Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2015
Umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in COPD: a randomised trial.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01822899 (DB2116134), which is not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
DB2116134: A Randomized, Multi-center, Double-blind, Double-dummy, Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Compared With Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Over 12 Weeks in Subjects With COPD
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between inhaled corticosteroids and risk of cardiovascular mortality in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of comparative efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus other bronchodilators in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Intraclass comparison of inhaled corticosteroids for the risk of pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary airway disorder: a network meta-analysis and meta-regression.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Pooled it
- Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of ICS versus Non-ICS Combination Therapy in COPD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Pooled it
- Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Bronchodilators for the Management of COPD: Global and Asian Perspectives.Advances in therapy · 2019Pooled it
- Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Risk of Cardiovascular Events Associated with Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis.Canadian respiratory journal · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of tiotropium and olodaterol in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Respiratory research · 2017Pooled it
- Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Pooled it
- LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in patients with COPD: a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasePooled it
- Comparative efficacy of inhaled medications (ICS/LABA, LAMA, LAMA/LABA and SAMA) for COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasePooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Respiratory research · 2018Trial
- A randomized trial of symptom-based management in Japanese patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018Trial
- Observational
- Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Pneumonia Risk in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- The contribution of FEVPhysiological reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUmeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist) plus vilanterol (VI; long-acting beta2 agonist [LABA]) and the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy study compared the efficacy and safety of these treatments in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with no exacerbations in the year prior to enrolment.
methodsPatients (n = 717) were randomised 1:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg or twice-daily FP/SAL 500/50 mcg. Endpoints included 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (Day 84; primary), trough FEV1 (Day 85; secondary), other lung function endpoints, symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and safety.
resultsImprovements with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL were 0.080 L (95 % confidence interval: 0.046-0.113; wmFEV1) and 0.090 L (0.055-0.125; trough FEV1) (both p < 0.001). UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved all other lung function measures versus FP/SAL. Both treatments demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index ≥1 unit) and QoL (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score ≥4 unit decrease from baseline) over 12 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was 28 % (UMEC/VI) and 29 % (FP/SAL); nasopharyngitis and headache were most common.
conclusionsOnce-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg over 12 weeks resulted in significant and sustained improvements in lung function versus twice-daily FP/SAL 500/50 mcg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and with no exacerbations in the year prior to enrolment.
trial registrationNCT01822899 Registration date: March 28, 2013.
Indexed as
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.