Comparison of glycopyrronium versus tiotropium on the time to clinically important deteriorations in patients with COPD: a post-hoc analysis of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glycopyrronium is a once-daily, inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) demonstrating similar efficacy to inhaled tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD; however, the benefit of LAMAs on COPD symptoms has been variable. COPD is a progressive disease in which many patients develop an acute or sustained deterioration. Data on the prevention of clinically important deteriorations (CID) using LAMAs are limited. A pooled analysis was performed on four Phase III trials (n = 2936) that compared the efficacy of glycopyrronium (n = 1859) with tiotropium (n = 1077). The primary endpoint was significant delay and/or reduction in the occurrence of CID. CID was defined as any of the following: ≥100 mL decrease from baseline in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), ≥4 point increase in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score or a moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation occurring after the first dose of study medication. A sustained CID was a CID occurring on ≥2 consecutive visits 4 weeks apart or for ≥50% of all available subsequent visits. Baseline characteristics for the overall population were similar. Patients had moderate (62%) or severe (38%) COPD. Mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 was approximately 55% predicted, and mean FEV1 reversibility was 16.7 and 18.6% in the glycopyrronium and tiotropium groups, respectively. Both glycopyrronium and tiotropium significantly reduced time to CID and sustained CID versus placebo (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found between the glycopyrronium and tiotropium treatment groups in time to CID or sustained CID. Glycopyrronium is effective in delaying time to clinically important deteriorations, with similar efficacy to tiotropium.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".