Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

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

FULFIL Trial: Once-Daily Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Open access
Lipson, David A., Barnacle, Helen, Birk, Ruby, Brealey, Noushin, Locantore, Nicholas, Lomas, David A., Ludwig-Sengpiel, Andrea, Mohindra, Rajat, Tabberer, Maggie, Zhu, Chang-Qing, Pascoe, Steven J.·2017·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Abstract Rationale Randomized data comparing triple therapy with dual inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. Objectives We compared the effects of once-daily triple therapy on lung function and health-related quality of life with twice-daily ICS/LABA therapy in patients with COPD. Methods The FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) trial was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study comparing 24 weeks of once-daily triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol 100 μg/62.5 μg/25 μg; ELLIPTA inhaler) with twice-daily ICS/LABA therapy (budesonide/formoterol 400 μg/12 μg; Turbuhaler). A patient subgroup remained on blinded treatment for up to 52 weeks. Co–primary endpoints were change from baseline in trough FEV1 and in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at Week 24. Measurements and Main Results In the intent-to-treat population (n = 1,810) at Week 24 for triple therapy (n = 911) and ICS/LABA therapy (n = 899), mean changes from baseline in FEV1 were 142 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 126 to 158) and −29 ml (95% CI, −46 to −13), respectively, and mean changes from baseline in SGRQ scores were −6.6 units (95% CI, −7.4 to −5.7) and −4.3 units (95% CI, −5.2 to −3.4), respectively. For both endpoints, the between-group differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant reduction in moderate/severe exacerbation rate with triple therapy versus dual ICS/LABA therapy (35% reduction; 95% CI, 14–51; P = 0.002). The safety profile of triple therapy reflected the known profiles of the components. Conclusions These results support the benefits of single-inhaler triple therapy compared with ICS/LABA therapy in patients with advanced COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02345161).

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.201703-0449oc

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 327

Metadata

Authors
Lipson, D. A., Barnacle, H., Birk, R., Brealey, N., Locantore, N., Lomas, D. A., Ludwig-Sengpiel, A., Mohindra, R., Tabberer, M., Zhu, C.-Q., & Pascoe, S. J.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2017-08-15
Volume
196
Issue
4
Pages
438-446
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2604577460
Cited by
327
References
1
FWCI
34.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: FULFIL Trial: Once-Daily Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.201703-0449oc
The paper
Lipson, D. A., Barnacle, H., Birk, R., Brealey, N., Locantore, N., Lomas, D. A., Ludwig-Sengpiel, A., Mohindra, R., Tabberer, M., Zhu, C.-Q., & Pascoe, S. J. (2017). FULFIL Trial: Once-Daily Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201703-0449oc

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.