Trial reportDrugs & aging2018
Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Trial report in Drugs & aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinium (UMEC), and UMEC + FF/VI in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses of Five Randomized Clinical Trials.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
- Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
methodsWe conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
resultsThe UMEC/VI intent-to-treat (ITT) populations comprised 2246, 1296, and 472 patients in the 12-week parallel-group, 24-week parallel-group, and 12-week crossover analysis, respectively (≥ 65 years: 36-44%; ≥ 75 years: 7-11%). The placebo ITT populations comprised 528, 280, and 505 patients, respectively (≥ 65 years: 37-41%; ≥ 75 years: 5-11%). Significant improvements in trough FEV
conclusionsIn this pooled analysis of RCT data, once-daily UMEC/VI was well tolerated and provided clinically significant lung function benefits compared with placebo in younger and older patients with COPD.
fundingGlaxoSmithKline (study 208125).
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.