MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980391373 · doi:10.1080/24745332.2019.1668652

Canadian Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline on pharmacotherapy in patients with COPD – 2019 update of evidence

2019· article· en· W2980391373 on OpenAlex
Jean Bourbeau, Mohit Bhutani, Paul Hernandez, Shawn D. Aaron, Meyer Balter, Marie-France Beauchesne, Anthony D’Urzo, Roger Goldstein, Alan Kaplan, François Maltais, Don D. Sin, Darcy D. Marciniuk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecMount Sinai HospitalWest Park Healthcare CentreOttawa HospitalTD Bank GroupMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelinePharmacotherapyCOPDLamaIntensive care medicineBronchodilatorCombination therapyAdverse effectDiseasePhysical therapyInternal medicineAsthmaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this guideline update, we highlight important and new findings related to pharmacological therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that should change clinical practice and improve disease management. We present updated evidence, recommendations and expert clinical remarks on maintenance pharmacotherapy in patients with stable COPD. The diagnosis and nonpharmacological therapy of COPD are out-of-scope for this update.In patients with COPD who have persistent shortness of breath, exercise intolerance and/or poor health status despite using inhaled LAMA or LABA monotherapy, we recommend augmenting treatment to LAMA/LABA dual therapy. In patients with high-risk exacerbations, LAMA/LABA is the preferred choice to ICS/LABA except in patients with previous exacerbations who have higher peripheral eosinophilia. There is no role for ICS monotherapy; when indicated, ICS should only be used in combination with bronchodilators. Treatment "step up" in COPD is proposed as a practical construct supported by evidence that inhaled combined therapy is superior to monotherapy and triple therapy to dual therapy in certain patient populations. Because the superiority of inhaled triple or dual bronchodilator therapy may not be achieved in every patient, "step down" may be considered for some patients (not at high risk for future exacerbations), but should be done with close medical supervision, as the risk of clinical deterioration is real and continues to exist. The decision of changing a therapy should always occur after a complete evaluation of the patient and the potential benefit to a change in therapy; as well as an assessment of any adverse effects of the therapy, and with a review of patient adherence, inhaler technique and patient preferences.Pharmacological therapy plays a foundational role in therapy, but it should never be the sole treatment in managing COPD patients. Clinicians should always combine and optimize pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies with the dual goals of reducing symptoms and preventing acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it