ArticleClinical drug investigation2003
One-Year Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Ipratropium Bromide HFA and CFC Inhalation Aerosols in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIpratropium bromide (IB) is an established and effective first-line maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A new IB metered-dose inhaler (MDI) using hydrofluoroalkane 134a propellant (IB HFA) has been developed as an alternative to the MDI containing chlorofluorocarbon (IB CFC).
objectiveTo compare the long-term safety and efficacy of IB HFA and IB CFC in patients with COPD. STUDY
designThis was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, 1-year, multi-centre trial. Primary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and vital signs. Secondary endpoints included therapeutic response (>15% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] peak change from baseline), FEV(1) area under the response-time curve (AUC). PATIENTS AND
interventionsPatients (n = 456) with moderate-to-severe COPD, who received either IB HFA (n = 305) or IB CFC (n = 151 ), both 42µg four times daily.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the incidences of individual AEs between groups over the short and long term; respiratory disorders were the most common. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs possibly related to treatment was low (1.3% IB HFA, 0.7% IB CFC). Serious AEs occurred in 19.0% and 20.5%, and discontinuations due to AEs in 7.2% and 7.3%, of patients receiving IB HFA and IB CFC, respectively. Therapeutic bronchodilatory responses were achieved in 76-81% and 72-84% of patients, and AUC ranged from 0.117-0.148L and 0.117-0.174L, in patients receiving IB HFA and IB CFC, respectively.
conclusionsIB HFA had similar efficacy and tolerability to IB CFC over 1 year, supporting a seamless transition from the CFC MDI to the HFA MDI in both short- and long-term treatment.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.