Effects of Esomeprazole 40 mg Twice Daily on Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in patients with asthma, suggesting an interaction between the two conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of gastric acid suppression with the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole on asthma outcomes in subjects with persistent moderate to severe asthma treated with antiinflammatory asthma medication. METHODS: In this double-blind study, subjects were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo twice daily for 16 wk. According to nocturnal respiratory symptoms (NOC) and GERD, subjects were divided into three strata: GERD-/NOC+, GERD+/NOC-, and GERD+/NOC+. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 770 subjects were randomized. There was no statistically significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over placebo in the overall study population: 6.3 L/min (p = 0.061). Over the whole treatment period, in GERD+/NOC+ subjects (n = 350), esomeprazole provided an 8.7-L/min improvement (p = 0.03) in morning PEF, and a 10.2-L/min improvement (p = 0.012) in evening PEF over placebo. Among 307 subjects taking long-acting beta2-agonists, improvements over placebo were observed in morning PEF (12.2 L/min, p = 0.017) and in evening PEF (11.1 L/min, p = 0.024); these improvements were more pronounced in GERD+/NOC+ subjects. Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily was well tolerated and no safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole improved PEF in subjects with asthma who presented with both GERD and NOC. In subjects without both GERD and NOC, no improvement could be detected.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".