Design of the INPULSIS™ trials: Two phase 3 trials of nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is in clinical development as a treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Data from the Phase II TOMORROW study suggested that nintedanib 150 mg twice daily had clinical benefits with an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: The INPULSIS™ trials are replicate Phase III, randomized, double-blind, studies comparing the efficacy and safety of nintedanib 150 mg twice daily with placebo in patients with IPF. Eligible patients were aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of IPF within 5 years before randomization who had undergone a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan within 1-year before screening, and who had a forced vital capacity (FVC) of ≥50% predicted and a diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide of 30-79% predicted. Participants were randomized 3:2 to receive nintedanib or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint is the annual rate of decline in FVC. The key secondary endpoints are change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (a measure of health-related quality of life) over 52 weeks and time to first acute exacerbation. RESULTS: Enrolment of 1066 patients in 24 countries was completed in September 2012. Results will be reported in the first half of 2014. CONCLUSION: The INPULSIS™ trials will determine the efficacy of nintedanib in patients with IPF, including its impact on disease progression as defined by decline in FVC, acute exacerbations and health-related quality of life. In addition, they will characterise the adverse event profile of nintedanib in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifiers: NCT01335464 and NCT01335477).
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".