MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W125359851 · doi:10.1155/2003/298039

Adjustable Maintenance Dosing with Budesonide/Formoterol Reduces Asthma Exacerbations Compared with Traditional Fixed Dosing: A Five‐Month Multicentre Canadian Study

2003· article· en· W125359851 on OpenAlexaffabout
J Mark FitzGerlad, Malcolm R. Sears, Louis‐Philippe Boulet, Allan B. Becker, Andrew R. McIvor, Pierre Ernst, Natasha M Smiljanic-Georgijev, Joanna SM Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsAstraZeneca (Canada)McGill UniversityUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie UniversityUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Chemistry
KeywordsMedicineDosingBudesonide/formoterolBudesonideFormoterolAsthma exacerbationsAsthmaEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (Symbicort, AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden) may provide a convenient means of maintaining asthma control with the minimum effective medication level. OBJECTIVES: To compare adjustable and fixed maintenance dosing regimens of budesonide/formoterol in asthma. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, Canadian study of asthma patients (aged 12 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 70% or greater of predicted normal). Following a one-month run-in on budesonide/formoterol (100/6 µg or 200/6 µg metered doses, two inhalations twice daily), 995 patients were randomly assigned either to continue on this fixed dosing regimen or to receive budesonide/formoterol adjustable dosing (step down to one inhalation twice daily if symptoms were controlled or temporarily step up to four inhalations twice daily for seven or 14 days if asthma worsened). The primary efficacy variable was the occurrence of exacerbations (requiring oral or inhaled corticosteroids, emergency department treatment, serious adverse events or added maintenance therapy because of asthma). RESULTS: With adjustable dosing, significantly fewer patients experienced exacerbations compared with fixed dosing (4.0% versus 8.9%, P=0.002; number needed to treat=21 [95% CI 13 to 59]). Patients required 36% fewer overall doses of budesonide/formoterol (2.5 versus 3.9 inhalations/day, P<0.001), and total costs per patient were lower (difference over five months -141 Canadian dollars [95% CI -162 Canadian dollars to -116 Canadian dollars]). Asthma symptom severity (modified National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute stage) was maintained or improved in 97% or greater of patients in both groups (pre-run-in to end of treatment). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing provided more effective asthma control than fixed dosing, with a lower overall drug dose and reduced total cost.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207