MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P295 Efficacy and safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in patients with copd by ats category

2016· article· en· W2571391506 on OpenAlexaff
François Maltais, Emílio Pizzichini, Lars Grönke, Florian Voß, Eric Derom

Bibliographic record

VenueThorax · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPost-hoc analysisTiotropium bromideMuscarinic antagonistBronchodilatorInternal medicinePulmonary diseaseInhalerAnesthesiaAntagonistLung functionAsthmaLungReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale The once-daily combination of tiotropium (T), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and olodaterol (O), a long-acting β2-agonist, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).1 Recently, it has been demonstrated that patients with milder disease (GOLD 2) have better bronchodilator responses compared to those with more severe disease. This post hoc analysis investigated whether the response to T/O and to T alone is influenced by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) American Thoracic Society (ATS) category (mild, moderate or severe). Methods In total, 5162 patients were randomised to O 5 µg, T 2.5 µg, T 5 µg, T/O 2.5/5 µg or T/O 5/5 µg (via Respimat® inhaler) in two 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind studies (TONADO® 1 and 2: NCT01431274; NCT01431287). This post hoc analysis focuses on the T 5 µg and T/O 5/5 µg analyses. Primary efficacy end points were trough FEV1 response (ie, change from baseline) and FEV1 area under the curve from 0–3 hours (AUC0–3) response. Data are presented for patients by ATS category subgroups: mild (predicted FEV1 ≥50%), moderate (35 ≤ 50%) and severe (<35%), using data pooled from both of the TONADO® studies. Results In all disease-severity categories, the improvements in trough FEV1 and FEV1 AUC0–3 were larger with T/O compared to T alone. However, trough FEV1 and FEV1 AUC0–3 responses were generally greater in patients with mild (T/O versus T: both p < 0.0001) or moderate (T/O versus T: p < 0.001 and p < 0.0001, respectively) COPD versus those with severe COPD (T/O versus T: p < 0.01 and p < 0.0001, respectively) at baseline (Table). Treatments were well tolerated across all ATS categories and similar responses were observed in both of the studies individually. Conclusions These data build on the analysis of the GOLD 2 population from TONADO® and confirm that patients with mild to moderate disease derive greater benefits with T/O than with T. There was an overall trend towards greater lung-function improvement with T/O or T alone in patients with mild/moderate versus severe airflow obstruction. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim. Reference Buhl R, et al. Eur Respir J 2015;45:969–979. Please refer to page A273 for declarations of interest in relation to abstract P295.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThoraxSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207