Asthma progression and mortality: the role of inhaled corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overall, asthma mortality rates have declined dramatically in the last 30 years, due to improved diagnosis and to better treatment, particularly in the 1990s following the more widespread use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). The impact of ICS on other long-term outcomes, such as lung function decline, is less certain, in part because the factors associated with these outcomes are incompletely understood. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effect of pharmacological interventions, particularly ICS, on asthma progression and mortality. Furthermore, we review the potential mechanisms of action of pharmacotherapy on asthma progression and mortality, the effects of ICS on long-term changes in lung function, and the role of ICS in various asthma phenotypes.Overall, there is compelling evidence of the value of ICS in improving asthma control, as measured by improved symptoms, pulmonary function and reduced exacerbations. There is, however, less convincing evidence that ICS prevents the decline in pulmonary function that occurs in some, although not all, patients with asthma. Severe exacerbations are associated with a more rapid decline in pulmonary function, and by reducing the risk of severe exacerbations, it is likely that ICS will, at least partially, prevent this decline. Studies using administrative databases also support an important role for ICS in reducing asthma mortality, but the fact that asthma mortality is, fortunately, an uncommon event makes it highly improbable that this will be demonstrated in prospective trials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".