↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US…

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study
Published in
Respiratory Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12931-015-0210-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

David M Kern, Jill Davis, Setareh A Williams, Ozgur Tunceli, Bingcao Wu, Sally Hollis, Charlie Strange, Frank Trudo

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) have emerged as first line therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with exacerbation history. No randomized clinical trial has compared exacerbation rates among COPD patients receiving budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) and fluticasone/salmeterol combination (FSC) to date, and only limited comparative data are available. This study compared the real-world effectiveness of approved BFC and FSC treatments among matched cohorts of COPD patients in a large US managed care setting. COPD patients (≥40 years) naive to ICS/LABA who initiated BFC or FSC treatments between 03/01/2009-03/31/2012 were identified in a geographically diverse US managed care database and followed for 12 months; index date was defined as first prescription fill date. Patients with a cancer diagnosis or chronic (≥180 days) oral corticosteroid (OCS) use within 12 months prior to index were excluded. Patients were matched 1-to-1 on demographic and pre-initiation clinical characteristics using propensity scores from a random forest model. The primary efficacy outcome was COPD exacerbation rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes included exacerbation rates by event type and healthcare resource utilization. Pneumonia objectives included rates of any diagnosis of pneumonia and pneumonia-related healthcare resource utilization. Matching of the identified 3,788 BFC and 6,439 FSC patients resulted in 3,697 patients in each group. Matched patients were well balanced on age (mean = 64 years), gender (BFC: 52% female; FSC: 54%), prior COPD-related medication use, healthcare utilization, and comorbid conditions. During follow-up, no significant difference was seen between BFC and FSC patients for number of COPD-related exacerbations overall (rate ratio [RR] = 1.02, 95% CI = [0.96,1.09], p = 0.56) or by event type: COPD-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.96), COPD-related ED visits (RR = 1.11), and COPD-related office/outpatient visits with OCS and/or antibiotic use (RR = 1.01). The proportion of patients diagnosed with pneumonia during the post-index period was similar for patients in each group (BFC = 17.3%, FSC = 19.0%, odds ratio = 0.92 [0.81,1.04], p = 0.19), and no difference was detected for pneumonia-related healthcare utilization by place of service. This study demonstrated no difference in COPD-related exacerbations or pneumonia events between BFC and FSC treatment groups for patients new to ICS/LABA treatment in a real-world setting. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01921127 .

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 75 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,447,195
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#694
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,367
of 279,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 279,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.