Once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination via the Respimat improves outcomes vs mono-components in COPD in two 1-year studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Tiotropium (T), a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, is a well-established first-line maintenance treatment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); olodaterol (O) is a once-daily long-acting ß2-agonist that has recently gained approval in several countries. Two Phase III replicate pivotal studies assessed the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of T and O (T+O) delivered via Respimat Soft Mist inhaler in patients with GOLD Stage 2 – 4 COPD. Methods: Two 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies randomised 5162 patients to O 5 µg, T 2.5 µg, T 5 µg, T+O 2.5/5 µg or T+O 5/5 µg. Primary efficacy end points were trough FEV1 response (ie change from baseline), FEV1 area under the curve from 0 – 3 hours and SGRQ total score after 24 weeks. Pooled data from the two studies are presented here; lung function from the individual studies will subsequently be provided. Results: All treatments resulted in clinically relevant improvements in lung function, with significant increases with both T+O doses over the individual components (p < 0.001 for each study). Trough FEV1 responses were 0.055 L (O 5 µg), 0.073 L (T 2.5 µg), 0.080 L (T 5 µg), 0.118 L (T+O 2.5/5 µg) and 0.140 L (T+O 5/5 µg). SGRQ total scores improved by 5.1 (O 5 µg), 5.7 (T 2.5 µg), 5.6 (T 5 µg), 6.2 (T+O 2.5/5 µg) and 6.8 points (T+O 5/5 µg); differences between T+O 5/5 µg and O 5 µg and T 5 µg were statistically significant (p < 0.05 in both cases). All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: T+O 5/5 µg significantly improved lung function and provided symptomatic benefit over O 5 µg and T 5 µg. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. Presented at ERS congress meeting 2014
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".