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 OpenAlex
J Mark FitzGerlad, Malcolm R. Sears, Louis‐Philippe Boulet, Allan B. Becker, Andrew R. McIvor, Pierre Ernst, Natasha M Smiljanic-Georgijev, Joanna SM Lee

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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