MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169433957 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00145006

Long-acting β-agonists: a review of formoterol safety data from asthma clinical trials

2008· review· en· W2169433957 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm R. Sears, Anders Ottosson, Finn Radner, Samy Suissa

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormoterolMedicineAsthmaAdverse effectFormoterol FumarateSalmeterolInternal medicineAnesthesiaBudesonide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The safety of long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) treatment in asthma has been questioned following reported increased respiratory deaths when salmeterol was added to usual pharmacotherapy. The aim of this study was to examine whether asthma, cardiac or all-cause mortality and morbidity were increased with formoterol use. The analysis included all AstraZeneca randomised controlled parallel-group asthma trials of 3-12-months duration involving formoterol. Risks associated with formoterol use compared with non-LABA treatment, overall and in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), were assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis of the rates and rate ratios of deaths and serious adverse events (SAEs). The main objective of this study was to compare asthma-related mortality in patients using formoterol and those not using formoterol. There were eight asthma-related deaths (0.34 per 1,000 person-yrs) among 49,906 formoterol-randomised patients (92% using ICS), and two (0.22 per 1,000 person-yrs) among 18,098 patients (83% using ICS) not randomised to formoterol, which was nonsignificant. Asthma-related SAEs (>90% of which were hospitalisations) were significantly fewer among formoterol-randomised patients (0.75 versus 1.10%). There was no increase in asthma-related SAEs with increased daily doses of formoterol (9, 18 or 36 microg). There was no significant difference in cardiac mortality or noncardiac nonasthma-related mortality in formoterol-randomised compared to non-LABA-treated patients. All-cause mortality was similar. In the data set in which all subjects were prescribed ICS at baseline, there were seven asthma-related deaths (0.32 per 1,000 person-yrs) among 46,003 formoterol-randomised patients and one (0.14 per 1,000 person-yrs) among 13,905 patients not randomised to formoterol, which was also nonsignificant. There were few asthma-related or cardiac-related deaths among patients randomised to formoterol, and all differences were nonsignificant compared with non-long-acting beta(2)-agonist-randomised patients. However, despite data on >68,000 patients, the power was insufficient to conclude that there was no increased mortality with formoterol. Cardiac-related serious adverse events were not increased, and asthma-related serious adverse events were significantly reduced with formoterol.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.385
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.110 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207