Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical Efficacy of Long-Acting β2 Agonists and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist for Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal Aims and scope

We have studied the clinical efficacy of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For this purpose, clinical data of 145 patients with moderate to severe COPD diagnoses were gained in our hospital and retrospective analyzed. Patients were assigned into a research group (49 patients) and two control (LABA and LAMA) groups (48 patients each). Patients in the LABA, LAMA and research groups were given indacaterol maleate powder (trade name Onbrez) for inhalation, tiotropium bromide powder (trade name Tianqingsule) for inhalation and a combination of these drugs, respectively. After treatment, the efficacy, as well as the improvement of the pulmonary function, vascular endothelial function, motor function and inflammatory factors were compared among the three group. The total effective rate of treatment in the research group was significantly higher than that in the two control groups, while the number of rehospitalization cases showed an opposite trend. After treatment, the pulmonary function, respiratory muscle strength, and 6-minute walk distance in the research group were significantly higher than those in the two control groups, while the scores of dyspnea showed opposite trends. The improvement in pulmonary function in the LAMA group was also significantly higher than that in the LABA group. In addition, the post- treatment values of the von Willebrand factor, endothelium-1, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α levels were significantly lower in the research group than those in the two control groups, while the vascular endothelial growth factor and nitric oxide levels were significantly higher. Besides, there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among the three groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the total effective rate of treatment, the number of rehospitalizations, respiratory muscle strength, dyspnea score, 6-minute walk distance, vascular endothelial function and inflammatory factors between the two control groups. It was concluded that the combination of LABA and LAMA was more effective than either drug alone for treating moderate to severe COPD, showing more significant effects on the improvement of pulmonary function, vascular endothelial function and dyspnea symptoms, without increasing adverse effects and higher safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. B. Stanbrook, Ann. Intern. Med., 169, 112 – 114 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Gorska, P. Nejman-Gryz, M. Paplinska-Goryca, et al., COPD, 15, 36 – 45 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. J. A. Wedzicha, D. Singh, I. Tsiligianni, et al., Respir. Res., 20, 4 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. S. Suiss., S. Dell’Aniello, P. Ernst, Chest, 155, 1158 – 1165 (2019).

  5. C. Lyon, R. Radi, T. Staff, et al., J. Fam. Pract., 67, 384 – 385 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. S. Yang, Y. Zheng, X. Hou, Cell Signal., 60, 146 – 153 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. D. Stolz, K. Kostikas, E. Loefroth, et al., Chest, 156, 674 – 684 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. A. F. Chi, A. Ctan, O. Soriu, et al., Eur. J. Inflamm., 18, 205873922096646 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. F. J. Martinez, K. F. Rabe, G. T. Ferguson, et al., Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 203, 553 – 564 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Mantero, D. Radovanovic, P. Santus, et al., Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis., 13, 2319 – 2333 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. M. K. Han, R. Ray, J. Foo, et al., NPJ Prim. Care Respir. Med., 28, 32 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. H. Demeyer, M. Costilla-Frias, Z. Louvaris, et al., Eur. Respir. J., 51, 1174 – 1178 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. G. A. Heresi, Y. Rao, Lung, 198, 933 – 938 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. J. Luo, Y. H. Liu, W. Luo, et al., Sci. Rep., 9, 4109 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. N. Stakenborg, E. Labeeuw, P. J. Gomez-Pinilla, et al., Gut, 68, 1406 – 1416 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. B. Z. Shao, S. L. Wang, J. Fang, et al., Inflammation, 42, 1666 – 1679 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. R. A. Sitapara, A. G. Gauthier, S. I. Valdés-Ferrer, et al., Mol. Med., 26, 63 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. D. Bagdas, D. Ergun, A. Jackson, et al., Eur. J. Pain, 22, 84 – 93 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. M. Azimi, M. Oemisch, T. Womelsdorf, Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 237, 997 – 1010 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. M. R. Farlow, S. M. Graham, G. Alva, Drug Saf., 31, 577 – 585 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. A. P. Milstone, Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis., 3, 515 – 520 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Y. So, S. Dhungana, J. J. Beros, et al., Curr. Opin. Pharmacol., 40, 26 – 33 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. T. Kamei, H. D. Nakamura, N. D. Nanki, et al., BMJ Open, 9, e024114 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. X. F. Xiong, L. L. Fan, H. X. Wu, et al., Adv. Ther., 35, 2201 – 2213 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. D. Singh, A. Ravi, K. Kane, et al., Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 84, 2097 – 2105 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Pang.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Y., Pang, Y. Clinical Efficacy of Long-Acting β2 Agonists and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist for Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Pharm Chem J 57, 365–372 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11094-023-02891-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11094-023-02891-4

Keywords

Navigation