Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the “real-life” COPD DACCORD study
Authors Buhl R, Criée C, Kardos P, Vogelmeier CF, Kostikas K, Lossi NS, Worth H
Received 2 April 2018
Accepted for publication 19 June 2018
Published 24 August 2018 Volume 2018:13 Pages 2557—2568
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Andrew Yee
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Roland Buhl,1 Carl-Peter Criée,2 Peter Kardos,3 Claus F Vogelmeier,4 Konstantinos Kostikas,5 Nadine S Lossi,6 Heinrich Worth7
1Pulmonary Department, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, 2Department of Sleep and Respiratory Medicine, Evangelical Hospital Goettingen-Weende, Bovenden, 3Group Practice and Centre for Allergy, Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Red Cross Maingau Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, 4Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-University Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 5WorldWide Medical Affairs Respiratory, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 6Clinical Research, Respiratory, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nürnberg, 7Facharztforum Fürth, Fürth, Germany
Background: No observational studies have evaluated the “real-world” effectiveness of dual bronchodilation comprising a long-acting β2-agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist vs that of triple therapy (long-acting β2-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.
Keywords: acute exacerbations of COPD, bronchodilator, COPD, COPD course and therapy, health-related quality of life
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. 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. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]