A Randomized Controlled Trial to Determine the Effect of Inhaled Corticosteroid on Intraocular Pressure in Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension: The ICOUGH Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the risk of a steroid pressure response from inhaled corticosteroids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial included 22 adults with well-controlled open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Consenting participants were randomized to a 6-week course of twice-daily fluticasone propionate 250-μg metered-dose inhaler or saline placebo metered-dose inhaler. Biweekly clinic visits included masked Goldmann applanation tonometry and assessment to identify adverse effects. Primary outcome was mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at week 6. Secondary outcomes included IOP elevation of >20% at 2 consecutive visits, adherence, side effects, and logMAR visual acuity. RESULTS: A total of 10 patients in each arm completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences in IOP between groups at baseline (14.3±3.0 and 15.6±3.6 mm Hg in steroid and placebo groups, respectively, P=0.39) or at week 6 (14.7±2.4 and 14.8±3.8 mm Hg in steroid and placebo groups, respectively, P=0.92). Adherence was >80% for all participants. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any secondary measures. One patient in the steroid group met the secondary end point of >20% elevation in IOP (IOP increased from baseline of 9 to 11 mm Hg at weeks 2 and 4). CONCLUSIONS: We found no clinically significant increase in mean IOP in patients with well-controlled open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension after 6 weeks of twice-daily inhaled fluticasone propionate compared with inhaled placebo. No participants exceeded their individualized target IOP. There were no differences in secondary outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".