One-Year Extension Study of ACCORD COPD I: Safety and Efficacy of Two Doses of Twice-daily Aclidinium Bromide in Patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was a 52-week, double-blind, extension study in which COPD patients previously treated with twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide 200 μg or 400 μg during a 12-week lead-in study (ACCORD COPD I) continued the same treatment, while patients previously receiving placebo were rerandomized (1:1) to aclidinium 200 μg or 400 μg BID. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of aclidinium treatment. Efficacy outcomes included bronchodilation, health status, and rescue medication use. A total of 467 patients completed the lead-in study and 291 patients consented to participate in the extension. At study end, the percentages of patients who reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar for both treatments (200 μg, 77.4%; 400 μg, 73.7%). Incidence of anticholinergic TEAEs was low and similar for both treatments, with dry mouth reported in only 1 patient (400 μg). Cardiac TEAEs were reported by a similarly low percentage of patients (<5% for any event in any group) with no apparent dose dependence. Improvements from baseline in lung function were greatest for patients who received continuous aclidinium treatment and those who were rerandomized from placebo to aclidinium 400 μg; these improvements were generally sustained throughout the study. Health status and overall rescue medication use was improved from baseline for both treatments. The safety profile of twice-daily aclidinium and sustained improvements in lung function and health status throughout the 52-week extension study support its use as a long-term maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00970268).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".