Comparison of Inhaled Long-Acting β-Agonist and Anticholinergic Effectiveness in Older Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a largely preventable and manageable respiratory condition, affects an estimated 12% to 20% of adults. Long-acting inhaled β-agonists and anticholinergics have both been shown to improve COPD outcomes and are recommended for moderate to severe disease; however, little is known about their comparative effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare survival in older patients with COPD who initially receive inhaled long-acting β-agonists with that of patients who receive anticholinergics. DESIGN: Population-based, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Patients aged 66 years or older (who carry the largest burden of COPD and for whom data were available) who met a validated case definition of COPD on the basis of health administrative data and were newly prescribed an inhaled long-acting β-agonist or a long-acting anticholinergic (but not both) between 2003 and 2007. Patients were followed for up to 5.5 years. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 46 403 patients with COPD (mean age, 77 years; 49% women) were included. Overall mortality was 38.2%. Mortality was higher in patients initially prescribed a long-acting anticholinergic than in those initially prescribed a long-acting inhaled β-agonist (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.19]). Rates of hospitalizations and emergency department visits were also higher in those initially prescribed a long-acting anticholinergic. LIMITATION: Patients were classified as having COPD on the basis of health administrative records, which did not contain information about lung function. CONCLUSION: Older adults initially prescribed long-acting inhaled β-agonists for the management of moderate COPD seem to have lower mortality than those initially prescribed long-acting anticholinergics. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in younger patients and in a randomized, controlled trial. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Government of Ontario, Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".