Indacaterol 75 µg once daily for the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a North American perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease in which patients become increasingly disabled by their symptoms and limited in their activities. Health-related quality of life may be profoundly impaired even in the early stages of the disease. Treatment with long-acting inhaled bronchodilators can improve lung function, symptoms and health status and reduce exacerbations of COPD. This review profiles the efficacy, safety and tolerability of indacaterol, an inhaled β(2)-agonist bronchodilator for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. After 12 weeks of treatment with a once-daily dose of 75 µg (the dose approved in the USA and Canada) in patients with moderate to severe COPD, compared with placebo, indacaterol provided significant and clinically relevant levels of bronchodilation [difference in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s: 131 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) 104-159; p < 0.001], together with significant reductions in symptom scores (difference in transition dyspnea index total score: 0.84 points; 95% CI 0.37-1.31; p < 0.001) and improvements in health status (difference in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score: -3.8 units; 95% CI -5.6 to -2.0; p < 0.001). The overall safety and tolerability of once-daily treatment with indacaterol 75 µg for 12 weeks did not differ in any substantial aspect from placebo treatment. Indirect comparisons analyzing pooled clinical data and meta-analyses suggest that treatment with indacaterol 75 µg once daily may be effective in reducing exacerbations of COPD, and that its effects on lung function and health status will be comparable with other currently available inhaled long-acting bronchodilators used for COPD. Treatment with indacaterol 75 µg once daily provides effective bronchodilation, improves dyspnea and health status, and has a well characterized profile of safety and tolerability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".