant (p = 0.044). SGRQ total and impact scores were found to be statistically lower at 1st year compared to baseline in patients using LAMA (p = 0.010 and 0.006, respectively). Significant improvement was detected in CAT and SGRQ scores at the 6th month visit in the LAMA group having emphysema (p = 0.032 and 0.002, respectively).
Conclusion: According to significant improvements in CAT and SGRQ score, LAMA may be preferred over LABA as a bronchodilator agent in group A COPD patients, especially in emphysema-dominant phenotype.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology publishes original papers on all aspects of clinical pharmacology and drug therapy in humans. Manuscripts are welcomed on the following topics: therapeutic trials, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, pharmacogenetics, drug metabolism, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, all aspects of drug development, development relating to teaching in clinical pharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and matters relating to the rational prescribing and safe use of drugs. Methodological contributions relevant to these topics are also welcomed.
Data from animal experiments are accepted only in the context of original data in man reported in the same paper. EJCP will only consider manuscripts describing the frequency of allelic variants in different populations if this information is linked to functional data or new interesting variants. Highly relevant differences in frequency with a major impact in drug therapy for the respective population may be submitted as a letter to the editor.
Straightforward phase I pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies as parts of new drug development will only be considered for publication if the paper involves
-a compound that is interesting and new in some basic or fundamental way, or
-methods that are original in some basic sense, or
-a highly unexpected outcome, or
-conclusions that are scientifically novel in some basic or fundamental sense.