RESPIRE 2: 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 predefined sputum bacteria.Patients were randomised 2:1 to twice-daily ciprofloxacin DPI 32.5 mg or placebo in 14- or 28-day on/off treatment cycles for 48 weeks. Primary end-points were time to first exacerbation and frequency of exacerbations. Enrolling countries and α level split (0.049 and 0.001 for 14- and 28-day cycles, respectively) differed from RESPIRE 1.Patients were randomised to ciprofloxacin DPI (14 days on/off (n=176) or 28 days on/off (n=171)) or placebo (14 days on/off (n=88) or 28 days on/off (n=86)). The exacerbation rate was low across treatment arms (mean±sd 0.6±0.9). Active treatment showed trends to prolonged time to first exacerbation (ciprofloxacin DPI 14 days on/off: hazard ratio 0.87, 95.1% CI 0.62-1.21; p=0.3965; ciprofloxacin DPI 28 days on/off: hazard ratio 0.71, 99.9% CI 0.39-1.27; p=0.0511) and reduced frequency of exacerbations (ciprofloxacin DPI 14 days on/off: incidence rate ratio 0.83, 95.1% CI 0.59-1.17; p=0.2862; ciprofloxacin DPI 28 days on/off: incidence rate ratio 0.55, 99.9% CI 0.30-1.02; p=0.0014), although neither achieved statistical significance. Ciprofloxacin DPI was well tolerated.Trends towards clinical benefit were seen with ciprofloxacin DPI, but primary end-points were not met.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".