Efficacy and safety of combined medium-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) in persistent asthmatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The availability of controller therapies at multiple strengths is important to treat different severities of asthma (NHLBI and GINA guidelines). The clinical effect of medium-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) combination administered via single inhaler had never been characterized in asthmatic subjects versus placebo. We investigated the effect of medium-dose MF/F administered via an MDI on asthma deteriorations (ie, severe asthma exacerbations) and pulmonary function in moderately-severe asthmatics inadequatelycontrolled on medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ± long-acting b2-agonists (LABA). Materials and methods After 2-3-weeks open-label run-in with MF 200μ gB ID, subjects (≥12 years) were randomized to 26-weeks treatment BID with MF/F 200/10μg, MF 200μg, F 10μg, or placebo. Coprimary endpoints were time-to-first asthma deterioration over the treatment period (MF/F vs F), and the area under the curve (AUC) of the change in serial FEV1 [0-12 hr] to Week 12 (MF/F vs MF). Results 781 subjects (mean: age=42.4 y, asthma duration=16.07 y, FEV1 % predicted=72.62%, reversibility=18.80%, ACQ score=1.51) were randomized. MF/F increased the timeto-first asthma deterioration and decreased the proportion of subjects who experienced asthma deteriorations (MF/F=30.4%; MF=33.9% [p=0.565]; F=54.0% [p<0.001]; placebo=55.6% [p<0.001]) .M F/F treatment improved lung function more than MF within 5 minutes following administration (p<0.001); mean Week-12 FEV1AUC0-12h (L x h over baseline): MF/F=3.11, MF=1.30, F=1.93, and placebo=0.57 (effect was maintained throughout the treatment period). Adverse events were rare and similar across treatment groups. Conclusions MF/F 200/10μg was more effective in reducing asthma deteriorations and improving lung function in asthmatics uncontrolled on medium-dose ICS±LABA than placebo, MF or F.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".