Observational studyInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2015
A real-world evaluation of indacaterol and other bronchodilators in COPD: the INFLOW study.
Observational study in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inhaler device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Lung function, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of inhaled indacaterol maleate and acetate in asthma patients.Respiratory research · 2020Trial
- Effects of βScientific reports · 2020Trial
- Real-world Safety and Efficacy of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium in Japanese Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A 52-week Post-marketing Surveillance.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- Real-world Safety and Efficacy of Indacaterol Maleate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Evidence from the Long-term Post-marketing Surveillance in Japan.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Indacaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in South Korea.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimINFLOW (INdacaterol eFfectiveness and utiLizatiOn in COPD: real World evaluation) was a prospective, noninterventional study assessing the effectiveness and safety of long-acting bronchodilators in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from the Middle East, Asia, and South Africa.
methodsPatients newly prescribed or switched to indacaterol or other long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), or tiotropium (monotherapy or in combination) were evaluated over 6 months. The primary endpoint was the clinical COPD questionnaire overall score at the end of the study.
resultsData were analyzed from 1,710 patients (mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second, 59% predicted) who received indacaterol (n=1,179), other LABA (n=68), tiotropium (n=271), indacaterol plus tiotropium (n=167), or other LABA plus tiotropium (n=25). Across treatments, clinical COPD questionnaire overall score improved from baseline by 0.81-1.26 points (all P<0.0001), 63%-84% of patients were satisfied/very satisfied, and physicians rated effectiveness as good/very good in 63%-80% of cases. The indacaterol inhaler was rated easy/very easy to use by the majority of patients, and physicians considered its use clearly understood by most patients. All treatments had acceptable tolerability.
conclusionIn real life clinical practice across a diverse region, indacaterol and other long-acting bronchodilators improved health status and were well regarded by patients and physicians.
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.