↓ Skip to main content

Long-acting inhaled bronchodilators for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Long-acting inhaled bronchodilators for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012102.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sherie Smith, Christopher T Edwards

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting inherited condition which affects one in 2500 newborns in the UK and 70,000 children and adults worldwide. The condition is multifaceted and affects many systems in the body. The respiratory system is particularly affected due to a build up of thickened secretions and a predisposition to infection. Inhaled bronchodilators are prescribed for 80% of people with cystic fibrosis in order to widen the airways and alleviate symptoms. Both short- and long-acting inhaled bronchodilators are used to improve respiratory symptoms. Short-acting inhaled bronchodilators take effect in minutes and typically last for four to eight hours (muscarinic antagonists). Long-acting inhaled bronchodilators also take effect within minutes but typically last for around 12 hours and sometimes longer. This review is one of two which are replacing a previously published review of both long- and short-acting inhaled bronchodilators. This review aims to evaluate long-acting inhaled bronchodilators in children and adults with cystic fibrosis in terms of clinical outcomes and safety. If possible, we aimed to assess the optimal drug and dosage regimen. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search: 10 October 2017.We also carried out a separate search of Embase and the reference lists of included trials. We searched clinical trials registries for any ongoing trials and made contact with pharmaceutical companies for any further trials.Date of Embase search: 11 October 2017. Randomised or quasi-randomised parallel trials comparing long-acting inhaled bronchodilators (beta-2 agonists and muscarinic antagonists) with placebo, no treatment or a different long-acting inhaled bronchodilator in adults and children with cystic fibrosis. Both authors independently assessed trials for inclusion (based on title, abstract and full text). The authors independently assessed the included trials for quality and risk of bias and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by a third party. The searches identified 195 unique references, of which 155 were excluded on title and abstract. We assessed the full texts of the remaining references, excluded 16 trials (28 references) and included four trials (12 references) in the review with 1082 participants.One trial (n = 16) measuring the effect of beta-2 agonists reported an improvement in forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) after treatment (at one month), but the trial was small with an unclear risk of bias so we judged the evidence to be very low quality. The trial did not report on participant-reported outcomes, quality of life or adverse events.Three trials (n = 1066) looked at the effects of the muscarinic antagonist tiotropium at doses of 2.5 µg and 5.0 µg in both the short term (up to 28 days) and the longer term (up to three months). Only one of the trials reported the change in FEV1 (L) after 28 days treatment and showed no significant difference between groups; with 2.5 µg tiotropium, mean difference (MD) -0.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.09), or 5.0 µg tiotropium, MD 0.00 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.10) (moderate-quality evidence). All three trials of muscarinic antagonists provided data on adverse events which were found to differ little from placebo at doses of 2.5 µg, risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.11) or 5.0 µg, RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.06). Very little participant-reported outcome data or quality of life data were available for analysis. Two of the trials were at low risk of bias overall whilst the remaining trial was at an unclear risk overall. Neither long-acting beta-2 agonists nor long-acting muscarinic antagonist bronchodilators demonstrate improvement in our primary outcome of FEV1. No difference was observed between intervention and placebo in terms of quality of life or adverse events. The quality of evidence for the use of beta-2 agonists was very low. The use of a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator may help to reduce the burden of treatment for people with cystic fibrosis as it is taken less often than a short-acting inhaled bronchodilator, but future trials would benefit from looking at the effects on our primary outcomes (spirometric changes from baseline, quality of life and adverse effects) in the longer term.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 21%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Social Sciences 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 32 31%

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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,299,169
of 15,079,507 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,634
of 11,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,582
of 403,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#183
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,079,507 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 403,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.