Safety and efficacy of an oral <scp>CCR</scp>3 antagonist in patients with asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis: a randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several chemokines, notably eotaxin, mediate the recruitment of eosinophils into tissues via the CCR3 receptor. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the role of CCR3 agonists in asthma by observing the effect of a small molecule antagonist of the CCR3 receptor (GW766994) on sputum eosinophil counts in patients with eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: Clinical and physiological outcomes, the chemotactic activity of sputum supernatant for eosinophils and the presence of eosinophil progenitors in sputum and blood samples were also studied. RESULTS: In a double-blind parallel group study, 60 patients with asthma were randomized to 300 mg of GW766994 twice daily or matching placebo for 10 days followed by prednisone 30 mg for 5 days. Of these patients, 53 had a sputum eosinophil count > 4.9% at baseline. Despite plasma concentrations of drug consistent with > 90% receptor occupancy during the dosing period, the CCR3 antagonist did not significantly reduce eosinophils or eosinophil progenitor cells (CD34(+) 45(+) IL-5Rα(+)) in sputum or in blood. The ex vivo chemotactic effect of sputum supernatants on eosinophils was attenuated by GW766944 compared to placebo. There was no improvement in FEV1 ; however, there was a modest but statistically significant improvement in PC20 methacholine (0.66 doubling dose) and ACQ scores, (0.43). Whilst the improvement in PC20 is statistically significant, it is not of clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In conclusion, this study calls into question the role of CCR3 in airway eosinophilia in asthma and suggests that other cellular mechanisms mediated by the CCR3 receptor may contribute to airway hyperresponsiveness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".