Efficacy of inhaled budesonide for the treatment of severe equine asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are the most potent drugs for the control of severe equine asthma, but adverse effects limit their chronic systemic administration. Inhaled medications allow for drug delivery directly into the airways, reducing the harmful effects of these drugs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of inhaled budesonide specifically formulated for the equine use and administered by a novel inhalation device in horses with severe asthma. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental studies in horses with naturally occurring asthma with cross-over, randomised, blinded experimental designs. METHODS: based inhaler was compared to i.v. dexamethasone (0.04 mg/kg). In Study 2, 3 doses of budesonide (450, 900, and 1800 μg) were compared to oral dexamethasone (0.066 mg/kg). Lung function, bronchoalveolar fluid cytology (Study 1), CBC, serum chemistry, and serum cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) values were evaluated. RESULTS: In Study 1, there was a marked and significant improvement in the lung function of all horses treated with budesonide and dexamethasone. Neutrophil percentages in bronchoalveolar fluid decreased in all horses treated with dexamethasone and in four of six horses treated with budesonide. Serum cortisol and blood ACTH concentrations decreased with both treatments. In Study 2, there was a significant improvement in the lung function with all dosages of budesonide, and the effects of higher dosages were comparable to those of dexamethasone. Dexamethasone and budesonide at the two higher dosages induced a significant decrease of cortisol concentrations. MAIN LIMITATIONS: based inhaler is not currently commercially available. CONCLUSIONS: based inhaler provided dose-dependent relief of airway obstruction in horses with severe asthma, but also a suppression of serum cortisol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".