Comparison of Nebulized Budesonide and Oral Prednisolone with Placebo in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nebulized budesonide has been used successfully to treat acute asthma exacerbation, and we hypothesized that it could also be effective for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the efficacy of nebulized budesonide (Pulmicort Respules/Nebuamp), oral prednisolone, and placebo was compared in 199 patients with acute exacerbations of COPD requiring hospitalization. Patients received from randomization (H(0)) to 72 h (H(72)), 2 mg of budesonide every 6 h (n = 71), 30 mg of oral prednisolone every 12 h (n = 62), or placebo (n = 66). All received standard treatment, including nebulized beta(2)-agonists, ipratropium bromide, oral antibiotics, and supplemental oxygen. The mean change (95% confidence interval) in postbronchodilator FEV(1) from H(0) to H(72) was greater with active treatments than with placebo: budesonide versus placebo, 0.10 L (0.02 to 0.18 L); prednisolone versus placebo, 0.16 L (0.08 to 0.24 L). The difference in FEV(1) between budesonide and prednisolone was not significant, -0.06 L (-0.14 to 0.02 L). The occurrence of serious adverse events was similar for all groups. Budesonide had less systemic activity than prednisolone as indicated by a higher incidence of hyperglycemia observed with prednisolone. Both budesonide and prednisolone improved airflow in COPD patients with acute exacerbations when compared with placebo. Nebulized budesonide may be an alternative to oral prednisolone in the treatment of nonacidotic exacerbations of COPD but further studies should be done to evaluate its long-term impact on clinical outcomes after an initial episode of COPD exacerbation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".