↓ Skip to main content

Management of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Combination Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting β-Agonists: A Review of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Management of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Combination Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting β-Agonists: A Review of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Published in
Drugs, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40265-014-0214-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas W. Mapel, Melissa H. Roberts

Abstract

The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (ICS/LABA) is well recognized in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite differences in the pharmacological properties between two well-established ICS/LABA products (budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol), data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that these two products perform similarly under RCT conditions. In contrast, a few recently reported real-world comparative effectiveness studies have suggested that there are substantial differences between ICS/LABA combination treatments in terms of clinical and healthcare outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the benefits, as well as the limitations, of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the therapeutic area of asthma and COPD. We conducted a structured literature review of the current CER studies on ICS/LABA combinations in asthma and COPD. These articles were then used to illustrate the unique challenges of CER studies, providing a summary of study results and limitations. We focus particularly on difficult biases and confounding factors that may be introduced before, during, and after the initiation of therapy. Beyond being a review of these two ICS/LABA combination treatments, this article is intended to help those who wish to assess the quality of CER published projects in asthma and COPD, or guide investigators who wish to design new CER studies for chronic respiratory disease treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 18%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Other 4 9%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 48%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 3 7%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,195,754
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#2,641
of 3,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,418
of 227,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#30
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 227,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.