scholarly journals Long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: efficacy and safety

2008 ◽  
Vol Volume 3 ◽  
pp. 521-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Long Acting

scholarly journals A randomized prospective study to compare the efficacy and safety of budesonide plus formoterol and tiotropium plus formoterol in patients having mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 245
Author(s):  
Chandra Veer Singh ◽  
Aditya Kumar Gautam ◽  
Alok Dixit ◽  
Amit Vikram Singh ◽  
Sandeep Kumar Singh
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
P Value ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Β2 Agonist

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading respiratory illness affecting the quality of lives around the world. The present study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long acting β2 agonist (LABA) with long acting β2 agonist and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in treatment of mild to moderate COPD in a tertiary care hospital.Methods: Total 132 patients with COPD were recruited on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria for 8 weeks study from outpatient clinic. A complete pulmonary examination including spirometry examination was done to rule out severe and very severe forms of COPD. Spirometry was performed at the time of recruitment for evaluation of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and measurement of SpO2 at the time of recruitment at 2 weeks and 8 weeks. Appropriate statistical methods were used to compare the qualitative and quantitative primary and secondary efficacy end points, p value <0.05 was considered significant.Results: On analysis, there was a significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in FEV1 and SpO2 from baseline in ICS plus LABA group (n=66). A similarly significant difference (p<0.05) was observed in LABA and LAMA group (n=66). On comparison between ICS plus LABA and LABA plus LAMA no significant difference in FEV1 and SpO2 was observed between the two groups.  More adverse drug reactions were observed in ICS plus LABA group than LAMA plus LABA group.Conclusions: Combination of ICS and LABA combination is as effective as combination of LABA and LAMA in patients having mild to moderate COPD. However, LABA and LAMA combination is preferable because it is associated with fewer side effects.

scholarly journals Inhaled glucocorticosteroids in treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-261
Author(s):  
Anna G. Romanovskikh ◽  
Yu. G. Belotserkovskaya ◽  
I. P. Smirnov
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Β2 Agonists

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an urgent problem of modern healthcare. One of the most frequent approaches to the therapy of the COPD remains the appointment of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) in fixed-dose combinations. At the same time, the role and place of fixed-dose combinations (ICS/LABA) in COPD therapy is currently being actively discussed. The presented article describes the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations (ICS/LABA) in COPD patients, modern approaches to the appointment of ICS/LABA.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of revefenacin for nebulization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taking concomitant ICS/LABA or LABA: subgroup analysis from phase III trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175346662090527
Author(s):  
Sanjay Sethi ◽  
James F. Donohue ◽  
Gary T. Ferguson ◽  
Chris N. Barnes ◽  
Glenn D. Crater
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Long Acting

Background: Combinations of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), long-acting β-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are used for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the LAMA revefenacin in patients with COPD taking concomitant LABA, including ICS/LABA (LABA subgroup). Methods: Efficacy data were obtained from two 12-week, replicate, placebo-controlled trials and safety data were pooled from the 12-week and a 52-week tiotropium-controlled trial. Patients received revefenacin 175 µg or placebo in the 12-week or tiotropium 18 µg in the 52-week studies. The efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Clinical health outcomes were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Results: Revefenacin produced similar improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [placebo-adjusted LS mean change (95% confidence interval) in day 85 trough FEV1, 150.9 (110.3−191.6) ml and 139.2 (82.9−195.5) ml; p < 0.0001 versus placebo]. Similar improvements were observed in SGRQ scores in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [−3.3 (−5.4 to −1.2) and −3.4 (−6.3 to −0.6)]. Improvements in lung function and health outcomes were observed regardless of airflow obstruction severity. Revefenacin was well tolerated with more adverse events reported in the LABA than the non-LABA subgroup. Conclusions: Once daily revefenacin for nebulization can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients who require concomitant use of LABA with or without ICS. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02512510, NCT02459080, NCT02518139 The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document