↓ Skip to main content

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus higher dose ICS for adults with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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 muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus higher dose ICS for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011437.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David JW Evans, Kayleigh M Kew, Debbie E Anderson, Anne C Boyter

Abstract

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), a class of drugs with proven effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are being considered as an add-on option for adults with asthma whose condition is uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is important to assess the safety and efficacy of LAMA add-on as an alternative to the prolonged use of higher doses of ICS, which are known to cause undesirable side effects in some people. To compare the effects of adding a LAMA to any dose of ICS versus increasing the dose of ICS, for uncontrolled asthma in adults. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) from its inception in 1995 to April 2015, imposing no restriction on language of publication. We also handsearched trial registries, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, as well as manufacturers' websites. We looked for parallel or cross-over randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 weeks, in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled on ICS alone were randomised to treatment with LAMA add-on to ICS or with an increased dose of ICS. Trials were excluded if patients were taking long-acting beta2-agonists during the study period. Two review authors independently screened the searches and extracted data from studies meeting all the inclusion criteria. We used Covidence to manage duplicate screening, data extraction and risk of bias judgements, and to form a consensus where discrepancies arose. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), effects on quality of life and serious adverse events. One cross-over randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. The trial was performed in 210 patients with moderate to severe asthma and compared the use of the LAMA tiotropium bromide with double dose beclomethasone (an ICS) using a cross-over design and 14-week treatment periods.Compared with people taking a double dose of ICS, fewer people taking a LAMA add-on had an exacerbation requiring treatment with OCS (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.43) or an exacerbation resulting in emergency department admission (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77), but the confidence intervals for both outcomes did not exclude the possibility that double dose ICS was more effective. Serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation occurred in similarly low numbers of people taking each treatment, but confidence intervals were too wide to suggest that the two treatment options were equivalent.Asthma-related quality of life was similar in both treatment groups (mean difference (MD) in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI - 0.07 to 0.27). Those taking LAMA add-on scored slightly better on a scale measuring asthma control than those increasing their ICS dose (MD in change from baseline - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.02), although the difference was clinically small. Evidence was deemed low quality for both quality of life and asthma control.There was moderate-quality evidence that participants' trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 100 mL better when taking LAMA add-on than with increased ICS dose (MD in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17). Only one randomised trial was found, comparing tiotropium add-on to increased dose beclomethasone. Differences between the treatments were too small or imprecise to understand whether adding a LAMA to ICS is safer or more effective than increasing the dose of ICS, and there is a possibility of carry-over effects due to the study's cross-over design. LAMA add-on may lead to more improvement in lung function (FEV1) than an increased dose of ICS.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA against other treatments, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma management, and this review should be updated as results from future trials emerge. Studies assessing the role of LAMA add-on should be longer and include a double-ICS treatment arm so that the results can be interpreted in the context of the guideline-recommended treatment options that are available to physicians.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tunisia 1 10%
United Kingdom 1 10%
Brazil 1 10%
United States 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 330%
Unspecified 23 230%
Researcher 14 140%
Student > Postgraduate 12 120%
Other 11 110%
Other 30 300%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 580%
Unspecified 22 220%
Social Sciences 13 130%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 80%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 70%
Other 15 150%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 01 September 2016.
All research outputs
#711,752
of 13,500,525 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,264
of 10,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,978
of 234,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#71
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 234,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 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 72% of its contemporaries.