Lung function efficacy and symptomatic benefit of olodaterol once daily delivered via Respimat® versus placebo and formoterol twice daily in patients with GOLD 2–4 COPD: results from two replicate 48-week studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two replicate, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase III studies investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily olodaterol via Respimat® versus placebo and formoterol over 48 weeks in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving usual-care background therapy. Patients received once-daily olodaterol 5 or 10 μg, twice-daily formoterol 12 μg, or placebo. Co-primary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0-3 hours response, FEV1 trough response, and Mahler transition dyspnea index total score after 24 weeks; secondary end points included St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Overall, 904 (Study 1222.13) and 934 (Study 1222.14) patients received treatment. Olodaterol significantly improved FEV1 area under the curve from 0-3 hours versus placebo in both studies (with olodaterol 5 μg, 0.151 L and 0.129 L; with olodaterol 10 μg, 0.165 L and 0.154 L; for all comparisons P<0.0001) and FEV1 trough responses versus placebo (0.053-0.085 L; P<0.01), as did formoterol. Primary analysis revealed no significant difference in transition dyspnea index focal score for any active treatment versus placebo. Post hoc analysis using pattern mixture modeling (accounting for discontinuations) demonstrated statistical significance for olodaterol versus placebo. St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score was significantly improved with olodaterol, but not formoterol, versus placebo. No safety signals were identified from adverse-event or other safety data. Once-daily olodaterol 5 μg and 10 μg is efficacious in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on usual-care maintenance therapy, with a satisfactory safety profile.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".