Comparison of Mometasone Furoate Dry Powder Inhaler and Fluticasone Propionate Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Moderate to Severe Persistent Asthma Requiring High-Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy: Findings from a Noninferiority Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are one of the suggested first-line therapies for patients with persistent asthma of moderate severity. METHODS: The efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate (MF) 400 microg twice daily (BID) and fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 microg BID administered for 12 weeks via dry powder inhaler (DPI) were compared in a noninferiority trial, in adults with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. The primary variable was the change from baseline in am peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). PM PEFR, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, response to therapy, exacerbation rates, and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: The lower bound of 95% CIs for treatment differences in the primary variable ranged from 2.6% to 5.6% throughout the 12-week study and were within the prespecified noninferiority range. No significant between-group differences were observed in lung function, rescue medication use, response to therapy, exacerbation rates, or adverse events. At most of the weeks assessed, there were no between-group differences in asthma symptoms. Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate. CONCLUSION: MF-DPI 400 microg BID was therapeutically equivalent to FP-DPI 500 microg BID in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".