A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding “Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-analysis”
Abstract
We would like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the letter received from Marshall et al. and to address the queries raised with respect to our network meta-analysis (NMA) of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/ vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with other therapies for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [1]. To minimize clinical heterogeneity across COPD studies, we conducted two separate NMAs [1, 2] and presented the data in parallel in the same journal. The dual therapy NMA [2] included studies from patients who were mostly symptomatic with infrequent exacerbations to ensure that the long-acting b2-agonist (LABA)/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Characterization and Analysis of Porosity and Pore Structures
- Practical considerations for conducting ecotoxicity test methods with manufactured nanomaterials: what have we learnt so far?
- Dental Optical Coherence Tomography
- Radiation-shielding concrete: A review of materials, performance, and the impact of radiation on concrete properties
- Testing entanglement of annihilation photons
- Calanus finmarchicus seasonal cycle and diapause in relation to gene expression, physiology, and endogenous clocks
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.