↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes – a review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes – a review
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s116719
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Price, Anders Østrem, Mike Thomas, Tobias Welte

Abstract

Several fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting bronchodilators (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] plus a long-acting β2-agonist [LABA]) are available for the treatment of COPD. Studies of these FDCs have demonstrated substantial improvements in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in comparison with their respective constituent monocomponents. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms and health status, as well as exacerbation rates, have been reported compared with a LABA or LAMA alone, but results are less consistent. The inconsistencies may in part be owing to differences in study design, methods used to assess study end points, and patient populations. Nevertheless, these observations tend to support an association between improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and improvements in symptom-based outcomes. In order to assess the effects of FDCs on PROs and evaluate relationships between PROs and changes in lung function, we performed a systematic literature search of publications reporting randomized controlled trials of FDCs. Results of this literature search were independently assessed by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicting results. In total, 22 Phase III randomized controlled trials of FDC bronchodilators in COPD were identified, with an additional study including a post-literature search (ten for indacaterol-glycopyrronium once daily, eight for umeclidinium-vilanterol once daily, three for tiotropium-olodaterol once daily, and two for aclidinium-formoterol twice daily). Results from these studies demonstrated that the LAMA-LABA FDCs significantly improved lung function compared with their component monotherapies or other single-agent treatments. Furthermore, LABA-LAMA combinations also generally improved symptoms and health status versus monotherapies, although some discrepancies between lung function and PROs were observed. Overall, the safety profiles of the FDCs were similar to placebo. Further research is required to examine more closely any relationship between lung function and PROs in patients receiving LABA-LAMA combinations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2017.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,731
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,653
of 416,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#65
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.