↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparative efficacy of combination bronchodilator therapies in COPD: a network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Comparative efficacy of combination bronchodilator therapies in COPD: a network meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s87082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eline L Huisman, Sarah M Cockle, Afisi S Ismaila, Andreas Karabis, Yogesh Suresh Punekar

Abstract

Several new fixed-dose combination bronchodilators have been recently launched, and assessing their efficacy relative to each other, and with open dual combinations is desirable. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with that of available dual bronchodilators in single/separate inhalers. A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥10 weeks among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (≥40 years), assessing the efficacy of combination bronchodilators in single or separate inhalers. Comparative assessment was conducted on change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, transitional dyspnea index (TDI) focal scores, and rescue medication use at 12 weeks and 24 weeks using an NMA within a Bayesian framework. A systematic literature review identified 77 articles of 26 trials comparing UMEC/VI, indacaterol/glycopyrronium (QVA149), formoterol plus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg, salmeterol plus TIO, or indacaterol plus TIO, with TIO and placebo as common comparators at 12 weeks and approximately 24 weeks. The NMA showed that at 24 weeks, efficacy of UMEC/VI was not significantly different compared with QVA149 on trough FEV1 (14.1 mL [95% credible interval: -14.2, 42.3]), SGRQ total score (0.18 [-1.28, 1.63]), TDI focal score (-0.30 [-0.73, 0.13]), and rescue medication use (0.02 [-0.27, 0.32]); compared with salmeterol plus TIO on trough FEV1 (67.4 mL [-25.3, 159.4]), SGRQ total score (-0.11 [-1.84, 1.61]), and TDI focal score (0.58 [-0.33, 1.50]); and compared with formoterol plus TIO 18 μg on SGRQ total score (-0.68 [-1.77, 0.39]). Results at week 12 were consistent with week 24 outcomes. Due to lack of availability of evidence, no comparison was made with formoterol plus TIO on FEV1 or TDI at 24 weeks. UMEC/VI has comparable efficacy to other dual-bronchodilator combinations on available efficacy endpoints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Other 9 15%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 7 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 29 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,701,666
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#113
of 2,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,045
of 277,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#6
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,571 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 95% 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 277,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 94% of its contemporaries.