Skip to main content
. 2006 Sep;1(3):219–233. doi: 10.2147/copd.2006.1.3.219

Table 4.

Effect of ICS therapy on COPD mortality in non-randomized cohort studies

Source of data Comparison Risk of death (95% CI) Summary of outcome
(Sin and Tu 2001) ICS vs no ICS 0.71 (0.65, 0.78) Significant survival benefit with ICS
(Soriano et al 2002) FP + salmeterol vs no ICS or LABA 0.48 (0.31, 0.73) Significant survival benefit with FP and salmeterol
FP alone vs no ICS or LABA 0.62 (0.45, 0.85) Significant survival benefit with FP alone
Salmeterol alone vs no ICS or LABA 0.79 (0.58, 1.07) Significant survival benefit with salmeterol alone
(Soriano et al 2003)b ICS + LABA 10.5% Reduction in risk of rehospitalization or death with ICS and/or LABA
ICS alone 17.1%
LABA alone 17.3%
SABA alone 24.3%
(Sin and Man 2003a) ICS vs no ICS 0.75 (0.68, 0.82) Significant survival benefit with ICS overall, and especially for medium- to high-dose ICS
Low-dosea ICS vs no ICS 0.77 (0.69, 0.86)
Medium-dosea ICS vs no ICS 0.48 (0.37, 0.63)
High-dosea ICS vs no ICS 0.55 (0.44, 0.69)
(Suissa 2003) ICS vs no ICS 0.69 (0.55, 0.86) No reduction in morbidity or mortality with ICS (after controlling for time dependence)
Time fixed adjusted rate
ICS vs no ICS 1.00 (0.79, 1.26)
Time dependent rate
(Suissa 2004) ICS vs bronchodilators 0.66 (0.57, 0.76) No reduction in all-cause mortality with ICS
(Fan et al 2003) Low-dose ICS vs no ICS 0.75 (0.53, 1.05) No reduction in mortality or exacerbations with ICS
Medium-/high-dose ICS vs no ICS 0.91 (0.73, 1.13)
(Kiri et al 2005b) ICS vs no ICS 0.69 (0.052, 0.93) Survival benefit with ICS (in both models)
propensity scores
ICS vs no ICS 0.71 (0.56, 0.90)
nested case control
a

Dose was converted to beclomethasone equivalents and classified as low (≤ 500 μg/day), medium (501–1000 μg/day), and high (>1000 μg/day).

b

This study reported one-year mortality rates.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FP, fluticasone propionate; ICS, inhaled corticosteroids; LABA, long-acting β2-agonists; NS, not significant.