Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce symptoms, improve lung function and enhance overall asthma control. However, several studies have indicated an increased risk of asthma mortality and asthma-related serious adverse events and the FDA recently mandated restrictions to the use of LABAs in asthma. AREAS COVERED: This review highlights the clinical studies on which safety analyses pertaining to salmeterol and formoterol have been based and then focuses on recent meta-analyses of safety outcomes with and without consideration of concomitant ICS. EXPERT OPINION: The phenomenon of masking of inflammation by LABA if ICS dose is insufficient underscores the potential for confounding in determining real safety risks. Under-treatment with ICS and differential dosing of ICS in many trials are major factors driving the LABA safety concern. The FDA meta-analysis, when stratified for mandatory ICS use, found no significant increase in the composite outcome of asthma mortality, intubations and hospitalizations. Add-on therapy with LABA is effective and safe if the dose of ICS is adequate to treat airway inflammation. LABA and ICS given in a single device will negate the possibility of LABA monotherapy which is contraindicated. The FDA has recommended that LABAs be withdrawn when control is achieved with combination therapy but recent evidence suggests this may result in loss of symptom control.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".