Protection against methacholine-induced bronchospasm: salbutamol pMDI<i>versus</i>Clickhaler® DPI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) have been developed as an alternative to pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) to improve aerosol delivery on inhalation and eliminate the need for propellants. However, new DPI formulations of generic drugs must be rigorously compared with conventional pMDI therapy. This randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, seven-way crossover study evaluated bronchoprotection from methacholine challenge in order to compare a novel salbutamol DPI (Clickhaler) with a reference salbutamol pMDI (Ventolin). Adult asthma patients with airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine (provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in the forced expiratory volume in one second (PC20) <4 mg x mL(-1)) were treated on separate days with 0, 100, 200 or 400 microg of salbutamol via the DPI or pMDI. Methacholine challenge was performed before and after salbutamol treatment and the PC20 ratios analysed by Finney's bioassay to test for therapeutic equivalence of the inhalers. Eighteen patients completed the study and showed significant dose-related responses to salbutamol. The relative potency of DPI:pMDI was 1.29 (90% confidence interval 1.04-1.63). There were no treatment differences in safety (cardiac frequency, blood pressure, adverse events). Methacholine-challenge methodology provides a sensitive bioassay and has demonstrated therapeutic equivalence of the salbutamol Clickhaler dry-powder inhaler with the conventional salbutamol pressurised metered-dose inhaler.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".