Dual bronchodilator therapy with aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhaled bronchodilator therapy is a mainstay of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite the number and types of treatments available, the control of symptoms and exacerbations remains suboptimal, and adherence to, and persistence with, inhaled therapy is generally poor. Results from clinical studies suggest that dual bronchodilator therapy with long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2 adrenergic receptor agonists (LABAs) may provide additional benefit over LAMA or LABA monotherapy without additive effects on safety and tolerability. Several combinations of a LAMA plus a LABA have recently become available in a single inhaler for maintenance therapy for adults with moderate-to-severe COPD, including aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate, glycopyrronium/indacaterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol. Here, we review clinical data demonstrating significant improvements in bronchodilation, 24-h symptoms, and health status with aclidinium/formoterol twice daily, and discuss how this treatment can be implemented in clinical practice as part of a patient-focused approach to disease control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".