Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus conventional best standard treatment in asthma in an attempted ‘real life’ setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort® SMART®, AstraZeneca AB, Södertälje, Sweden) with conventional best standard treatment (CBST) in patients with persistent asthma in an attempted 'real life' setting. METHODS: In total, 1835 patients from Denmark, Finland and Norway were randomized to 26 weeks treatment with budesonide/formoterol 160/4,5 µg twice daily plus budesonide/formoterol 160/4,5 µg for symptom relief or CBST according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The study was randomized, open-label and designed to reflect 'real life' asthma management. Efficacy variables were time to first severe asthma exacerbation, rate of severe asthma exacerbations, asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5) and use of inhaled glucocorticosteroids (IGCS). RESULTS: Treatment with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy led to a 21% reduction in time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared with CBST, although not statistically significant (hazard ratio 0.794, P = 0.189). A trend towards a reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations in the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy group was observed (16 vs 22 events/100 patient years; P = 0.058). The percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma increased significantly among those treated with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with CBST (45% vs 40%; odds ratio 1.39; P < 0.01), in spite of a significant 31% reduction in total mean daily IGCS dose (P < 0.0001). No difference in mean as-needed medication use was seen (P = 0.98). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy resulted in a better overall asthma control with a significant lower daily IGCS dose compared with CBST.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".