Tiotropium in combination with placebo, salmeterol, or fluticasone-salmeterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with combinations of inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta-agonists, and long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators is common but unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether combining tiotropium with salmeterol or fluticasone-salmeterol improves clinical outcomes in adults with moderate to severe COPD compared with tiotropium alone. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from October 2003 to January 2006. SETTING: 27 academic and community medical centers in Canada. PATIENTS: 449 patients with moderate or severe COPD. INTERVENTION: 1 year of treatment with tiotropium plus placebo, tiotropium plus salmeterol, or tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was the proportion of patients who experienced an exacerbation of COPD that required treatment with systemic steroids or antibiotics. RESULTS: The proportion of patients in the tiotropium plus placebo group who experienced an exacerbation (62.8%) did not differ from that in the tiotropium plus salmeterol group (64.8%; difference, -2.0 percentage points [95% CI, -12.8 to 8.8 percentage points]) or in the tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol group (60.0%; difference, 2.8 percentage points [CI, -8.2 to 13.8 percentage points]). In sensitivity analyses, the point estimates and 95% confidence bounds shifted in the direction favoring tiotropium plus salmeterol and tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol. Tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol improved lung function (P = 0.049) and disease-specific quality of life (P = 0.01) and reduced the number of hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation (incidence rate ratio, 0.53 [CI, 0.33 to 0.86]) and all-cause hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio, 0.67 [CI, 0.45 to 0.99]) compared with tiotropium plus placebo. In contrast, tiotropium plus salmeterol did not statistically improve lung function or hospitalization rates compared with tiotropium plus placebo. LIMITATIONS: More than 40% of patients who received tiotropium plus placebo and tiotropium plus salmeterol discontinued therapy prematurely, and many crossed over to treatment with open-label inhaled steroids or long-acting beta-agonists. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of fluticasone-salmeterol to tiotropium therapy did not statistically influence rates of COPD exacerbation but did improve lung function, quality of life, and hospitalization rates in patients with moderate to severe COPD. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN29870041.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".