Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Roflumilast, a New Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment offer symptom relief, but disease modification remains an unmet goal of pharmacotherapy. Reducing the frequency and severity of COPD exacerbations may help slow disease progression and reduce the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with these major events. Other desirable characteristics for a COPD treatment include a once-daily dosing schedule, an oral formulation, and a low frequency of systemic side effects. Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors have been in clinical development for some years and roflumilast is currently the most advanced of these agents. In this review, the preclinical evidence, clinical safety, and efficacy of roflumilast available in published reports are considered. The data reviewed here suggest that the clinical efficacy of roflumilast occurs through a mechanism unrelated to bronchodilation and may be due to the suppression of lung inflammation. Lung function improved with roflumilast treatment and in some studies, the reduction in exacerbations was substantial and statistically significant. Notably, this effect appeared to be greatest in the subgroup of patients with more severe disease and more severe exacerbations. The evaluation of roflumilast safety largely centers on gastrointestinal adverse events, with diarrhea, nausea, and weight loss occurring more frequently with the drug than placebo. If approved for general use, we expect roflumilast to find its role initially as a substitute for inhaled corticosteroids in the maintenance treatment of severe and very severe disease, particularly in patients who have frequent acute exacerbations, and perhaps as a supplementary drug when symptoms are not adequately controlled by current conventional COPD therapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".