Effects of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Monotherapy or Combined with Long-Acting β2-Agonists on Mortality among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in reducing the mortality related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are controversial. OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether ICS in monotherapy or in combination with long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) reduces the mortality rate among COPD patients compared to those treated with LABA monotherapy. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian province of Quebec's health administrative databases, a nested case-control study was conducted. A cohort of COPD patients aged 50 years and over between 1996 and 2000 was initially formed. Patients were included if they filled at least 6 prescriptions of an inhaled bronchodilator, received at least 1 medical service for COPD, and did not receive any diagnosis of asthma over a 12-month period. For each case of death identified in the cohort, up to 37 controls were time matched. For cases and controls, the exposure to ICS and LABA was assessed within the 3 months prior to the date of death for cases and date of selection for controls. Adjusted mortality rate ratios were estimated by conditional logistic regression comparing patients using ICS monotherapy or ICS/LABA combination therapy with patients using LABA monotherapy. RESULTS: This study included 5996 cases of death and 54,750 controls. The mortality rates were found to be lower among users of ICS monotherapy than users of LABA monotherapy (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88) and lower among users of an ICS/LABA combination than users of LABA monotherapy (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96). No significant differences were observed between users of ICS/LABA combination therapy and users of ICS monotherapy (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.23). CONCLUSIONS: ICS were found to be associated with a reduction in mortality rate when compared to LABA among patients with COPD. However, the ICS/LABA combination therapy did not provide any additional benefit on mortality when compared to ICS monotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".