The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of tiotropium once daily, formoterol twice daily and both combined once daily in patients with COPD
Open accessAbstract
This study compared the bronchodilator effects of tiotropium, formoterol and both combined in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A total of 71 COPD patients (mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1) 37% predicted) participated in a randomised, double-blind, three-way, crossover study and received tiotropium 18 μg q.d., formoterol 12 μg b.i.d.or both combined q.d.for three 6-week periods. The end-points were 24-h spirometry (FEV 1, forced vital capacity (FVC)) at the end of each treatment, rescue salbutamol and safety. Compared with baseline (FEV 1 prior to the first dose in the first period), tiotropium produced a significantly greater improvement in average daytime FEV 1(0–12 h) than formoterol (127 versus 86 mL), while average night-time FEV 1(12–24 h) was not different (tiotropium 43 mL, formoterol 38 mL). The most pronounced effects were provided by combination therapy (daytime 234 mL, night-time 86 mL); both differed significantly from single-agent therapies. Changes in FVC mirrored the FEV 1 results. Compared with both single agents, daytime salbutamol use was significantly lower during combination therapy (tiotropium plus formoterol 1.81 puffs·day−1, tiotropium 2.41 puffs·day−1, formoterol 2.37 puffs·day−1). All treatments were well tolerated. In conclusion, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, tiotropium q.d.achieved a greater improvement in daytime and comparable improvement in night-time lung function compared with formoterol b.i.d.A combination of both drugs q.d.was most effective and provided an additive effect throughout the 24-h dosing interval.
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
Cited by
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
Aaron, S. D., Vandemheen, K. L., Fergusson, D., Maltais, F., Bourbeau, J., Goldstein, R., Balter, M., O'Donnell, D., McIvor, A., Sharma, S., et al. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-8-200704170-00152 · Cited by 649
The clinical and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the USA
Ray, S., Guarascio, Finch, & Self, T. (2013) · ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research · doi:10.2147/ceor.s34321 · Cited by 425
Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 versus single bronchodilator therapy: the SHINE study
Bateman, E. D., Ferguson, G. T., Barnes, N., Gallagher, N., Green, Y., Henley, M., & Banerji, D. (2013) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.00200212 · Cited by 388
Once-Daily Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Indacaterol Versus Tiotropium
Donohue, J. F., Fogarty, C., Lötvall, J., Mahler, D. A., Worth, H., Yorgancioğlu, A., Iqbal, A., Swales, J., Owen, R., Higgins, M., et al. (2010) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.200910-1500oc · Cited by 358
Metadata
- Authors
- van Noord, J. A., Aumann, J.-L., Janssens, E., Smeets, J. J., Verhaert, J., Disse, B., Mueller, A., & Cornelissen, P. J. G.
- Venue
- European Respiratory Journal
- Publisher
- European Respiratory Society (ERS)
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 214-222
- ISSN
- 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
- 1399-3003
- OpenAlex
- W2158795682
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Comparison of tiotropium once daily, formoterol twice daily and both combined once daily in patients with COPD. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.05.00140404
- The paper
- van Noord, J. A., Aumann, J.-L., Janssens, E., Smeets, J. J., Verhaert, J., Disse, B., Mueller, A., & Cornelissen, P. J. G. (2005). Comparison of tiotropium once daily, formoterol twice daily and both combined once daily in patients with COPD. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.05.00140404
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.