Objectives: In some studies comparing triple with dual combination therapies in COPD there might be a possible effect of inhaler bias resulting from different inhaler devices being used in comparator arms. The aim of this study was a quantitative synthesis by considering the studies that directly compared triple ICS/LABA/LAMA vs. either dual LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA therapies administered at fixed-dose combination (FDC) via the same inhaler device.
Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy/safety impact of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC compared with dual LABA/LAMA and ICS/LBA FDCs administered via the same inhaler device in COPD patients. The treatment ranking was reported via the surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA).
Results: Data obtained from 21,909 COPD patients were extracted from the ETHOS, KRONOS, IMPACT, and TRILOGY studies, the only that fulfilled the strict inclusion criteria of this research. The weighted efficacy/safety profile resulting from SUCRA provided the following ranking in patients with low eosinophil count: ICS/LABA/LAMA>LABA/LAMA≫ICS/LABA; whereas in patients with high eosinophil count the ranking was as follows: ICS/LABA/LAMA>LABA/LAMA>ICS/LABA FDC.
Conclusion: Triple ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC and dual LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA FDCs are characterized by specific efficacy/safety profiles in agreement with the level of blood eosinophil count at baseline.
Keywords: COPD; ICS; LABA; LAMA; dual bronchodilation; network meta-analysis; triple therapy.