Physiological effects of roflumilast at rest and during exercise in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of 500 μg roflumilast, taken once daily for 12 weeks, on airway physiology during rest and exercise in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in 250 patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) of 30-80% predicted and a functional residual capacity of ≥ 120% pred. Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and body plethysmography, and pre-bronchodilator constant work rate cycle exercise at 75% of peak work rate were evaluated. Exercise measurements included ventilation, breathing pattern, inspiratory capacity (IC) and arterial oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (S(p,O(2))). Compared with placebo, 12 weeks of treatment with roflumilast was associated with: small but progressive increases in pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV(1) and FEV(1)/forced vital capacity; small decreases in specific airway resistance; and no significant changes in resting vital capacity, IC or measurements of lung hyperinflation. There was no treatment effect on exercise endurance time. At a standardised exercise time after roflumilast, compared with placebo, IC increased by 0.12 L (p = 0.008) and S(p,O(2)) increased by 0.7% (p = 0.020); peak ventilation increased by 1.9 L · min(-1) (p = 0.014). Roflumilast treatment was associated with progressive improvement of airway function but not lung hyperinflation. Newly described non-bronchodilator effects of roflumilast included small but consistent improvements in air trapping and S(p,O(2)) during exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".