Clinical efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily administered via a HFA 134a pressurized metered dose inhaler to patients with mild to moderate asthma. French study group.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the efficacy and safety of the fluticasone propionate 125 microg pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) propelled by either hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) 134a or chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants, in adult patients with asthma. HFA 134a is a non-ozone depleting propellant used as a replacement for the CFC propellants 11 and 12 which are being phased out in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. Three hundred and eighty patients with mild to moderate asthma and 'room for improvement' in their treatment were randomized to receive fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily via pMDIs propelled by either CFC propellants 11 and 12 (n = 195) or HFA 134a (n = 185). Fluticasone propionate significantly improved lung function over the 4-week treatment period in both treatment groups. The improvement in mean morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) after 7 days of treatment was approximately 12 l min(-1) in both groups, rising to approximately 22 l min(-1) at the end of the 4-week treatment period. The adjusted mean difference between the two formulations over weeks 1-4 was -1 l min(-1) (90% confidence interval: -7, 5 l min(-1)), confirming their equivalence. Clinical comparability was also demonstrated with respect to secondary efficacy variables, including daily symptom scores, evening PEF and clinic visit expiratory measurements. There were no clinically relevant differences in adverse events or serum cortisol levels between the two groups. The fluticasone propionate 125 microg HFA 134a pMDI is an effective and well tolerated product and is a suitable replacement for the fluticasone propionate 125 microg CFC pMDI at a microgram equivalent dose.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".