↓ Skip to main content

Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes – a review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes – a review
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s116719
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B Price, Anders Østrem, Mike Thomas, Tobias Welte

Abstract

Several fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting bronchodilators (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] plus a long-acting β2-agonist [LABA]) are available for the treatment of COPD. Studies of these FDCs have demonstrated substantial improvements in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in comparison with their respective constituent monocomponents. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms and health status, as well as exacerbation rates, have been reported compared with a LABA or LAMA alone, but results are less consistent. The inconsistencies may in part be owing to differences in study design, methods used to assess study end points, and patient populations. Nevertheless, these observations tend to support an association between improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and improvements in symptom-based outcomes. In order to assess the effects of FDCs on PROs and evaluate relationships between PROs and changes in lung function, we performed a systematic literature search of publications reporting randomized controlled trials of FDCs. Results of this literature search were independently assessed by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicting results. In total, 22 Phase III randomized controlled trials of FDC bronchodilators in COPD were identified, with an additional study including a post-literature search (ten for indacaterol-glycopyrronium once daily, eight for umeclidinium-vilanterol once daily, three for tiotropium-olodaterol once daily, and two for aclidinium-formoterol twice daily). Results from these studies demonstrated that the LAMA-LABA FDCs significantly improved lung function compared with their component monotherapies or other single-agent treatments. Furthermore, LABA-LAMA combinations also generally improved symptoms and health status versus monotherapies, although some discrepancies between lung function and PROs were observed. Overall, the safety profiles of the FDCs were similar to placebo. Further research is required to examine more closely any relationship between lung function and PROs in patients receiving LABA-LAMA combinations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Professor 2 5%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 5 14%

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 16 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,831,587
of 8,919,425 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#699
of 1,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,420
of 305,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#56
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,919,425 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,168 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 305,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.