Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 827

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations by Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate or Tiotropium Bromide

Wedzicha, Jadwiga A., Calverley, Peter M. A., Seemungal, Terence A., Hagan, Gerry, Ansari, Zainab, Stockley, Robert A.·2008·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Exacerbations are key drivers of morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: We compared the relative efficacy of the long-acting inhaled bronchodilator/antiinflammatory combination (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate) 50/500 microg twice daily and the long-acting bronchodilator (tiotropium) 18 microg once daily in preventing exacerbations and related outcomes in severe and very severe COPD. METHODS: A total of 1,323 patients (mean age, 64 yr, post-bronchodilator FEV1, 39% predicted) were randomized in this 2-year, double-blind, double-dummy parallel study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary endpoint was health care utilization exacerbation rate. Other endpoints included health status measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), mortality, adverse events, and study withdrawal. Probability of withdrawing from the study was 29% greater with tiotropium than salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (P = 0.005). The modeled annual exacerbation rate was 1.28 in the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group and 1.32 in the tiotropium group (rate ratio, 0.967; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.836-1.119]; P = 0.656). The SGRQ total score was statistically significantly lower at 2 years on salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus tiotropium (difference 2.1 units; 95% CI, 0.1-4.0; P = 0.038). Mortality was significantly lower in the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group; 21 (3%) of patients in this group died compared with 38 (6%) in the tiotropium group (P = 0.032). More pneumonias were reported in the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group relative to tiotropium (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in exacerbation rate between salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and tiotropium. More patients failed to complete the study while receiving tiotropium. A small statistically significant beneficial effect was found on health status, with an unexpected finding of lower deaths in salmeterol/fluticasone propionate-treated patients. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00361959).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.200707-973oc

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 827

Metadata

Authors
Wedzicha, J. A., Calverley, P. M. A., Seemungal, T. A., Hagan, G., Ansari, Z., & Stockley, R. A.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2008-01-01
Volume
177
Issue
1
Pages
19-26
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W1987555297
Cited by
827
References
1
FWCI
57.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: The Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations by Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate or Tiotropium Bromide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200707-973oc
The paper
Wedzicha, J. A., Calverley, P. M. A., Seemungal, T. A., Hagan, G., Ansari, Z., & Stockley, R. A. (2008). The Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations by Salmeterol/Fluticasone Propionate or Tiotropium Bromide. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200707-973oc

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.