↓ Skip to main content

24-h bronchodilation and inspiratory capacity improvements with glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate via co-suspension delivery technology in COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
24-h bronchodilation and inspiratory capacity improvements with glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate via co-suspension delivery technology in COPD
Published in
Respiratory Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0636-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Reisner, Gregory Gottschlich, Faisal Fakih, Andras Koser, James Krainson, Luis Delacruz, Samir Arora, Gregory Feldman, Krishna Pudi, Shahid Siddiqui, Chad Orevillo, Andrea Maes, Earl St. Rose, Ubaldo Martin

Abstract

Symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may vary throughout the day and it is important that therapeutic approaches provide 24-h symptom control. We report the results of two phase IIIb crossover studies, PT003011 and PT003012, investigating the 24-h lung function profile of GFF MDI (glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate 18/9.6 μg delivered using innovative co-suspension delivery technology) administered twice daily. Patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received 4 weeks' treatment with each of GFF MDI, placebo MDI, and open-label tiotropium (PT003011 only). Lung function was assessed over 24 h on day 29 of each treatment period. The primary outcome was forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (FEV1AUC0-24). Other outcomes included change from baseline in average daily rescue medication use over the treatment period. In addition, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of data pooled from both studies to further characterize the effect of GFF MDI on inspiratory capacity. GFF MDI treatment significantly increased FEV1AUC0-24 versus placebo in studies PT003011 (n = 75) and PT003012 (n = 35) on day 29 (both studies p < 0.0001), with similar improvements in FEV1AUC versus placebo for hours 0-12 and 12-24. In PT003011, improvements with GFF MDI versus tiotropium in FEV1AUC were greater during hours 12-24 compared to 0-12 h. GFF MDI treatment also resulted in a significant reduction in rescue medication use versus placebo (-0.84 [p<0.0001] and -1.11 [p=0.0054] puffs/day in PT003011 and PT003012, respectively), and versus tiotropium in PT003011 (-0.44 [p=0.017] puffs/day). A post-hoc pooled analysis showed patients treated with GFF MDI were more likely to achieve a >15% increase from baseline in inspiratory capacity than patients treated with placebo or tiotropium (72.1%, 19.0% and 47.0% of patients, respectively after the evening dose on day 29). There were no significant safety/tolerability findings. GFF MDI significantly improved 24-h lung function versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with similar benefits in the second 12-h period compared to the first, supporting twice-daily dosing of GFF MDI. Pearl Therapeutics, Inc.; www.clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT02347072 and NCT02347085 . Registered 21 January 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 25 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 25 39%
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 19 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#2,216
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,453
of 326,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#39
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 326,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.