Effect of theophylline on exercise capacity in COPD patients treated with combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease continue to experience significant functional limitation despite the use of both long-acting anticholinergic and beta-agonist inhalers. Theophylline is a widely available medication which may further improve lung function and exercise performance. Previous studies evaluating the effects of theophylline on exercise capacity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have demonstrated heterogeneous results. METHODS: We performed a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind pilot study assessing the effects of theophylline on constant load exercise duration and lung function, involving 24 COPD patients already treated with long-acting inhaled beta-agonist and long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator therapy. RESULTS: Analyzable data was available in 10 of 12 subjects in the treatment arm and 11 of 12 subjects in the control arm. Theophylline was associated with a 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -17.3-69.5) improvement in exercise duration compared to placebo. Four of 10 treated patients demonstrated an improvement in exercise duration exceeding the minimum clinically important difference of 33%, compared to 1 of 11 controls (P = 0.15). Furthermore, peak ventilation was reduced by 11.1%, (95% CI: 0.77-21.5) which may suggest improvements in gas exchange. There were no significant observed differences in resting lung function nor measures of dyspnea between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a trend, but not a statistically significant improvement in exercise duration and a reduction in peak ventilation with theophylline. Based on the observed mean differences and standard deviations in this pilot study, a randomized controlled trial would require 45 subjects in each arm to detect a significant change in exercise duration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".