MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986839396 · doi:10.1159/000083687

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Single-Dose, Efficacy Crossover Trial Comparing Formoterol-HFA (pMDI) versus Formoterol-DPI (Aerolizer<sup>TM</sup>) and Placebo (pMDI or Aerolizer<sup>TM</sup>) in Asthmatic Patients

2005· article· en· W1986839396 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Bousquet, Gérard Huchon, V. Leclerc, Éric Vicaut, G. Lefrançois

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiration · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormoterolMedicineInhalerCrossover studyFormoterol FumaratePlaceboAnesthesiaBronchodilatorAsthmaInhalationInternal medicineBudesonide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have traditionally been used as propellants in pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), which are often used to deliver drugs to the lungs for the treatment of reversible obstructive airways diseases. However, CFCs are harmful to the environment and need to be phased out. Hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs), such as HFA-134a, represent a safe alternative to CFC propellants for use with pMDIs. Formoterol fumarate has been recently formulated in an HFA-134a-containing pMDI and is undergoing clinical testing with the aim of providing an effective, safe and environmentally-friendly alternative to currently existing formulations. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority (clinical equivalence) of the HFA-134a-propelled formoterol pMDI versus the formoterol Aerolizer dry powder inhaler (DPI). METHODS: The study was a single dose, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo and reference product controlled, three-periods, crossover trial in 49 patients with moderate-to-severe stable asthma. The active treatments involved a single 12-microg dose of formoterol delivered from an HFA-134a-propelled pMDI and an Aerolizer DPI. The primary efficacy parameter was the average 12-hour forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), calculated as area under the 12-hour post-morning dose FEV1 time curve divided by time (hours). RESULTS: Mean 12-hour average FEV1 was 2.28 liters for placebo, 2.60 liters for formoterol pMDI and 2.60 liters for the formoterol DPI. Contrast analysis showed that the HFA-propelled formoterol pMDI was significantly superior to placebo in terms of 12-hour average FEV1. Further statistical analysis confirmed bronchodilation with the pMDI formoterol formulation which was clinically equivalent to that seen with the DPI formoterol formulation. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The bronchodilatory effect of a 12-microg dose of formoterol inhaled from a CFC-free, HFA-propelled pMDI is significantly superior to placebo and equivalent to a commercially available formoterol DPI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespirationSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207