A Holy Grail of asthma management: toward understanding how long‐acting β<sub>2</sub>‐adrenoceptor agonists enhance the clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is unequivocal evidence that the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) -- i.e. glucocorticoid -- and an inhaled long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) is superior to each component administered as a monotherapy alone in the clinical management of asthma. Moreover, Calverley and colleagues (Lancet 2003, 361: 449-456; N Engl J Med 2007, 356: 775-789) reporting for the 'TRial of Inhaled STeroids ANd long-acting beta(2)-agonists (TRISTAN)' and 'TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH)' international study groups also demonstrated the superior efficacy of LABA/ICS combination therapies over ICS alone in the clinical management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This finding has been independently confirmed indicating that the therapeutic benefit of LABA/ICS combination therapies is not restricted to asthma and may be extended to other chronic inflammatory diseases of the airways. Despite the unquestionable benefit of LABA/ICS combination therapies, there is a vast gap in our understanding of how these two drugs given together deliver superior clinical efficacy. In this article, we review the history of LABA/ICS combination therapies and critically evaluate how these two classes of drugs might interact at the biochemical level to suppress pro-inflammatory responses. Understanding the molecular basis of this fundamental clinical observation is a Holy Grail of current respiratory diseases research as it could permit the rational exploitation of this effect with the development of new 'optimized' LABA/ICS combination therapies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".