↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Pharmacologic rationale underlying the therapeutic effects of tiotropium/olodaterol in COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacologic rationale underlying the therapeutic effects of tiotropium/olodaterol in COPD
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s84151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Girolamo Pelaia, Alessandro Vatrella, Maria Teresa Busceti, Luca Gallelli, Cecilia Calabrese, Rosa Terracciano, Nicola Lombardo, Rosario Maselli

Abstract

Bronchodilators are the most important drugs used for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In particular, these therapeutic agents are mostly long-acting compounds utilized via inhalation, and include LAMA (long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists) and LABA (long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists). Because LAMA and LABA induce bronchodilation by distinct mechanisms of action, LABA/LAMA combinations provide a reciprocal potentiation of the pharmacological effects caused by each component. Hence, many COPD patients who do not achieve a satisfactory control of their symptoms using a single, either LAMA or LABA bronchodilator, can experience relevant benefits with the use of LAMA/LABA fixed combinations. Many different LAMA/LABA combinations have been recently developed and evaluated in randomized clinical trials. In this context, our review focuses on the pharmacological mechanisms underpinning the bronchodilation elicited by the LAMA tiotropium bromide and the LABA olodaterol. We also discuss the results of the most important clinical studies carried out in COPD patients to assess the efficacy and safety of tiotropium/olodaterol combinations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Lecturer 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 26%

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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#7,528,738
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#536
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,569
of 250,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#41
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 250,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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.