Formoterol as relief medication in asthma: a worldwide safety and effectiveness trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of as-needed formoterol with salbutamol in a large international real-life asthma study. Children and adults (n=18,124) were randomised to 6 months as-needed treatment with open-label formoterol 4.5 microg Turbuhaler or salbutamol 200 microg pressurised metered dose inhaler or equivalent. Primary safety variables were asthma-related and nonasthma-related serious adverse events (SAE)s and adverse events (AE)s resulting in discontinuation (DAE)s. The primary efficacy variable was time to first asthma exacerbation. The incidences of AEs, SAEs and DAEs arising from SAEs were not significantly different between treatments. DAEs for nonserious AEs were higher with formoterol. Asthma-related AEs decreased with formoterol (1,098 (12.3%) versus 1,206 (13.5%)), asthma-related SAEs were similar (108 (1.2%) versus 121 (1.4%)) but more asthma-related DAEs occurred in the formoterol group (89 (1.0%) versus 48 (0.5%)). Time to first exacerbation was prolonged (hazard ratio 0.86) and less as-needed and maintenance medication was used with formoterol. Reductions of exacerbations with as-needed formoterol versus salbutamol increased with increasing age and asthma medication level. This real-life study demonstrates that formoterol as-needed has a similar safety profile to salbutamol, and its use as a reliever therapy is associated with fewer asthma symptoms and exacerbations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".