↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Umeclidinium/vilanterol as step-up therapy from tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD: a randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Umeclidinium/vilanterol as step-up therapy from tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD: a randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/copd.s119032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward M Kerwin, Chris J Kalberg, Dmitry V Galkin, Chang-Qing Zhu, Alison Church, John H Riley, William A Fahy

Abstract

Patients with COPD who remain symptomatic on long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy may benefit from step-up therapy to a long-acting bronchodilator combination. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) in patients with moderate COPD who remained symptomatic on tiotropium (TIO). In this randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study (NCT01899742), patients (N=494) who were prescribed TIO for ≥3 months at screening (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]: 50%-70% of predicted; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥1) and completed a 4-week run-in with TIO were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg or TIO 18 µg for 12 weeks. Efficacy assessments included trough FEV1 at Day 85 (primary end point), 0-3 h serial FEV1, rescue medication use, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs). Compared with TIO, UMEC/VI produced greater improvements in trough FEV1 (least squares [LS] mean difference: 88 mL at Day 85 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 45-131]; P<0.001) and FEV1 after 5 min on Day 1 (50 mL [95% CI: 27-72]; P<0.001). Reductions in rescue medication use over 12 weeks were greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO (LS mean change: -0.1 puffs/d [95% CI: -0.2-0.0]; P≤0.05). More patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in TDI score (≥1 unit) with UMEC/VI (63%) versus TIO (49%; odds ratio at Day 84=1.78 [95% CI: 1.21-2.64]; P≤0.01). Improvements in SGRQ and CAT scores were similar between treatments. The incidence of AEs was similar with UMEC/VI (30%) and TIO (31%). UMEC/VI step-up therapy provides clinical benefit over TIO monotherapy in patients with moderate COPD who are symptomatic on TIO alone.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Unspecified 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,962,193
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#959
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,409
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#36
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 424,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.