![]() Until now, several systematic reviews have been reported for comparison between LABA and LAMA for the treatment of patients with stable COPD. Therefore, it remains unclear which bronchodilator, LABA or LAMA, is more suitable for the initial treatment of stable COPD. However, this is only due to two head-to-head comparison studies which showed the superiority of tiotropium to salmeterol or indacaterol in preventing exacerbations. On the other hand, in group C and D patients that have experienced exacerbations of COPD, LAMA is more often recommended as a single initial therapy than LABA. According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) report 2019, there is no mention which bronchodilator, LABA or LAMA, is superior for the initial relief of the symptoms in the GOLD grade group A and B patients. Now, either LABA or LAMA is first used for the treatment of patients with stable COPD. Currently available LAMA comprises tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium and umeclidinium and LABA includes salmeterol, formoterol, indacaterol, vilanterol and olodaterol. In addition, these bronchodilators improve exercise performance. Regular daily use of either a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) has been shown to improve the lung function, dyspnea and health status and reduce exacerbations. For the treatment of stable COPD patients, inhaled bronchodilators play a central role in reducing symptoms and exacerbations. The most common symptoms include dyspnea, cough and sputum production, with the symptoms worsening during exacerbations. Trial registrationĬhronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is currently the third leading cause of death in the world. Treatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV 1 compared to LABA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98 P = 0.02). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV 1 after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98 P = 0.02). We carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs ( N = 28,211). We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD. However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Inhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |