Abstract
Background: Despite several LABA/LAMA FDCs are currently approved in COPD, there are limited findings concerning the direct comparison across the different LABA/LAMA FDCs.
Aims and Objectives: To compare the efficacy/safety profile of approved and under approval LABA/LAMA FDCs in COPD.
Methods: A network meta-analyses was performed by linking the efficacy (FEV1, SGRQ, TDI) and safety (cardiovascular [CV] serious adverse events [SAEs]) outcomes resulting from randomized controlled trials that directly compared LABA/LAMA FDCs with placebo and/or each other. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve Analysis (SUCRA) was performed for each outcome (SUCRA: 1=best, 0=worst). The combined efficacy/safety results were reported via the novel Improved Bidimensional SUCRA (IBiS): the higher the value the better the treatment.
Results: Data obtained from 7,911 COPD patients (57.73 receiving LABA/LAMA FDCs, 42.26 receiving placebo) were extracted from 18 studies published from 2013 to 2017. The IBiS showed the following rank of efficacy/safety profile: tiotropium/olodaterol (T/O) 5/5μg >> glycopyrronium/indacaterol (G/I) 15.6/27.5μg > umeclidinium/vilanterol (U/V) 62.5/25 μg ≈ aclidinium/formoterol (A/F) 400/12 μg > glycopyrronium/indacaterol (G/I) 50/110μg > glycopyrronium/formoterol (G/F) 14.4/9.6μg (Figure 1).
Conclusions: Each currently available LABA/LAMA FDCs has a specific efficacy/safety profile that need to be considered for personalized therapy in COPD.
Footnotes
Cite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2019; 54: Suppl. 63, PA3378.
This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).
- Copyright ©the authors 2019