| Title |
Efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol on lung volume, exercise capacity, and physical activity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s166023 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masakazu Ichinose, Yoshiaki Minakata, Takashi Motegi, Jun Ueki, Yasuhiro Gon, Tetsuo Seki, Tatsuhiko Anzai, Shuhei Nakamura, Kazuto Hirata |
| Abstract |
This study evaluated the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol vs tiotropium on lung function, exercise capacity, and physical activity in patients with COPD. A total of 184 patients aged ≥40 years with COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage II-IV) received tiotropium/olodaterol for 6 weeks, then tiotropium for 6 weeks, or vice versa. The primary endpoint was inspiratory capacity (IC) at peak post-dose. Adjusted mean IC after 6-week treatment was 1.990 L with tiotropium/olodaterol vs 1.875 L with tiotropium (difference: 115 mL; 95% CI: 77, 153; p<0.0001). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (difference: 105 mL; 95% CI: 88, 123), forced vital capacity (difference: 163 mL; 95% CI: 130, 197), and slow vital capacity (difference: 134 mL; 95% CI: 91, 176) improved with tiotropium/olodaterol (all p<0.0001). Adjusted mean 6-min walk distance was similar between treatments in the overall population but was significantly increased with tiotropium/olodaterol in the subgroup with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage III/IV at baseline (difference: 18.1 m; 95% CI: 2.3, 33.9; p=0.0254). In a post hoc analysis, tiotropium/olodaterol improved the values for ≥2.0 metabolic equivalents (difference: 5.0 min; 95% CI: 0.4, 9.7; p=0.0337). Tiotropium/olodaterol significantly improved IC compared with tiotropium and potentially enhanced the exercise capacity in COPD patients. A slight improvement in physical activity of relatively more than moderate intensity was also seen with tiotropium/olodaterol. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 62 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Unknown | 67 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,614
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,374
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#51
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.