SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of triple versus dual inhaled therapy (ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal role of triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA) versus dual therapy in COPD remains uncertain, particularly given the trade-off between modest efficacy gains and potential safety concerns. In particular, whether triple therapy provides additional benefit over dual regimens consisting of either ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA remains an important clinical question. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of triple versus dual inhaled therapies in COPD using a network meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases was conducted from inception to July 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing triple inhaled therapy with either ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA dual inhaled therapy in COPD were eligible. Outcomes included moderate-to-severe exacerbations, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), and pneumonia incidence. Data were synthesized using a frequentist random-effects NMA. Treatment hierarchies were estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
resultsSeven RCTs (n = 9,968 participants) were included. Triple therapy did not consistently reduce exacerbation rates compared with dual therapy, while dual regimens such as FF/VI and BUD/FORM ranked favorably for exacerbation prevention (SUCRA 75.6% and 71.4%). Triple therapy and selected dual regimens improved lung function, though SUCRA rankings unexpectedly favored BUD/FORM. Improvements in SGRQ and TDI were modest and often below the minimal clinically important difference. Pneumonia risk tended to be higher with fluticasone-containing regimens, though differences did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionTriple therapy was associated with improvements in some outcomes, particularly lung function, but did not show consistent statistically significant superiority over dual therapy across all endpoints in this network meta-analysis. Given the small number of included trials and limited power for some comparisons, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and should not be taken as evidence of equivalence. Dual regimens remained effective options, while triple therapy may still be beneficial in selected high-risk patients. Personalized treatment based on exacerbation history, eosinophil count, and pneumonia risk remains essential.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.