↓ Skip to main content

Asthma control using fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in Asian and non-Asian populations: a post hoc analysis of the GOAL study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Asthma control using fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in Asian and non-Asian populations: a post hoc analysis of the GOAL study
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0410-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Bousquet, Neil Barnes, Michael Gibbs, Nadeem Gul, Susan A Tomkins, Xin Zhou, Young-Joo Cho, Hae-Sim Park, William Busse, Nanshan Zhong

Abstract

To analyse the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) alone and combined with salmeterol (SAL) in achieving guideline-defined asthma control in Asian patients. A post hoc analysis of the GOAL study in which patients were stratified by prior-medication use into inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-naïve (Stratum [S] 1), low-dose ICS (S2), and medium-dose ICS (S3), and randomised to receive FP/SAL or FP. Doses were stepped-up every 12 weeks until Totally Controlled asthma or maximum dose was reached (PhI) and then maintained until study end (PhII). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving Well-Controlled asthma during PhI. Additional endpoints included Total Control and adverse events. Asian and non-Asian patients were analysed separately. In Asian patients in PhI, 74% (n = 87/118) in S1 achieved Well-Controlled asthma with FP/SAL versus 74% (n = 89/121) with FP alone (p = 0.839); corresponding values were 76% (n = 81/107) versus 60% (n = 62/104; p = 0.005) in S2, and 58% (n = 59/102) versus 43% (n = 41/95; p = 0.015) in S3. More patients in all three strata achieved Totally Controlled asthma with FP/SAL versus FP alone. Control was achieved more rapidly and with lower ICS doses with FP/SAL versus FP. A high proportion of patients who achieved control during PhI maintained control during PhII. Similar trends were found in non-Asian patients. No new safety concerns were identified. A greater proportion of Asian patients (S2 and S3, for Well-Controlled; all strata, for Totally Controlled) achieved guideline-defined asthma control with FP/SAL versus FP alone. High proportions of Asian patients in S1 achieved Well-Controlled asthma in both treatment groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Master 8 17%
Other 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,401
of 1,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,093
of 310,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#27
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. 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 310,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.