| Title |
Double bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a crude analysis from a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s132962 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jose Luis Lopez-Campos, Carmen Calero-Acuña, Eduardo Márquez-Martín, Esther Quintana Gallego, Laura Carrasco-Hernández, Maria Abad Arranz, Francisco Ortega Ruiz |
| Abstract |
The combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is a viable treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we systematically review the current knowledge on double bronchodilation for the treatment of COPD, with a specific focus on its efficacy versus placebo and/or monotherapy bronchodilation. A systematic review of clinical trials investigating LABA/LAMA combination therapies was conducted. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on June 26, 2016. We specifically selected clinical trials with a randomized controlled or crossover design published in any scientific journal showing the following characteristics: 1) comparison of different LABA/LAMA combinations in a single inhaler for patients with COPD, 2) dose approved in Europe, and 3) focus on efficacy (versus placebo and/or bronchodilator monotherapy) in terms of lung function, respiratory symptoms, or exacerbations. We analyzed 26 clinical trials conducted on 24,338 patients. All LABA/LAMA combinations were consistently able to improve lung function compared with both placebo and bronchodilator monotherapy. Improvements in symptoms were also consistent versus placebo, showing some lack of correlation for some clinical end points and combinations versus monotherapy bronchodilation. Albeit being an exploratory end point, exacerbations showed an improvement with LABA/LAMA combinations over placebo in some trials; however, scarce information was available in comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy in most studies. Our data show consistent improvements for LABA/LAMA combinations, albeit with some variability (depending on the clinical end point, the specific combination, and the comparison group). Clinicians should be aware that these are average differences. All treatments should be tailored at the individual level to optimize clinical outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 10 | 38% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 12% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 21% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 42% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 24 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,133,732
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#180
of 2,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,343
of 331,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#5
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,595 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 331,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.