Benefit of Dual Bronchodilator Therapy on Exacerbations in Former and Current Smokers with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Real-world Clinical Practice: a Multicenter Validation Study (TOReTO)
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Dual bronchodilator therapy, consisting of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), has proven effective for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it remains uncertain whether there are efficacy differences between current and former smokers with COPD. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of LABA/LAMA therapies in both these groups.
Methods: The TOReTO trial assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, the occurrence of exacerbations, clinically significant exacerbations, and the use of LABA/LAMA therapies. These therapies include Tio/Olo, umeclidinium/vilanterol (Umec/Vi), and umeclidinium/vilanterol (Umec/Vi) are used in patients with COPD. The study examined the differences in outcomes between current and former smokers. To balance the baseline characteristics, propensity score matching (PSM) was employed.
Results: Data from 967 patients were collected. After PSM, the time to the first acute exacerbation in current smokers was analyzed separately for the three treatment groups and was significantly different between them (p = 0.0457). Among, there are differences in the occurrence of acute exacerbation between treatment and smoking status in Umec/Vi (p = 0.0114). There is no significant difference in the treatment of former smokers among the three different groups of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (p = 0.3079). COPD-related symptoms remained stable throughout the treatment period. There were no significant differences in symptom scores, including CAT and mMRC, among the three groups at the end of the study.
Conclusions: The three fixed-dose combinations of LABA/LAMA showed no difference in reducing exacerbations in former smokers but did show differences in current smokers. This trend has clinical significance, and future research will be conducted to control influencing variables to validate this point. However, due to the non-randomized study design, these findings should be interpreted with caution.