Weight-adjusted Intravenous Reslizumab Attenuates Airway Eosinophilia in Severe Asthmatics compared to 100 mg Subcutaneous Mepolizumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical benefits of 100 mg SC Mepolizumab are modest when sputum eosinophilia was not controlled (CEA 2016;46:793-802). This study compared treatment response of weight-adjusted IV Reslizumab on patients previously treated with 100 mg SC Mepolizumab. Methods: 9 prednisone-dependent asthmatics (sputum eosinophils, median 29.3%, blood eosinophils 0.6x106/L), who had previously received Mepolizumab (Q4W) for at least 1 year, received two infusions of placebo (Q4W) followed by 4 infusions of 3.0 mg/kg Reslizumab Q4W in a single-blind, sequential trial. Primary outcomes were reduction of blood and sputum eosinophils. Eosinophil progenitor cells (EoPs), ILC2s, CD4+ lymphocytes were evaluated by flow cytometry. Sputum IL-5 was measured by ELISA. Results: IV Reslizumab attenuated sputum eosinophils (by 31.2±3% vs placebo 15.7±6%, p=0.003) and blood eosinophils (by 0.4±.1 vs placebo 0.05±.1, p=0.003) and this was associated with clinical improvements in FEV1 and ACQ (p<0.01, Wilcoxon test).Changes in blood EoPs (p=0.003), sputum CD4<+cells (p=0.02) were significant, but not sputum EoP or blood/sputum ILC2s. Decrease in sputum eosinophil% was greater with Reslizumab (by 48%) compared to Mepolizumab (by 4%) and this was associated with greater improvement in ACQ (p=0.02) (ANCOVA of Δ between post-pre treatment of mepolizumab vs reslizumab adjusted for baseline prednisone). Effects on blood eosinophils or ILC2s were not significant. Sputum IL-5 was a predictor of response to anti-IL5 therapy. Conclusions: Reslizumab IV was superior to Mepolizumab 100 mg SC in decreasing sputum eosinophils with improved asthma control in prednisone-dependent asthmatics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".