MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594397173 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201701-0193oc

Blood Eosinophils and Response to Maintenance Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment. Data from the FLAME Trial

2017· article· en· W2594397173 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolás Roche, Kenneth R. Chapman, Claus Vogelmeier, Felix Herth, Chau Thach, Robert Fogel, Petter Olsson, Francesco Patalano, Donald Banerji, Jadwiga A. Wedzicha

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsIndacaterolMedicineFluticasoneSalmeterolCOPDInternal medicineExacerbationCorticosteroidBronchodilatorAnesthesiaAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Post hoc analyses suggest that blood eosinophils have potential as a predictive biomarker of inhaled corticosteroid efficacy in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives We prospectively investigated the value of blood eosinophils as a predictor of responsiveness to an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination versus a long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination for exacerbation prevention. Methods We conducted prespecified analyses of data from the FLAME (Effect of Indacaterol Glycopyronium vs Fluticasone Salmeterol on COPD Exacerbations) study, which compared once-daily long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 μg with twice-daily long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid salmeterol/fluticasone combination 50/500 μg in patients with one or more exacerbations in the preceding year. Subsequent post hoc analyses were conducted to address further cutoffs and endpoints. Measurements and Main Results We compared treatment efficacy according to blood eosinophil percentage (<2% and ≥2%, <3% and ≥3%, and <5% and ≥5%) and absolute blood eosinophil count (<150 cells/μl, 150 to <300 cells/μl, and ≥300 cells/μl). Indacaterol/glycopyrronium was significantly superior to salmeterol/fluticasone for the prevention of exacerbations (all severities, or moderate or severe) in the <2%, ≥2%, <3%, <5%, and <150 cells/μl subgroups, and at no cutoff was salmeterol/fluticasone superior to indacaterol/glycopyrronium. Furthermore, the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations did not increase with increasing blood eosinophils. The incidence of pneumonia was higher in patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone than indacaterol/glycopyrronium in both the <2% and ≥2% subgroups. Conclusions Our prospective analyses indicate that indacaterol/glycopyrronium provides superior or similar benefits over salmeterol/fluticasone regardless of blood eosinophil levels in patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782326).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations166
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207