Once-daily QVA149 demonstrates superior improvements in patient-reported dyspnea compared to tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The BLAZE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Dyspnea, the most distressing symptom experienced by COPD patients, is not always adequately relieved by bronchodilator monotherapy. The BLAZE study evaluated the superiority of QVA149, a dual bronchodilator combining the long-acting β 2 -agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium, versus placebo (PB) and tiotropium (TIO) for improvement in direct patient-reported dyspnea as assessed by the innovative self-administered computerized baseline and transition dyspnea index (SAC-BDI/TDI). Method In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled, 3-period, crossover study, patients ≥40yrs were randomized to once-daily QVA149 110/50µg, TIO 18µg, or PB. Improvements were assessed by the total TDI score after 6wks. Results 247 patients (mean age 62.8yrs; FEV 1 post-bronchodilator 56.1% predicted) were randomized; 77.3% completed the study. Patient-reported SAC-TDI total score was significantly improved with QVA149 compared to PB (p<0.001) and TIO (p=0.021). Least squares mean treatment differences between QVA-PB, QVA149-TIO and TIO-PB were 1.37, 0.49 and 0.88, respectively. The percentage of patients achieving ≥1 point improvement in SAC-TDI score was significantly higher with QVA149 (QVA149 34.7%, TIO 24.9%, PB 18.1%) compared to PB (odds ratio [OR] 2.65; p<0.001) and TIO (OR 1.66; p=0.037). The percentage of patients showing any adverse event with QVA149 (35.0%) was similar to TIO (35.5%) and slightly lower than PB (39.4%). Conclusion Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 provided statistically superior improvements in patient reported breathlessness compared to tiotropium and placebo.
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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".