Survival with Tiotropium Compared to Long-Acting Beta-2-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is the fourth-leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in North America and its burden continues to increase. Tiotropium has been shown to reduce exacerbations, hospitalizations, symptoms, and improve health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. Its effect on mortality and its effects relative to long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), however, remain unknown. To examine the association between tiotropium use compared to LABA use on all-cause mortality in older patients with COPD, a longitudinal, population-based cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were individuals 65 years and older discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of COPD between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2006. The hazard of receiving a prescription for tiotropium compared to a long-acting beta-agonist on all-cause mortality at 180 days post-hospital discharge, controlling for a number of potential confounders, was eliminated. Data from 7218 eligible patients were analyzed. Of these, 1046 (14.5%) died in the follow-up period. Patients who received tiotropium were 20% less likely to die than those receiving a long-acting beta-agonist (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.93). In conclusion, in older patients recently discharged from hospital for COPD, receiving tiotropium was found to be associated with reduced mortality at 6 months compared to receiving a long-acting beta-agonist. This result suggests that tiotropium might also be associated with decreased mortality compared to no treatment at all. Randomized placebo-control trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".