MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967849820 · doi:10.1159/000080631

Low Incidence of Paradoxical Bronchoconstriction with Bronchodilator Drugs Administered by Respimat<sup>®</sup> Soft Mist™ Inhaler: Results of Phase II Single-Dose Crossover Studies

2004· review· en· W1967849820 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiration · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchoconstrictionBronchodilatorBronchospasmCOPDInhalerAnesthesiaAsthmaCrossover studyPlaceboPharmacologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI) is an innovative device that offers improved lung deposition and is an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional, chlorofluorocarbon-containing metered-dose inhalers (CFC-MDIs). The aqueous formulations of bronchodilator drugs administered from Respimat SMI contain low concentrations of ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA), a stabilising agent, and benzalkonium chloride (BAC), an antibacterial agent, both of which have been associated with bronchoconstriction when administered via nebulisers. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to compare the incidence of paradoxical bronchoconstriction with bronchodilator drugs administered via Respimat SMI or a CFC-MDI in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Nine randomised, active- and/or placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover studies, in which asthmatic and COPD patients (n = 444 and n = 216, respectively) received a beta(2)-agonist and/or anticholinergic or placebo via Respimat SMI or CFC-MDI, were included in the analysis. The incidence of conditions indicative of paradoxical bronchoconstriction were collated and divided into four categories: (1) 'bronchospasm'; (2) two or more of the following events: 'other respiratory adverse events', 'rescue medication use' or 'asymptomatic drop in forced expiratory volume in one second' (FEV(1)); (3) either 'rescue medication use' or 'other respiratory adverse event'; (4) 'asymptomatic drop in FEV(1)'. RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events indicative of paradoxical bronchoconstriction was low in those patients using the Respimat SMI device, and similar to that seen in the CFC-MDI group. In addition, the incidence of adverse events indicative of paradoxical bronchoconstriction observed in the Respimat SMI group was similar for BAC + EDTA and BAC-only drug formulations. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that, due to the extremely low absolute amounts of BAC and EDTA delivered to the lungs by the device, Respimat SMI is safe with regard to paradoxical bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma or COPD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it