The 24-h lung-function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effects on 24-h lung function and lung volume of a once-daily fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and the long-acting β2-agonist olodaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial with an incomplete crossover design. Patients received four of the following six treatment options for 6 weeks each: placebo, olodaterol 5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg, tiotropium 5 μg, tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 μg and tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 5/5 μg, all delivered via the Respimat(®) inhaler. The primary end point was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response after 6 weeks of treatment; key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC from 0 to 12 h and AUC from 12 to 24 h, and further end points included lung-volume parameters measured using body plethysmography (subset of patients), measures of peak and trough FEV1, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A significant improvement in FEV1 AUC0-24 response was observed with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 μg and 2.5/5 μg versus placebo and monotherapies after 6 weeks of treatment; mean response with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 μg versus placebo was 0.280 L (p < 0.0001). Differences to monotherapies with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 μg were 0.115 L versus olodaterol 5 μg, 0.127 L versus tiotropium 2.5 μg and 0.110 L versus tiotropium 5 μg (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Secondary end points supported these data. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in lung function over 24 h with an FDC of tiotropium + olodaterol over tiotropium or olodaterol alone, with no observed difference in tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01559116.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".