| Title |
Patient perspectives on fluticasone–vilanterol versus other corticosteroid combination products for the treatment of asthma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s83946 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suzanne G Bollmeier, Theresa R Prosser |
| Abstract |
Fluticasone furoate (FF), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and vilanterol (VI), a long-acting beta2 receptor agonist (LABA), is a new combination used in an Ellipta(®) device. This article compares FF-VI to other ICS-LABA combinations available, particularly emphasizing product selection from the patient perspective. A PubMED and EMBASE search completed in October 2015 identified trials using the MeSH terms "fluticasone", "vilanterol", and "asthma". Additional information was gathered from references cited in the identified publications, the manufacturer, package insert, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Preference was given to randomized controlled clinical trials. Animal trials, trials for COPD, and non-English sources were excluded. Seven efficacy trials of FF-VI in asthma were identified. Only one (24 weeks) trial compared FF-VI to another ICS-LABA combination (fluticasone propionate-salmeterol). Primary outcomes (usually lung function) and secondary outcomes (eg, quality of life and symptom scores) were comparable. In three FF-VI safety trials, the type and frequency of common adverse reactions (ie, thrush and dysphonia) were similar to those in clinical trials. Over 90% of subjects rated the Ellipta(®) device as "easy to use" and demonstrated correct device technique initially and at 4 weeks. Individuals may have drug- and device-specific preferences that should be incorporated into therapeutic decision making. Limited data indicate that clinical and patient-oriented efficacy/safety outcomes of FF-VI are likely comparable to other available combinations for adults with asthma. Patient-friendly features include once-daily dosing, flexibility of dose timing, and design/ease of the use of the device. Additional larger and long-term comparative studies are needed to determine whether these features translate into greater efficacy, safety, patient preference, or adherence versus other ICS-LABA combinations. In the next few years, the availability of less expensive generic ICS-LABA products may strongly influence patient preference. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 33% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,064
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,103
of 311,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#47
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 311,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.