2023 Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline on Pharmacotherapy in Patients With Stable COPD

Stakeholder-informed positivity thresholds for disease markers and risk scores: a methodological framework and an application in obstructive lung disease

OBJECTIVES

A positivity threshold is often applied to markers or predicted risks to guide disease management. These thresholds are often decided exclusively by clinical experts despite being sensitive to the preferences of patients and general public as ultimate stakeholders.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We propose an analytical framework for quantifying the net benefit (NB) of an evidence-based positivity threshold based on combining preference-sensitive (eg, how individuals weight benefits and harms of treatment) and preference-agnostic (eg, the magnitude of benefit and the risk of harm) parameters. We propose parsimonious choice experiments to elicit preference-sensitive parameters from stakeholders, and targeted evidence synthesis to quantify the value of preference-agnostic parameters. We apply this framework to maintenance of azithromycin therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using a discrete choice experiment to estimate preference weights for attribute level associated with treatment. We identify the positivity threshold on 12-month moderate or severe exacerbation risk that would maximize the NB of treatment in terms of severe exacerbations avoided.

RESULTS

In the case study, the prevention of moderate and severe exacerbations (benefits) and the risk of hearing loss and gastrointestinal symptoms (harms) emerged as important attributes. Four hundred seventy seven respondents completed the discrete choice experiment survey. Relative to each percent risk of severe exacerbation, preference weights for each percent risk of moderate exacerbation, hearing loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms were 0.395 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.338-0.456), 1.180 (95% CI 1.071-1.201), and 0.253 (95% CI 0.207-0.299), respectively. The optimal threshold that maximized NB was to treat patients with a 12-month risk of moderate or severe exacerbations ≥12%.

CONCLUSION

The proposed methodology can be applied to many contexts where the objective is to devise positivity thresholds that need to incorporate stakeholder preferences. Applying this framework to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pharmacotherapy resulted in a stakeholder-informed treatment threshold that was substantially lower than the implicit thresholds in contemporary guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of mucolytics in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of mucolytics in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic bronchitis or exacerbations of COPD have been reported. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of mucolytics in patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

Reports from randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mucolytics, including ambroxol, bromhexine, carbocisteine, erdosteine, fudosteine, l-methylcysteine, and N-acetylcysteine used in patients with stable COPD were searched for in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Igaku Cyuo Zasshi database.

RESULTS

Twenty-three reports with ambroxol, carbocisteine, erdosteine, l-methylcysteine, or N-acetylcysteine were included in the review. Mucolytics significantly reduced the rates of exacerbation and hospitalization, shortened the duration of antibiotic use and exacerbations, prolonged the time to first exacerbation, and had a tendency to reduce the occurrence of two or more exacerbations in patients with stable COPD compared to placebo. Mucolytics did not improve mortality, number of lost workdays, scores on St. George's respiratory questionnaire, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, or forced vital capacity. The safety profile of mucolytics was comparable to that of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Mucolytics reduce exacerbations and hospitalizations in patients with stable COPD and have a safety profile comparable to that of placebo.

Identifying Abnormal Exertional Breathlessness in COPD: Comparing Modified Medical Research Council and COPD Assessment Test With Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing

BACKGROUND

COPD management is guided by the respiratory symptom burden, assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), or both.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the abilities of mMRC and CAT to detect abnormally high exertional breathlessness on incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) in people with COPD?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Analysis of people ≥ 40 years of age with FEV1 to FVC ratio of < 0.70 after bronchodilator administration and ≥ 10 pack-years of smoking from the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease study. Abnormal exertional breathlessness was defined as a breathlessness (Borg scale 0-10) intensity rating more than the upper limit of normal at the symptom-limited peak of CPET using normative reference equations.

RESULTS

We included 318 people with COPD (40% women) with a mean (SD) age of 66.5 (9.3) years and FEV1 of 79.5% predicted (19.0% predicted); 26% showed abnormally low exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake less than the lower limit of normal). Abnormally high exertional breathlessness was present in 24%, including 9% and 11% of people with mMRC score of 0 and CAT score of < 10, respectively. An mMRC score of ≥ 2 and CAT score of ≥ 10 was most specific (95%) to detect abnormal exertional breathlessness, but showed low sensitivity of only 12%. Accuracy for all scale cutoffs or combinations was < 65%. Compared with people with true-negatives findings, people with abnormal exertional breathlessness but low mMRC score, low CAT scores (false-negatives findings), or both showed worse self-reported and physiologic outcomes during CPET, were more likely to have physician-diagnosed COPD, but were not more likely to be taking any respiratory medication (37% vs 30%; mean difference, 6.1%; 95% CI, -7.2 to 19.4; P= .36).

INTERPRETATION

In COPD, mMRC and CAT show low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00920348; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Single-Inhaler Triple vs LABA-ICS Therapy for COPD: Comparative Safety in Real-World Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Recent treatment guidelines for COPD have replaced the long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination with single-inhaler triple therapy that adds a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (LAMA-LABA-ICS). However, the corresponding trials reported numerically higher incidences of cardiovascular adverse events with triple therapy compared with LABA-ICS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does single-inhaler triple therapy increase the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with LABA-ICS, in a real-world clinical practice setting?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified a cohort of patients with COPD, ≥ 40 years of age, treated during 2017-2021, from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Among LAMA-naïve patients, initiators of single-inhaler triple therapy were matched 1:1 to LABA-ICS users on time-conditional propensity scores. They were compared on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as hospitalization for myocardial infarction or stroke, or all-cause-mortality, over 1 year.

RESULTS

The cohort included 10,255 initiators of triple therapy and 10,255 matched users of LABA-ICS. The incidence rate of MACEs was 11.3 per 100 per year with triple therapy compared with 8.7 per 100 per year for LABA-ICS. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACEs with triple therapy was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05-1.55), relative to LABA-ICS; however, the increase was mainly in the first 4 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.74). The HR of all-cause death was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.06-1.62), whereas for acute myocardial infarction and stroke hospitalization it was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.56-1.79) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.48-2.36), respectively, with triple therapy, relative to LABA-ICS.

INTERPRETATION

In a real-world setting of COPD treatment, patients who initiated single-inhaler triple therapy had an increased incidence of MACEs compared with similar patients treated with an LABA-ICS inhaler. This small increase was due to the all-cause mortality component, occurring mainly in the first 4 months after treatment initiation.

Peak Inspiratory Flow and Inhaler Prescription Strategies in a Specialized COPD Clinical Program: A Real-World Observational Study

BACKGROUND

COPD inhaler regimens should be appropriate for the patient's peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and should ideally consist of single or similar device(s).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In a subspecialized COPD clinic: (1) What is the prevalence of patients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF? (2) Are there patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF? (3) What is the prevalence of patients with non-single inhaler therapy (SIT)/nonsimilar devices? (4) Does point-of-care PIF affect clinical decision-making?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this single-center real-world observational study, PIF was measured systematically at every outpatient visit in a subspecialized COPD clinic, and point-of-care results were provided to the clinician. Coprimary outcomes were the prevalence of outpatients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate devices for measured PIF. Secondary outcomes were patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF, the prevalence of non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, the prevalence of regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, and the effect of point-of-care PIF on clinical decision-making.

RESULTS

Suboptimal PIF was identified in 45 of 161 participants (28%), and inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF were identified in 18 participants (11.2%). Significant associations were observed between suboptimal PIF and age (1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), female sex (10.30; 95% CI, 4.45-27.10), height (0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), BMI (0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96), and FEV1 (0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26). After adjustment for age and sex, the association between suboptimal PIF and BMI, but not height, remained significant. Non-SIT and/or nonsimilar devices were identified in 50 participants (31.1%). Regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices were observed in 59 participants (36.6%). Inhaler prescription changes were observed in this latter group (3.39; 95% CI, 1.76-6.64), as well as in patients with suboptimal PIF who already had SIT/similar regimens (2.93; 95% CI, 1.07-7.92).

INTERPRETATION

Suboptimal PIF and inappropriate devices for measured PIF are highly prevalent among outpatients from a subspecialized COPD clinic. Female sex, reduced FEV1, and low BMI are important, readily identifiable risk factors for suboptimal PIF, and point-of-care PIF can inform clinical decision-making.

Update on the pharmacological treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common syndrome associated with smoking and environmental exposures coupled with genetic susceptibility. Recent major advancements in the treatment of COPD patients have become available.

AREAS COVERED

New data on the role of classic bronchodilators, including short-acting and long-acting beta2-agonists and anti-muscarinic antagonists, in the treatment of COPD patients are discussed. Data promoting a more targeted approach to inhaled and systemic corticosteroid use in COPD are reviewed. Phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors, including the recently approved PDE 3/4 inhibitor inhaled ensifentrine, are noted. Selective use of antibiotics can play a role in complex COPD patients. COPD patients with evidence of asthma-COPD overlap syndrome and type-two lymphocytic inflammatory-mediated airway constriction appear to respond to biologics, particularly the anti-IL-4/IL-3 antagonist monoclonal antibody, dupilumab.

EXPERT OPINION

New therapeutic options have made the approach and treatment of the COPD patient much more complicated. These options tend to be very expensive. Attention to identifying the endotype and phenotype will help direct the pharmacotherapy.

A Multi-Specialty Delphi Consensus on Assessing and Managing Cardiopulmonary Risk in Patients with COPD

Background

In Canada, COPD represents a significant burden to the patient and health system, as it is often under or misdiagnosed and sub-optimally treated. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common co-morbidity in COPD and there is significant interplay between these two chronic conditions. Across all stages of COPD disease severity, deaths can be attributed not only to respiratory causes but also to cardiovascular-related factors. The established links between COPD and CVD suggest the need for a greater degree of collaboration between respirologists and cardiologists. This modified Delphi consensus was initiated to consider how optimal COPD care can be delivered within Canada, with specific consideration of reducing cardiopulmonary risk and outcomes in COPD patients.

Methods

A steering group with interest in the management of COPD and CVD from primary care, cardiology, and respirology identified 40 statements formed from four key themes. A 4-point Likert scale questionnaire was sent to healthcare professionals working in COPD across Canada by an independent third party to assess agreement (consensus) with these statements. Consensus was defined as high if ≥75% and very high if ≥90% of respondents agreed with a statement.

Results

A total of 100 responses were received from respirologists (n=30), cardiologists (n=30), and primary care physicians (n=40). Consensus was very strong (≥90%) in 28 (70%) statements, strong (≥75 and <90%) in 7 (17.5%) statements and was not achieved (<75%) in 5 (12.5%) of statements.

Conclusion

Based on the consensus scores, 9 key recommendations were proposed by the steering group. These focus on the need to comprehensively risk stratify and manage COPD patients to help prevent exacerbations. Consensus within this study provides a call to action for the expeditious implementation of the latest COPD guidelines from the Canadian Thoracic Society.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Healthcare Use, Exacerbations, and Mortality: A Population Study

Rationale: Existing work suggests that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (pwCOPD) presented less frequently to the emergency department and were less likely to be hospitalized during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, but it is unclear if this was due to improved health and disease management or to increased barriers and/or avoidance of health care. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on inpatient and outpatient healthcare use, disease incidence, and mortality rates in pwCOPD. Methods: A retrospective population-based analysis using linked administrative datasets from Alberta, Canada 18 months before and after March 12, 2020 was conducted to measure hospitalization, emergency department and outpatient visits, and COPD outpatient exacerbations during these time periods. Mortality data were also analyzed before versus after the pandemic, taking confirmed COVID-19 infection within 30 days into account. Subgroup analysis based on COPD exacerbation risk stratification was undertaken to determine if healthcare use differed based on exacerbation risk. Finally, sex-based analysis of healthcare use during the pandemic was also completed. Results: Hospitalization or emergency department visits and outpatient treatment for acute exacerbations of COPD dropped, whereas total outpatient COPD visits, including both virtual and in person, increased during the pandemic for pwCOPD. The mortality rate increased even after adjusting for COVID-19-associated deaths. Sex-based subgroup analysis showed a greater drop in acute care use for females, but the rise in mortality was seen for both sexes, with men experiencing a greater rate of mortality than women. Conclusions: Overall, pwCOPD accessed acute care resources less during the pandemic, which may have contributed to a rise in non-COVID-19 all-cause mortality.

Breaking down barriers to COPD management in primary care: applying the updated 2023 Canadian Thoracic Society guideline for pharmacotherapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent yet under-recognized and sub-optimally managed disease that is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Primary care providers (PCPs) are at the frontlines of COPD management, and they play a critical role across the full spectrum of the COPD patient journey from initial recognition and diagnosis to treatment optimization and referral to specialty care. The Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) recently updated their guideline on pharmacotherapy in patients with stable COPD, and there are several key changes that have a direct impact on COPD management in the primary care setting. Notably, it is the first guideline to formally make recommendations on mortality reduction in COPD, which elevates this disease to the same league as other chronic diseases that are commonly managed in primary care and where optimized pharmacotherapy can reduce all-cause mortality. It also recommends earlier and more aggressive initial maintenance inhaler therapy across all severities of COPD, and preferentially favors the use of single inhaler therapies over multiple inhaler regimens. This review summarizes some of the key guideline changes and offers practical tips on how to implement the new recommendations in primary care. It also addresses other barriers to optimal COPD management in the primary care setting that are not addressed by the guideline update and suggests strategies on how they could be overcome.

Implications of Cardiopulmonary Risk for the Management of COPD: A Narrative Review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) constitutes a major global health burden and is the third leading cause of death worldwide. A high proportion of patients with COPD have cardiovascular disease, but there is also evidence that COPD is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in cardiovascular disease. Patients with COPD frequently die of respiratory and cardiovascular causes, yet the identification and management of cardiopulmonary risk remain suboptimal owing to limited awareness and clinical intervention. Acute exacerbations punctuate the progression of COPD in many patients, reducing lung function and increasing the risk of subsequent exacerbations and cardiovascular events that may lead to early death. This narrative review defines and summarises the principles of COPD-associated cardiopulmonary risk, and examines respiratory interventions currently available to modify this risk, as well as providing expert opinion on future approaches to addressing cardiopulmonary risk.

Systematic review of the effects of patient errors using inhaled delivery systems on clinical outcomes in COPD

BACKGROUND

Errors using inhaled delivery systems for COPD are common and it is assumed that these lead to worse clinical outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have included patients with both asthma and COPD and much of the evidence related to asthma. More studies in COPD have now been published. Through systematic review, the relationship between errors using inhalers and clinical outcomes in COPD, including the importance of specific errors, was assessed.MethodsElectronic databases were searched on 27 October 2023 to identify cohort, case-control or randomised controlled studies, which included patients with COPD, an objective assessment of inhaler errors and data on at least one outcome of interest (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, (FEV1), dyspnoea, health status and exacerbations). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle and Ottawa scales. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed as there was insufficient detail in the publications to allow quantitative synthesis. There was no funding for the review.

RESULTS

19 publications were included (7 cohort and 12 case-control) reporting outcomes on 6487 patients. 15 were considered low quality, and most were confounded by the absence of adherence data. There was weak evidence that lower error rates are associated with better FEV1, symptoms and health status and fewer exacerbations. Only one considered the effects of individual errors and found that only some were related to worse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence about the importance of specific errors using inhalers and outcomes would optimise the education and training of patients with COPD. Prospective studies, including objective monitoring of inhalation technique and adherence, are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023393120.

An Evidence-Based Update on Anticholinergic Use for Drug-Induced Movement Disorders

Drug-induced movement disorders (DIMDs) are associated with use of dopamine receptor blocking agents (DRBAs), including antipsychotics. The most common forms are drug-induced parkinsonism (DIP), dystonia, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia (TD). Although rare, neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) is a potentially life-threatening consequence of DRBA exposure. Recommendations for anticholinergic use in patients with DIMDs were developed on the basis of a roundtable discussion with healthcare professionals with extensive expertise in DIMD management, along with a comprehensive literature review. The roundtable agreed that "extrapyramidal symptoms" is a non-specific term that encompasses a range of abnormal movements. As such, it contributes to a misconception that all DIMDs can be treated in the same way, potentially leading to the misuse and overprescribing of anticholinergics. DIMDs are neurobiologically and clinically distinct, with different treatment paradigms and varying levels of evidence for anticholinergic use. Whereas evidence indicates anticholinergics can be effective for DIP and dystonia, they are not recommended for TD, akathisia, or NMS; nor are they supported for preventing DIMDs except in individuals at high risk for acute dystonia. Anticholinergics may induce serious peripheral adverse effects (e.g., urinary retention) and central effects (e.g., impaired cognition), all of which can be highly concerning especially in older adults. Appropriate use of anticholinergics therefore requires careful consideration of the evidence for efficacy (e.g., supportive for DIP but not TD) and the risks for serious adverse events. If used, anticholinergic medications should be prescribed at the lowest effective dose and for limited periods of time. When discontinued, they should be tapered gradually.

Tiotropium reduces clinically important deterioration in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A post hoc analysis of the Tie-COPD study

BACKGROUND

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a composite endpoint used to holistically assess the complex progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Tiotropium improves lung function and reduces the rate of COPD exacerbations in patients with COPD of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 1 (mild) or 2 (moderate). However, whether tiotropium reduces CID risk in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD remains unclear.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the 24-month Tie-COPD study comparing 18 μg tiotropium with placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. CID was defined as a decrease of ≥100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, an increase of ≥2 unit in COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, or moderate-to-severe exacerbation. The time to the first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as the time to the first CID. Subgroup analyses were conducted among patients stratified by CAT score, modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score, and GOLD stage at baseline.

RESULTS

Of the 841 randomized patients, 771 were included in the full analysis set. Overall, 643 patients (83.4 %) experienced at least one CID event. Tiotropium significantly reduced the CID risk and delayed the time to first CID compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.58, 95 % confidence interval = 0.49-0.68, P < 0.001). Significant reductions in CID risk were also observed in various subgroups, including patients with a CAT score <10, mMRC score <2, and mild COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium reduced CID risk in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD, even in patients with fewer respiratory symptoms or mild disease, which highlights tiotropium's effectiveness in treating COPD patients with mild disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Tie-COPD, NCT01455129).

Consideration and Assessment of Patient Factors When Selecting an Inhaled Delivery System in COPD

Because guidelines and strategies for pharmacologic treatment of COPD focus on specific classes of inhaled medications, there is an unmet need for information to guide health care professionals for selecting an inhaled medication delivery system that matches the unique characteristics of individual patients. This article provides guidance for selecting an inhaled medication delivery system based on three "key" patient factors: cognitive function, manual dexterity/strength, and peak inspiratory flow. In addition, information is provided about specific tests to assess these patient factors. Cognitive impairment with an estimated prevalence of 25% among patients with COPD adversely affects patients' ability to correctly use a handheld device. To our knowledge, the prevalence of impaired manual dexterity/strength has not been reported in those with COPD. However, 79% of patients with COPD have reported one or more physical impediments that could influence their ability to manipulate an inhaler device. The measurement of peak inspiratory flow against the simulated resistance (PIFr) of a dry powder inhaler establishes whether the patient has the inhalation ability for creating optimal turbulent energy within the device. A suboptimal PIFr for low to medium-high resistance dry powder inhalers has been reported in 19% to 84% of stable outpatients with COPD. Health care professionals should consider cognitive function, manual dexterity/strength, and PIFr in their patients with COPD when prescribing inhaled pharmacotherapy. Impairments in these patient factors are common among those with COPD and can affect the individual's competency and effectiveness of using inhaled medications delivered by handheld devices.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist combination for the treatment of maintenance therapy-naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a narrative review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Faster lung function impairment occurs earlier in the disease, particularly in mild-to-moderate COPD, highlighting the need for early and effective targeted interventions. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2024 report recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination in group B (0 or 1 moderate exacerbation not leading to hospitalization, modified Medical Research Council score of ⩾2, and COPD Assessment Test™ score of ⩾10) and E (⩾2 moderate exacerbations or ⩾1 exacerbation leading to hospitalization and blood eosinophil count <300 cells/µL) patients. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and reduced the use of rescue medications, exacerbation risk, and risk of first clinically important deterioration (CID), compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy. However, there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy in maintenance therapy-naïve patients. This review discusses the rationale for the early initiation of LAMA/LABA combination therapy in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD. In post hoc analyses of pooled data from RCTs, compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy, LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function and quality of life and reduced COPD symptoms, risk of first moderate/severe exacerbation, risk of first CID, and use of rescue medication, with no new safety signals. In a real-world study, patients initiating LAMA/LABA had significantly reduced risk of COPD-related inpatient admissions and rate of on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admissions over 12 months than those initiating LAMA. Consequently, LAMA/LABA combination therapy could be considered the treatment of choice in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD, as recommended by the GOLD 2024 report.