Beclomethasone/formoterol <i>vs</i> fluticasone/salmeterol inhaled combination in moderate to severe asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommended treatment for moderate to severe asthma is the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist. The present study was designed to compare a new fixed combination of extrafine beclomethasone and formoterol, with the fixed combination fluticasone and salmeterol. METHODS: This was a phase III, multinational, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, two-arm parallel groups, controlled study. After a 2-week run-in period, 228 patients with moderate to severe asthma were randomized to a 12-week treatment with either beclomethasone 100 microg plus formoterol 6 microg or fluticasone 125 microg plus salmeterol 25 microg, both delivered two inhalations b.i.d. via a pressurized metered dose inhaler. RESULTS: The analysis of noninferiority on the primary outcome, morning peak expiratory flow in the last 2 weeks of treatment, showed no difference between groups (difference -3.32 l/min; 95% CI -17.92 to 11.28). A significant improvement from baseline in lung function, symptom score and rescue medication use was observed in both groups at all time points. Beclomethasone plus formoterol combination showed a significantly faster onset of bronchodilation when compared with fluticasone plus salmeterol with the difference maintained for up to 1 h postdosing. No differences were observed between treatments in the rate of asthma exacerbations, frequency of adverse events and overnight urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The new combination of extrafine beclomethasone plus formoterol is not inferior to the marketed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in terms of efficacy and tolerability, with the advantage of a faster onset of bronchodilation. ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394368).
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".