Short versus conventional term glucocorticoid therapy in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines advocate a 10 to 14-day course of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in the management of COPD exacerbations. The optimal duration of therapy is unknown and glucocorticoids have serious adverse effects. The aim of this trial is to demonstrate non-inferiority of a five-day compared to a 14-day course of systemic glucocorticoids with respect to COPD outcome, thereby significantly reducing steroid exposure and side effects in patients with COPD exacerbations. METHODS: This is a randomised, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority multicentre trial. Patients with acute COPD exacerbation are randomised to receive 40 mg of prednisone-equivalent daily for 14 days (conventional arm) or glucocorticoid treatment for 5 days, followed by placebo for another 9 days (intervention arm). Follow-up is 180 days. The primary endpoint is time to next exacerbation. Secondary endpoints include cumulative glucocorticoid dose, time to open-label glucocorticoid therapy, glucocorticoid-associated side effects and complications, duration of hospital stay, death, change in FEV1, need for assisted ventilation, clinical outcome assessed by standardised questionnaires, and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. RESULTS: Mean age (± SD) of patients who finished the study was 70 ± 11 years. 12% had mild or moderate disease, whereas severe and very severe stages were found in 30 and 58%, respectively. At the time of inclusion, 20% of patients were under treatment with systemic glucocorticoids. CONCLUSIONS: If the strategy of significantly reducing cumulative exposure to glucocorticoids while taking advantage of their beneficial short-term effects proves to be successful, it will warrant a change in common glucocorticoid prescription practice, thereby improving the management of 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".