MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216167318 · doi:10.2147/copd.s338849

A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Control Feasibility Trial of Immunoglobulin Treatment for Prevention of Recurrent Acute Exacerbations of COPD

2021· article· en· W3216167318 on OpenAlexafffund
Juthaporn Cowan, Sunita Mulpuru, Sara J. Abdallah, Anchal Chopra, Andrew Purssell, Michaeline McGuinty, Gonzalo G. Alvarez, Antonio Giulivi, Vicente Corrales‐Medina, Derek R. MacFadden, Loree Boyle, Delvina Hasimja, Kednapa Thavorn, Ranjeeta Mallick, Shawn D. Aaron, D. William Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Research InstituteGrifolsCSL Behring
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboCOPDRandomized controlled trialDouble blindAntibodyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineImmunologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that immunoglobulin treatment may reduce the frequency of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). OBJECTIVE: To inform the design of a future randomised control trial (RCT) of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment efficacy for AECOPD prevention. METHODS: A pilot RCT was conducted. We recruited patients with COPD hospitalized for AECOPD, or from ambulatory clinics with one severe, or two moderate AECOPD in the previous year regardless of their serum IgG level. Patients were allocated in a 1:1 ratio with balanced randomisation to monthly IVIG or normal saline for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility defined as pre-specified accrual, adherence, and follow-up rates. Secondary outcomes included safety, tolerance, AECOPD rates, time to first AECOPD, quality of life, and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized (37 female; mean age 67.7; mean FEV1 35.1%). Recruitment averaged 4.5±0.9 patients per month (range 0-8), 34 (49%) adhered to at least 80% of planned treatments, and four (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. There were 35 serious adverse events including seven deaths and one thromboembolism. None was related to IVIG. There were 56 and 48 moderate and severe AECOPD in the IVIG vs control groups. In patients with at least 80% treatment adherence, median time to first moderate or severe AECOPD was 275 vs 114 days, favoring the IVIG group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.3-1.92). CONCLUSION: The study met feasibility criteria for recruitment and retention, but adherence was low. A trend toward more robust treatment efficacy in adherent patients supports further study, but future trials must address treatment adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0290038, registered 24 February 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02690038 and NCT03018652, registered January 12, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03018652.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207