Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol Compared With Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Combination in Adult and Adolescent Patients With Persistent Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combination of fluticasone furoate (FF), a novel inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and vilanterol (VI), a long-acting β2 agonist, is under development as a once-daily treatment of asthma and COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of FF/VI with fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) in patients with persistent asthma uncontrolled on a medium dose of ICS. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study, 806 patients received FF/VI (100/25 μg, n = 403) once daily in the evening delivered through ELLIPTA (GlaxoSmithKline) dry powder inhaler, or FP/SAL (250/50 μg, n = 403) bid through DISKUS/ACCUHALER (GlaxoSmithKline). The primary efficacy measure was 0- to 24-h serial weighted mean (wm) FEV1 after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Improvements from baseline in 0- to 24-h wmFEV1 were observed with both FF/VI (341 mL) and FP/SAL (377 mL); the adjusted mean treatment difference was not statistically significant (-37 mL; 95% CI, -88 to 15, P = 0.162). There were no differences between 0- to 4-h serial wmFEV1, trough FEV1, and asthma control and quality-of-life questionnaire scores. There was no difference in reported exacerbations between treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no clinically relevant effect on urinary cortisol excretion or vital signs and no treatment-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of once-daily FF/VI was similar to bid FP/SAL in improving lung function in patients with persistent asthma. No safety issues were identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".