AIRLEAF <sup>®</sup> –a study of verducatib as a new kind of treatment for bronchiectasis: a plain language summary
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Plain Language SummaryWhat is this summary about?This plain language summary describes the key findings from a recent study of adults with a lung disease called bronchiectasis.What is bronchiectasis?Bronchiectasis is the third most common lung disease worldwide, and the number of people with the disease is growing. People with bronchiectasis have significantly reduced quality of life, and disease flare-ups in bronchiectasis (also known as exacerbations) are linked to an increased chance of the disease getting worse.What happened in the AIRLEAF® study?The AIRLEAF® study looked at a potential new bronchiectasis treatment called BI 1291583, which is now known as ‘verducatib’. In AIRLEAF®, 322 adults with bronchiectasis took part in the study. In order to be eligible to participate in the study, the adults who participated in AIRLEAF® had to have experienced at least two exacerbations that needed treatment with antibiotics in the year before they were enrolled in the study, or one exacerbation that needed treatment with antibiotics in the year before they were enrolled in the study as well as a high symptom burden. People were given either verducatib in one of three amounts (a low, medium, or high dose) or a placebo, taken as a pill (swallowed by mouth). A placebo looks like the study treatment but does not contain active ingredients. The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of verducatib when given to adults with bronchiectasis. The investigators also aimed to find out which dose of the study treatment would be most effective for people with bronchiectasis.What were the results?Researchers found that treatment with verducatib reduced the risk of people experiencing disease flare-ups, also known as exacerbations. People who took verducatib also had improved lung function, better quality of life, and spent less time on antibiotic treatment throughout the study period. The medium dose of verducatib was the most effective dose. Overall, the adverse events were similar between people who received verducatib and placebo.What do the results mean?The favorable results from the AIRLEAF® study mean that verducatib can be further investigated. A larger study called AIRTIVITY™, which is investigating the effectiveness and safety of verducatib in people with bronchiectasis, began in 2025.How to say (download PDF and double click sound icon to play sound)…Aeruginosa: ay-ruh-jih-noh-suhBronchiectasis: bronk-ee-ek-tuh-sisCathepsin: kuh-thep-sinDipeptidyl peptidase: di-pep-tih-dul pep-tid-azeProtease: pro-tee-azeThis is an abstract of the Plain Language Summary of Publication article.View the full Plain Language Summary PDF of this article to read the full-textLink to original article hereTrial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05238675.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,035 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».