MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Benefits of omalizumab as add‐on therapy in patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite best available therapy (GINA 2002 step 4 treatment): INNOVATE

2004· article· en· W2029587541 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Humbert, Richard Beasley, Jon G. Ayres, Raymond G. Slavin, Jean‐Louis Hébert, Jean Bousquet, K.M. Beeh, Sância Ramos, Giorgio Walter Canonica, S. Hedgecock, H. Fox, Martin Blogg, K. Surrey

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmalizumabMedicineAsthmaExacerbationPlaceboAdverse effectPopulationInternal medicinePediatricsIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialAsthma exacerbationsIntensive care medicineImmunoglobulin EImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2002 step 4 therapy are a challenging population with significant unmet medical need. We determined the effect of omalizumab on clinically significant asthma exacerbations (requiring systemic corticosteroids) in the first omalizumab study to exclusively enrol patients from this difficult-to-treat patient population. METHODS: Following a run-in phase, patients (12-75 years) inadequately controlled despite therapy with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) with reduced lung function and a recent history of clinically significant exacerbations were randomized to receive omalizumab or placebo for 28 weeks in a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study. RESULTS: A total of 419 patients were included in the efficacy analyses. The clinically significant asthma exacerbation rate (primary efficacy variable), adjusted for an observed relevant imbalance in history of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, was 0.68 with omalizumab and 0.91 with placebo (26% reduction) during the 28-week treatment phase (P = 0.042). Without adjustment, a similar magnitude of effect was seen (19% reduction), but this did not reach statistical significance. Omalizumab significantly reduced severe asthma exacerbation rate (0.24 vs 0.48, P = 0.002) and emergency visit rate (0.24 vs 0.43, P = 0.038). Omalizumab significantly improved asthma-related quality of life, morning peak expiratory flow and asthma symptom scores. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with inadequately controlled severe persistent asthma, despite high-dose ICS and LABA therapy, and often additional therapy, omalizumab significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, severe exacerbations and emergency visits. Omalizumab is effective and should be considered as add-on therapy for patients with inadequately controlled severe persistent asthma who have a significant unmet need despite best available therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,118
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207