Efficacy and safety of medium and high doses of mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) combination treatment in subjects with severe persistent asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Multiple strengths of mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) MDI combination therapy are under investigation as new treatments for asthma. We report efficacy/ safety findings from a 3-month MF/F study in subjects with severe asthma. Materials and methods This was a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, parallelgroup, multicenter study with a 2-3-week open-label, run-in period of mometasone furoate (MF) 400 μg twice-daily (BID). Subjects (≥12 years) were randomized to MF/F (200/10 μg or 400/10 μg BID) or MF (400 μg BID). The primary endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) of the change in serial FEV1 (0-12 hours) for MF/F 400/10 μg vs MF 400 μg from baseline to Week 12. Adverse events (AEs) and other clinical safety measures were recorded. Results A total of 728 subjects (mean: age = 47.9 y, asthma duration = 14.0 y, FEV1 % predicted = 66.3, reversibility = 22.9%, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score = 1.93) were randomized. Improvements in mean changes from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-12 h (L ×h ) at Week 12 were MF/F 200/10 μg = 3.59, MF/F 400/10 μg = 4.19, and MF 400 μg = 2.04, with both MF/F doses significantly better than MF (p < 0.001). These FEV1s correspond to average hourly increases of 0.30, 0.35, and 0.17 L, respectively. MF/F was associated with rapid (<5 min) and sustained improvement in lung function. The percentage of subjects experiencing asthma deterioration (ie, severe asthma exacerbation) was 12.4% (MF/F 200/10 μg), 12.2% (MF/F 400/10 μg), and 18.3% (MF 400 μg). There were no notable differences in AEs between the groups. Conclusions Both medium- and high-dose MF/F combination therapy led to significantly greater improvements in lung function compared with high-dose MF monotherapy in severe asthmatics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".