Single-Inhaler Triple vs Long-Acting Beta2-Agonist-Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy for COPD: Comparative Safety in Real-World Clinical Practice.

IF 8.6 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Chest Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.025
Samy Suissa, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Pierre Ernst
{"title":"Single-Inhaler Triple vs Long-Acting Beta<sub>2</sub>-Agonist-Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy for COPD: Comparative Safety in Real-World Clinical Practice.","authors":"Samy Suissa, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Pierre Ernst","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent treatment guidelines for COPD have replaced the long-acting beta<sub>2</sub>-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination with single-inhaler triple therapy that adds a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). However, the corresponding trials reported numerically higher incidences of cardiovascular adverse events with triple therapy compared with LABA-ICS.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Does single-inhaler triple therapy increase the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with LABA-ICS, in a real-world clinical practice setting?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>We identified a cohort of patients with COPD aged ≥ 40 years treated during 2017-2021 from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Among LAMA-naive patients, initiators of single-inhaler triple therapy were matched 1:1 to LABA-ICS users on time-conditional propensity scores. They were compared on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as hospitalization for myocardial infarction or stroke, or all-cause-mortality, over 1 year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 10,255 initiators of triple therapy and 10,255 matched users of LABA-ICS. The incidence rate of MACEs was 11.3 per 100 per year with triple therapy compared with 8.8 per 100 per year for LABA-ICS. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACEs with triple therapy was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05-1.55), relative to LABA-ICS; however, the increase was mainly in the first 4 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74). The HR of all-cause death was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.06-1.62), whereas for acute myocardial infarction and stroke hospitalization it was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.56-1.79) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.48-2.36), respectively, with triple therapy, relative to LABA-ICS.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In a real-world setting of COPD treatment, patients who initiated single-inhaler triple therapy had an increased incidence of MACEs compared with similar patients treated with an LABA-ICS inhaler. This small increase was due to the all-cause mortality component, occurring mainly in the first 4 months after treatment initiation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":"712-723"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11882741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent treatment guidelines for COPD have replaced the long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination with single-inhaler triple therapy that adds a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). However, the corresponding trials reported numerically higher incidences of cardiovascular adverse events with triple therapy compared with LABA-ICS.

Research question: Does single-inhaler triple therapy increase the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with LABA-ICS, in a real-world clinical practice setting?

Study design and methods: We identified a cohort of patients with COPD aged ≥ 40 years treated during 2017-2021 from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Among LAMA-naive patients, initiators of single-inhaler triple therapy were matched 1:1 to LABA-ICS users on time-conditional propensity scores. They were compared on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as hospitalization for myocardial infarction or stroke, or all-cause-mortality, over 1 year.

Results: The cohort included 10,255 initiators of triple therapy and 10,255 matched users of LABA-ICS. The incidence rate of MACEs was 11.3 per 100 per year with triple therapy compared with 8.8 per 100 per year for LABA-ICS. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACEs with triple therapy was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05-1.55), relative to LABA-ICS; however, the increase was mainly in the first 4 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74). The HR of all-cause death was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.06-1.62), whereas for acute myocardial infarction and stroke hospitalization it was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.56-1.79) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.48-2.36), respectively, with triple therapy, relative to LABA-ICS.

Interpretation: In a real-world setting of COPD treatment, patients who initiated single-inhaler triple therapy had an increased incidence of MACEs compared with similar patients treated with an LABA-ICS inhaler. This small increase was due to the all-cause mortality component, occurring mainly in the first 4 months after treatment initiation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单吸入器三联疗法与 LABA-ICS 治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病:真实世界临床实践中的安全性比较。
背景:最新的慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)治疗指南用添加长效毒蕈碱类拮抗剂的单吸入器三联疗法(LAMA-LABA-ICS)取代了长效β2-受体激动剂和吸入性皮质类固醇(LABA-ICS)组合疗法。然而,据相应试验报告,与 LABA-ICS 相比,三联疗法的心血管不良事件发生率更高:研究问题:在实际临床实践中,与 LABA-ICS 相比,单吸入器三联疗法是否会增加主要心血管不良事件的发生率?我们从英国临床实践研究数据链(Clinical Practice Research Datalink)中确定了一组在 2017-2021 年期间接受治疗的 40 岁或以上 COPD 患者。在对 LAMA 不敏感的患者中,单吸入器三联疗法的启动者与 LABA-ICS 使用者根据时间条件倾向评分进行了 1:1 匹配。比较了他们一年内主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生率,MACE的定义是心肌梗死或中风住院或全因死亡:队列中包括10255名开始使用三联疗法的患者和10255名匹配的LABA-ICS使用者。三联疗法的MACE发生率为每年11.3/100,而LABA-ICS为每年8.7/100。相对于LABA-ICS,三联疗法发生MACE的相应调整后危险比(HR)为1.28(95% CI:1.05-1.55),但增加主要出现在前四个月(HR 1.41;95% CI:1.14-1.74)。相对于LABA-ICS,三联疗法的全因死亡HR为1.31(95% CI:1.06-1.62),急性心肌梗死和中风住院HR分别为1.00(95% CI:0.56-1.79)和1.06(95% CI:0.48-2.36):在慢性阻塞性肺疾病的真实治疗环境中,与使用LABA-ICS吸入器治疗的类似患者相比,使用单吸入器三联疗法的患者MACE发生率增加。这种小幅增加主要是由于全因死亡率,主要发生在开始治疗后的前四个月。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
期刊最新文献
CFTR Mutations and Potential Associations with Increased Rates of Pulmonary Infections Among Patients from the US Bronchiectasis and NTM Research Registry Long-Term PM2.5 Constituents Exposure, Genetic Susceptibility, and Incident Sleep Apnea: A Prospective Cohort Study Timely antibiotics and fluid resuscitation are associated with increased discharge to home after sepsis Integrating deep learning of low-dose computed tomography with clinical data for lung cancer risk prediction Diagnostic Yield of Computed Tomography and Point-of-Care Ultrasound After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1