Reslizumab for Poorly Controlled, Eosinophilic Asthma: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Eosinophilic asthma is a phenotype of asthma characterized by the persistence of eosinophils in the airways. IL-5 is involved in the activation and survival of eosinophils. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the antibody to IL-5, reslizumab, in patients with eosinophilic asthma that is poorly controlled with high-dose inhaled corticosteroid. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of reslizumab at 3.0 mg/kg (n = 53) or placebo (n = 53) at baseline and at Weeks 4, 8, and 12, with stratification by baseline Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score less than or equal to 2 or greater than 2. The primary efficacy measure was the difference between the reslizumab and placebo groups in the change in ACQ score from baseline to end of therapy (Week 15 or early withdrawal). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline to end of therapy in ACQ score were -0.7 in the reslizumab group and -0.3 in the placebo group (P = 0.054) and in FEV(1) were 0.18 and -0.08 L, respectively (P = 0.002). In those patients with nasal polyps, the changes in ACQ score were -1.0 and -0.1, respectively (P = 0.012). Median percentage reductions from baseline in sputum eosinophils were 95.4 and 38.7%, respectively (P = 0.007). Eight percent of patients in the reslizumab group and 19% of patients in the placebo group had an asthma exacerbation (P = 0.083). The most common adverse events with reslizumab were nasopharyngitis, fatigue, and pharyngolaryngeal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving reslizumab showed significantly greater reductions in sputum eosinophils, improvements in airway function, and a trend toward greater asthma control than those receiving placebo. Reslizumab was generally well tolerated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".