Effectiveness of early budesonide intervention in Caucasian versus Asian patients with asthma: 3‐year results of the START study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroid therapy exclusively in Asian patients with asthma. The present analysis compared the efficacy of early intervention with inhaled budesonide in Caucasian and Asian patients over the first 3 years of the inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy in early asthma study. METHODS: Patients aged 5-66 years with mild persistent asthma of <or=2 years' duration were randomized to 3 years of double-blind treatment with once-daily budesonide 200 microg (for patients aged<11 years) or 400 microg administered via Turbuhaler or placebo, plus usual asthma therapy. RESULTS: Budesonide significantly improved asthma outcomes in both Caucasian (n=4661) and Asian (n=1995) patients compared with reference therapy (placebo plus usual asthma therapy). Budesonide reduced the risk of a first severe asthma-related event by 42% and 49% in Caucasian and Asian patients, respectively, over the 3-year treatment period (P<0.001 for both). Moreover, budesonide significantly increased symptom-free days, decreased nights with sleeping problems, improved pre- and postbronchodilator FEV1 and reduced the need for additional asthma medications of particular drug classes compared with reference therapy. Except for differences in the patterns of use of additional asthma medications, outcomes with budesonide and overall adverse events were similar in the Caucasian and Asian patient populations. CONCLUSION: Inhaled budesonide administered once daily in Asian patients with recent-onset, mild persistent asthma significantly improved asthma control and pulmonary function compared with reference therapy. Moreover, this effectiveness paralleled that observed in Caucasian patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".