Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy: impact on airway inflammation in asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness, safety and health economics of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and a novel reliever therapy with conventional best practice in patients with persistent asthma in Canada. After 2 weeks of usual therapy, 1,538 patients were randomised for 6 months to open-label budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy 160/4.5 microg twice daily and as needed, or to guideline-based conventional best practice. Severe asthma exacerbations, reliever medication use and total inhaled corticosteroid dose were analysed in all patients and airway inflammation was assessed in a sub-study of 115 patients. No differences were seen in time to first severe exacerbation and severe asthma exacerbation rate. There were numerically fewer emergency room visits or hospitalisations with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (4.4 versus 7.5 events per 100 patients x yr(-1), 41% reduction); however, this did not reach statistical significance. Mean total inhaled corticosteroid dose, reliever use, asthma medication costs and total annual costs per patient were all significantly lower with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. Mean sputum eosinophil cell counts remained in the range for controlled inflammation in both groups. In conclusion, budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy achieved similar or improved clinical control compared with conventional best practice, with significantly lower total inhaled corticosteroid dose and lower cost, while maintaining similar control of eosinophilic inflammation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".