The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-2 agonist efficacy in COPD
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: We performed a review of studies of fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) (combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)) in patients with COPD, which measured baseline (pretreatment) blood eosinophil levels, to test whether blood eosinophil levels ≥2% were associated with a greater reduction in exacerbation rates with ICS therapy. METHODS: Three studies of ≥1-year duration met the inclusion criteria. Moderate and severe exacerbation rates were analysed according to baseline blood eosinophil levels (<2% vs ≥2%). At baseline, 57-75% of patients had ≥2% blood eosinophils. Changes in FEV1 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores were compared by eosinophil level. RESULTS: For patients with ≥2% eosinophils, FP/SAL was associated with significant reductions in exacerbation rates versus tiotropium (INSPIRE: n=719, rate ratio (RR)=0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92, p=0.006) and versus placebo (TRISTAN: n=1049, RR=0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.79, p<0.001). No significant difference was seen in the <2% eosinophil subgroup in either study (INSPIRE: n=550, RR=1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.51, p=0.186; TRISTAN: n=354, RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.47, p=0.957, respectively). In SCO30002 (n=373), no significant effects were observed (FP or FP/SAL vs placebo). No relationship was observed in any study between eosinophil subgroup and treatment effect on FEV1 and SGRQ. DISCUSSION: Baseline blood eosinophil levels may represent an informative marker for exacerbation reduction with ICS/LABA in patients with COPD and a history of moderate/severe exacerbations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vestbo, J., Hurd, S. S., Agustí, A. G., Jones, P. W., Vogelmeier, C., Anzueto, A., Barnes, P. J., Fabbri, L. M., Martinez, F. J., Nishimura, M., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201204-0596pp · Cited by 15,983
Self-citation
Cited by
What is asthma−COPD overlap syndrome? Towards a consensus definition from a round table discussion
Sin, D. D., Miravitlles, M., Mannino, D. M., Soriano, J. B., Price, D., Celli, B. R., Leung, J. M., Nakano, Y., Park, H. Y., Wark, P. A., et al. (2016) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/13993003.00436-2016 · Cited by 367
MacLeod, M., Papi, A., Contoli, M., Beghé, B., Celli, B. R., Wedzicha, J. A., & Fabbri, L. M. (2021) · Respirology · doi:10.1111/resp.14041 · Cited by 359
Self-citationNici, L., Mammen, M. J., Charbek, E., Alexander, P. E., Au, D. H., Boyd, C. M., Criner, G. J., Donaldson, G. C., Dreher, M., Fan, V. S., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.202003-0625st · Cited by 316
Self-citationInflammatory endotypes in COPD
Barnes, P. J. (2019) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/all.13760 · Cited by 313
Adcock, I. M., & Mumby, S. (2016) · Handbook of experimental pharmacology · doi:10.1007/164_2016_98 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Pavord, I. D., Lettis, S., Locantore, N., Pascoe, S., Jones, P. W., Wedzicha, J. A., & Barnes, N. C.
- Venue
- Thorax
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-11-19
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 118-125
- ISSN
- 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3296
- OpenAlex
- W2172490363
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 36.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-2 agonist efficacy in COPD. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207021
- The paper
- Pavord, I. D., Lettis, S., Locantore, N., Pascoe, S., Jones, P. W., Wedzicha, J. A., & Barnes, N. C. (2016). Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-2 agonist efficacy in COPD. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207021
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.