RESPIRE 1: a phase III placebo-controlled randomised trial of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation (DPI) in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, two or more exacerbations in the previous year and pre-defined bacteria in sputum. In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients were randomised 2:1 to twice-daily ciprofloxacin DPI 32.5 mg or placebo in two treatment regimens consisting of on/off treatment cycles of 14 or 28 days for 48 weeks. The primary end-points were time to first exacerbation and frequency of exacerbations. A total of 416 patients were randomised to the 14-day on/off regimen (ciprofloxacin DPI (n=137) and placebo (n=68)) or the 28-day on/off regimen (ciprofloxacin DPI (n=141) and placebo (n=70)). Ciprofloxacin DPI 14 days on/off significantly prolonged time to first exacerbation versus pooled placebo (median time >336 versus 186 days; hazard ratio 0.53, 97.5% CI 0.36–0.80; p=0.0005) and reduced the frequency of exacerbations compared with matching placebo by 39% (mean number of exacerbations 0.6 versus 1.0; incidence rate ratio 0.61, 97.5% CI 0.40–0.91; p=0.0061). Outcomes for ciprofloxacin DPI 28 days on/off were not statistically significantly different from placebo. The safety profile of ciprofloxacin DPI was favourable. Ciprofloxacin DPI was well tolerated and has the potential to be an effective treatment option in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".