MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039237831 · doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2013.06.001

Efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg in COPD

2013· article· lv· W2039237831 on OpenAlexaff
James F. Donohue, M. Reza Maleki-Yazdi, Sally Kilbride, Rashmi Mehta, Chris Kalberg, Alison Church

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-daily, inhaled, long-acting muscarinic antagonist/β2-agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) compared with UMEC and VI monotherapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01313650) eligible patients were randomised 3:3:3:2 to treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg, VI 25 mcg or placebo administered once daily via dry powder inhaler (N = 1532; intent-to-treat population). Primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24 h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic, and health-related quality-of-life endpoints were assessed, including 0-6 h weighted-mean FEV1, rescue salbutamol use, Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), Shortness Of Breath With Daily Activity (SOBDA) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, 12-lead/24-h Holter electrocardiography parameters and clinical laboratory/haematology measurements. RESULTS: All active treatments produced statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 compared with placebo on Day 169 (0.072-0.167 L, all p < 0.001); increases with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg were significantly greater than monotherapies (0.052-0.095 L, p ≤ 0.004). Improvements were observed for UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg vs placebo for weighted-mean FEV1 on Day 168 (0.242 L, p < 0.001), rescue salbutamol use during Weeks 1-24 (-0.8 puffs/day, p = 0.001), TDI (1.2 units, p < 0.001), SOBDA (-0.17 units, p < 0.001) and SGRQ (-5.51 units, p < 0.001) scores. No clinically-significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiography, or laboratory parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: Once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg was well tolerated and provided clinically-significant improvements in lung function and symptoms in patients with COPD.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations256
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory MedicineSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207