Inhaled dry powder alginate oligosaccharide in cystic fibrosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase 2b study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background OligoG is a low molecular-weight alginate oligosaccharide that improves the viscoelastic properties of cystic fibrosis (CF) mucus and disrupts biofilms, thereby potentiating the activity of antimicrobial agents. The efficacy of inhaled OligoG was evaluated in adult patients with CF. Methods A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre crossover study was used to demonstrate safety and efficacy of inhaled dry powder OligoG. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive OligoG 1050 mg per day (10 capsules three times daily) or matching placebo for 28 days, with 28-day washout periods following each treatment period. The primary end-point was absolute change in percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at the end of 28-day treatment. The intention-to-treat (ITT) population (n=65) was defined as randomised to treatment with at least one administration of study medication and post-dosing evaluation. Results In this study, 90 adult subjects were screened and 65 were randomised. Statistically significant improvement in FEV1was not observed in the ITT population. Adverse events included nasopharyngitis, cough and pulmonary exacerbation. The number and proportions of patients with adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between OligoG and placebo group. Conclusions Inhalation of OligoG-dry powder over 28 days was safe in adult CF subjects. Statistically significant improvement of FEV1was not reached. The planned analyses did not indicate a significant treatment benefit with OligoG compared to placebo.Post hocexploratory analyses showed subgroup results that indicate that further studies of OligoG in this patient population are justified.
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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".