Triple therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/250 plus tiotropium bromide improve lung function versus individual treatments in moderate-to-severe Japanese COPD patients: a randomized controlled trial – Evaluation of Airway sGaw after treatment with tripLE

Autor: Katsuji Hashimoto, Tomoyuki Hayamizu, Gerald Hagan, Akihiro Kobayashi, Akinori Takeda, Takefumi Saito
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2015
Předmět:
Male
Time Factors
Vital Capacity
Severity of Illness Index
Gastroenterology
Cholinergic Antagonists
law.invention
Pulmonary Disease
Chronic Obstructive
Japan
Randomized controlled trial
law
Forced Expiratory Volume
Lung
Original Research
COPD
Cross-Over Studies
medicine.diagnostic_test
General Medicine
Tiotropium bromide
Middle Aged
Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination
Bronchodilator Agents
Plethysmography
Treatment Outcome
triple therapy
Area Under Curve
Corticosteroid
Female
Salmeterol
Corrigendum
medicine.drug
Spirometry
medicine.medical_specialty
medicine.drug_class
salmeterol
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Drug Administration Schedule
Fluticasone propionate
Double-Blind Method
Predictive Value of Tests
Internal medicine
Administration
Inhalation
medicine
Humans
Tiotropium Bromide
Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists
Aged
fluticasone propionate
business.industry
Nebulizers and Vaporizers
technology
industry
and agriculture
Recovery of Function
medicine.disease
Crossover study
respiratory tract diseases
ROC Curve
Physical therapy
business
Zdroj: International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
ISSN: 1178-2005
Popis: Saito T, Takeda A, Hashimoto K, et al. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:2393–2404.On page 2395, right column, line 3, “Philadelphia, PA, USA” should have read “Hoechberg, Germany”.On page 2396, Figure 2 was incorrect. The corrected figure is shown.On page 2396, right column, line 1, “although FEV1 and FVC were not log transformed prior to analysis” should have read “although sRaw and sGaw were log transformed prior to analysis”.On page 2397, right column, Lung volumes section, line 5, “Statistical significance was observed for postdose RV immediately after dosing (time =0) on day 28 for SFC250 + TIO compared to TIO and SFC250 (Tables S3, S4). Improvements on day 28 were also seen in postdose TGV, IC, and TLC following treatment with SFC250 + TIO compared to each component, but none were significant (Table S4). Improvements were seen for all parameters for their adjusted mean values on day 1, but none were significant (Table S3).” Should have read “Statistical significance was observed for trough RV (time =0) on day 28 for SFC250 + TIO compared to TIO and SFC250 (Table S3). Improvements on day 28 were also seen in postdose TGV, IC, and TLC following treatment with SFC250 + TIO compared to each component, but statistical treatment differences were not observed, except for after dosing (240 min) IC at day 28 (Table S3). Improvements were seen for all parameters for their adjusted mean values on day 1, but statistical treatment differences were not observed, except for SFC250 after dosing (240 min) TGV at day 1 (Table S3).”On page 2398, Figure 3 was incorrect. The corrected figure is shown.On page 2398, Table 3, TGV (L) row, SFC250 + TIO vs TIO (n=50): 97.5% CI column, “-0.029” should have read “0.029”.On page 2398, Table 3, TGV (L) row, SFC250 + TIO vs SFC250 (n=50): 97.5% CI column, “-0.028” should have read “0.028”.On page 2398, Table 3, Note section, “Difference” should have read “Adjusted mean difference”.On page 2402, Table S2, figure caption, “Postdose raw mean (standard deviation log) values of sGaw and sRaw (mITT population)” should have read “Postdose raw geometric mean (standard deviation log) values of sGaw and sRaw (mITT population)”.On page 2402, Table S2, Time (minutes) column, sGaw, third line down, “SFC250 + TIO” should have read “SFC250”.On page 2402, Table S2, Time (minutes) column, sRaw, third line down, “SFC250 + TIO” should have read “SFC250”.Read the original article
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: