Combined Analysis of Asthma Safety Trials of Long-Acting β <sub>2</sub> -Agonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: -agonists (LABAs) in asthma management were initially identified in a large postmarketing trial in which the risk of death was increased. In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated that the four companies marketing LABAs for asthma perform prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the safety of combination therapy with a LABA plus an inhaled glucocorticoid with that of an inhaled glucocorticoid alone in adolescents (12 to 17 years of age) and adults. In conjunction with the FDA, the manufacturers harmonized their trial methods to allow an independent joint oversight committee to provide a final combined analysis of the four trials. METHODS: As members of the joint oversight committee, we performed a combined analysis of the four trials comparing an inhaled glucocorticoid plus a LABA (combination therapy) with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone. The primary outcome was a composite of asthma-related intubation or death. Post hoc secondary outcomes included serious asthma-related events and asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: Among the 36,010 patients in the intention-to-treat study, there were three asthma-related intubations (two in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and one in the combination-therapy group) and two asthma-related deaths (both in the combination-therapy group) in 4 patients. In the secondary analysis of serious asthma-related events (a composite of hospitalization, intubation, or death), 108 of 18,006 patients (0.60%) in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group and 119 of 18,004 patients (0.66%) in the combination-therapy group had at least one composite event (relative risk in the combination-therapy group, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.43; P=0.55); 2100 patients in the inhaled-glucocorticoid group (11.7%) and 1768 in the combination-therapy group (9.8%) had at least one asthma exacerbation (relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.89; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with a LABA plus an inhaled glucocorticoid did not result in a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than treatment with an inhaled glucocorticoid alone but resulted in significantly fewer asthma exacerbations.
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 | 0.057 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".