Asthma Control and the Influence of Valved Holding Chamber (VHC) Type: Results from a Real World, Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: AeroChamber Plus* Flow-Vu* (AC+FV) is an antistatic Valved Holding Chamber (AVHC) used with a metered dose inhaler (MDI) as a delivery system for aerosol medication. Non-antistatic VHCs may cause inconsistent drug delivery because of electrostatic charge in the chamber. The objective of this study was to compare real world patient outcomes in asthma patients using the AC+FV AVHC and patients using non-antistatic VHCs. Methods: The study used IMS’ PharMetrics Plus claims database, representative of commercially insured US patients. Asthma patients with evidence of AC+FV AVHC and MDI were matched with asthma patients who had evidence of any non-antistatic VHC and MDI indexed at first use of corresponding VHC. Matching was performed using baseline covariates including age, gender, geographic region, Charlson comorbidity index, comorbid conditions, asthma medication and history of exacerbations. The two groups were compared in patients with at least 12 months follow up from index date. Results: The study sample was comprised of 4,293 patients per group. In the AC+FV cohort the annualised rate of moderate to severe exacerbations (claims for oral corticosteroids, emergency room (ER) visits or in-patient admission for asthma) was reduced by between 10-26% at 6, 9 and 12 months (p≤0.067). Additionally, the proportion of patients having ER visits and hospitalisations were also reduced (relative reductions of 13%; p=0.017 and 19%; p=0.070 respectively). Conclusions: Results from this large, real-world study provide evidence to suggest that AC+FV aVHC is associated with better asthma control and a decrease in exacerbations versus non-antistatic VHCs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".