↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

New combinations in the treatment of COPD: rationale for aclidinium–formoterol

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
New combinations in the treatment of COPD: rationale for aclidinium–formoterol
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s82034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristoforo Incorvaia, Marcello Montagni, Elena Makri, Erminia Ridolo

Abstract

The current guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend the prominent use of bronchodilators, including long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), while inhaled corticosteroids are recommended only in patients with severe disease or frequent exacerbations. LABA-LAMA combinations are indicated when single bronchodilators are insufficient to control COPD. A number of LABA-LAMA combinations are available, based on twice-daily or once-daily administration according to the 12- or 24-hour duration of action, respectively. The aclidinium-formoterol combination is based on the new LAMA aclidinium bromide, which has a high selectivity for M3 muscarinic receptors and a fast onset of action, and the well-known LABA formoterol. Both drugs require twice-daily administration. The fixed-dose combination of aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg has shown in randomized controlled trials fast and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy and provided clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status compared with placebo, also reducing the use of rescue medications. The overall incidence of adverse events was low and comparable to placebo. These data define the aclidinium-formoterol fixed-dose combination as a new treatment option for patients with COPD. The need for twice-daily administration could be an apparent disadvantage compared to the available once-daily LABA-LAMA combinations, but the immediately perceived benefit in reducing dyspnea due to the fast onset of action, as well as reported correct patient use and satisfaction with the Genuair inhaler might prove useful in favoring adherence.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 20%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%

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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,528,740
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#537
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,738
of 272,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#30
of 52 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 272,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.