Cargando…

Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study

BACKGROUND: No observational studies have evaluated the “real-world” effectiveness of dual bronchodilation comprising a long-acting β(2)-agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist vs that of triple therapy (long-acting β(2)-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus inhaled corticoste...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Buhl, Roland, Criée, Carl-Peter, Kardos, Peter, Vogelmeier, Claus F, Kostikas, Konstantinos, Lossi, Nadine S, Worth, Heinrich
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30197512
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S169958
_version_ 1783351097611517952
author Buhl, Roland
Criée, Carl-Peter
Kardos, Peter
Vogelmeier, Claus F
Kostikas, Konstantinos
Lossi, Nadine S
Worth, Heinrich
author_facet Buhl, Roland
Criée, Carl-Peter
Kardos, Peter
Vogelmeier, Claus F
Kostikas, Konstantinos
Lossi, Nadine S
Worth, Heinrich
author_sort Buhl, Roland
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: No observational studies have evaluated the “real-world” effectiveness of dual bronchodilation comprising a long-acting β(2)-agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist vs that of triple therapy (long-acting β(2)-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus inhaled corticosteroid) in COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DACCORD is a non-interventional, observational clinical study that recruited patients following COPD maintenance therapy initiation or change in maintenance therapy between or within therapeutic class. Given the non-interventional nature of the study, the decision to initiate or change medication had to be made by the patients’ physicians prior to inclusion in DACCORD. We used a matched-pairs analysis to compare disease progression in two patient groups: those receiving dual bronchodilation vs those receiving triple therapy (each group n=1,046). RESULTS: In two subgroups of patients matched according to a broad range of demographic and disease characteristics, over 1 year, fewer patients receiving dual bronchodilation exacerbated than those receiving triple therapy (15.5% vs 26.6%; P<0.001), with a greater improvement from baseline in COPD Assessment Test total score at 1 year (mean±SD −2.9±5.8 vs −1.4±5.5;P<0.001). When analyzed according to prior therapy, the highest rate of exacerbations was in patients on triple therapy prior to the study who remained on triple therapy. Those changing from mono-bronchodilator to dual bronchodilation had the greatest COPD Assessment Test total score improvement. CONCLUSION: In this “real-life” cohort of patients with COPD, most of whom had not exacerbated in the 6 months prior to entry, triple therapy did not seem to improve outcomes compared with dual bronchodilation in terms of either exacerbations or health status. Our analyses clearly demonstrate the potential impact of prior medication on study results, something that should be taken into account when interpreting the results even of controlled clinical trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6113909
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61139092018-09-07 Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study Buhl, Roland Criée, Carl-Peter Kardos, Peter Vogelmeier, Claus F Kostikas, Konstantinos Lossi, Nadine S Worth, Heinrich Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Clinical Trial Report BACKGROUND: No observational studies have evaluated the “real-world” effectiveness of dual bronchodilation comprising a long-acting β(2)-agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist vs that of triple therapy (long-acting β(2)-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus inhaled corticosteroid) in COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DACCORD is a non-interventional, observational clinical study that recruited patients following COPD maintenance therapy initiation or change in maintenance therapy between or within therapeutic class. Given the non-interventional nature of the study, the decision to initiate or change medication had to be made by the patients’ physicians prior to inclusion in DACCORD. We used a matched-pairs analysis to compare disease progression in two patient groups: those receiving dual bronchodilation vs those receiving triple therapy (each group n=1,046). RESULTS: In two subgroups of patients matched according to a broad range of demographic and disease characteristics, over 1 year, fewer patients receiving dual bronchodilation exacerbated than those receiving triple therapy (15.5% vs 26.6%; P<0.001), with a greater improvement from baseline in COPD Assessment Test total score at 1 year (mean±SD −2.9±5.8 vs −1.4±5.5;P<0.001). When analyzed according to prior therapy, the highest rate of exacerbations was in patients on triple therapy prior to the study who remained on triple therapy. Those changing from mono-bronchodilator to dual bronchodilation had the greatest COPD Assessment Test total score improvement. CONCLUSION: In this “real-life” cohort of patients with COPD, most of whom had not exacerbated in the 6 months prior to entry, triple therapy did not seem to improve outcomes compared with dual bronchodilation in terms of either exacerbations or health status. Our analyses clearly demonstrate the potential impact of prior medication on study results, something that should be taken into account when interpreting the results even of controlled clinical trials. Dove Medical Press 2018-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6113909/ /pubmed/30197512 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S169958 Text en © 2018 Buhl et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Clinical Trial Report
Buhl, Roland
Criée, Carl-Peter
Kardos, Peter
Vogelmeier, Claus F
Kostikas, Konstantinos
Lossi, Nadine S
Worth, Heinrich
Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
title Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
title_full Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
title_fullStr Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
title_full_unstemmed Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
title_short Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
title_sort dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” copd daccord study
topic Clinical Trial Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30197512
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S169958
work_keys_str_mv AT buhlroland dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy
AT crieecarlpeter dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy
AT kardospeter dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy
AT vogelmeierclausf dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy
AT kostikaskonstantinos dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy
AT lossinadines dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy
AT worthheinrich dualbronchodilationvstripletherapyinthereallifecopddaccordstudy