Patients with severe COPD show significant improvements in dyspnea and lung function with once-daily QVA149: The BLAZE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Patients with severe COPD experience marked deterioration in lung function and breathlessness compared to patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. We report improvement of dyspnea and lung function in patients with severe COPD in the BLAZE study with QVA149, a dual bronchodilator combining the long-acting β 2 -agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium, versus placebo (PB) and tiotropium (TIO). Method In this 6-wk, multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled, 3-period, crossover study, patients ≥40yrs with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to QVA149 110/50µg or TIO 18µg or PB. Improvements in patient-reported dyspnea via the innovative self-administered computerized (SAC) Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Index (BDI/TDI) and FEV 1 AUC 0-4h were assessed. Results 78 (31.6%) of the 247 patients randomized had severe COPD. The percentage of patients with severe COPD achieving ≥1 point improvement in SAC-TDI total score was higher with QVA149 (41.7%) compared with TIO (30.0%; odds ratio 1.66; p=0.185) and PB (21.7%; odds ratio 2.98; p=0.007). QVA149 provided rapid bronchodilation, with statistically significant (p<0.001) improvements in FEV 1 AUC 0–4h versus PB and TIO. Least squares mean treatment difference between QVA149-PB and QVA149-TIO were 1.92 (p<0.001) and 0.76 (p=0.042) for SAC-TDI and 254mL and 92mL (both p<0.001) for FEV 1 AUC 0-4h , respectively. Conclusion In patients with severe COPD, once-daily QVA149 provided clinically meaningful and statistically superior improvements in lung function which translated into better control of breathlessness compared to placebo and tiotropium.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".