Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD

Conclusions of that meta-analysis should be interpreted with great caution because of differences in population studied, and differences in primary and co-primary outcomes. A recent comparison meta-analysis was not conclusive due to the heterogeneity of phase III studies and the few number of studies for some of the investigated drugs (ACL/FF and GLY/FF in particular), but confirmed that dual bronchodilation was always more effective than LABA or LAMA alone, both in lung function and quality of life indices (Calzetta et al., 2016). This meta-analysis suggested that among the different FDCs may exist a gradient of effectiveness, UMEC/VIL slightly improving the effects of GLY/IND (-12 mL), TIO/OLO (-30 mL), and ACL/FF (-49 mL), though statistically significant differences were not observed. Recently Kerwin et al. (2017) provided data about two cross-over trials comparing efficacy and safety of GLY/IND twice-daily 15.6/27.5 μg versus once-daily UMEC/VIL 62.5/25 μg. Both treatments provided clinically meaningful and comparable bronchodilation. Non-inferiority of GLY/IND to UMEC/VIL could not be declared although between-treatment differences were not clinically relevant (Kerwin et al., 2017). Kalberg et al. (2016) published data from a 12 weeks’ treatment study with UMEC/VIL 62.5/25 μg that provided similar (non-inferior) improvements in lung function, symptoms, and health status, as well as comparable safety profiles to those achieved with free com...
Source: Frontiers in Pharmacology - Category: Drugs & Pharmacology Source Type: research