MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Positioning As-needed Budesonide–Formoterol for Mild Asthma: Effect of Prestudy Treatment in Pooled Analysis of SYGMA 1 and 2

2021· article· en· W3161738989 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerbutalineExacerbationBudesonidePooled analysisIndacaterolSubgroup analysisAsthmaConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale The SYGMA (Symbicort Given as Needed in Mild Asthma) studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide (BUD)–formoterol (FORM) in patients whose asthma was uncontrolled on as-needed inhaled short-acting bronchodilators (subgroup 1) or controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or leukotriene receptor antagonists (subgroup 2). Objectives To assess the influence of prestudy treatment in a post hoc analysis of the SYGMA studies. Methods In the SYGMA 1 (NCT022149199) and SYGMA 2 (NCT02224157) 52-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group studies, 6,735 patients with mild asthma were randomized to as-needed BUD–FORM, low-dose BUD + as-needed terbutaline (BUD maintenance), or as-needed terbutaline (SYGMA 1 only). Exacerbation rates and changes in symptom control and lung function were compared among treatments for both subgroups. Results In a pooled analysis of SYGMA 1 and 2, the annual severe exacerbation rate in subgroup 1 was significantly lower with as-needed BUD–FORM (0.08 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06–0.10]) than with BUD maintenance (0.10 [95% CI, 0.09–0.13]) (rate ratio [RR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56–0.98]; P = 0.03), and similar results were shown in subgroup 2 with BUD–FORM (0.12 [95% CI, 0.10–0.14]) and BUD maintenance (0.10 [95% CI, 0.09–0.13]) (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.86–1.41]; P = 0.44). In SYGMA 1, the annual severe exacerbation rate in both subgroups was significantly lower with as-needed BUD–FORM than with as-needed terbutaline (subgroup 1: RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.20–0.58]; P < 0.001; subgroup 2: RR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.25–0.54]; P < 0.001). The number needed to treat to prevent one severe exacerbation with as-needed BUD–FORM and BUD maintenance versus as-needed terbutaline were 20 and 34 in subgroup 1 and 13 and 12 in subgroup 2, respectively. Conclusions These findings suggest that, for patients with mild asthma currently receiving short-acting β2-agonists alone, as-needed low-dose ICS–FORM should be preferred over maintenance ICS as initial controller treatment. For patients whose asthma is controlled on maintenance low-dose ICS, as-needed BUD–FORM is an alternative to maintenance ICS without the need for daily treatment, and both of these options are safer than switching to short-acting β2-agonist–only treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.057
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207