Can the anti‐inflammatory potential of PDE4 inhibitors be realized: guarded optimism or wishful thinking?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PDE4 inhibitors have been in development as a novel anti-inflammatory therapy since the 1980s with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) being primary indications. Despite initial optimism, none have yet reached the market. In most cases, the development of PDE4 inhibitors of various structural classes, including cilomilast, filaminast, lirimilast, piclamilast, tofimilast, AWD-12-281 (aka GSK 842470), CDP840, CI-1018, D-4418, IC485, L-826,141, SCH 351391 and V11294A has been discontinued due to lack of efficacy. A primary problem is the low therapeutic ratio of these compounds, which severely limits the dose that can be given. Indeed, for many of these compounds it is likely that the maximum tolerated dose is either sub-therapeutic or at the very bottom of the efficacy dose-response curve. Therefore, the challenge is to overcome this limitation. It is, therefore, encouraging that many 'new(er)' PDE4 inhibitors in development are reported to have an improved therapeutic window including tetomilast, oglemilast, apremilast, ONO 6126, IPL-512602 and IPL-455903 (aka HT-0712), although the basis for their superior tolerability has not been disclosed. In addition, other approaches are possible that may allow the anti-inflammatory activity of PDE inhibitors to be realized. Accordingly, this Commentary endorses the view of Spina (2008), published in the current issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology, that the therapeutic utility of PDE4 inhibitors to suppress inflammation still remains a viable concept.
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.
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 it