Efficacy of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) versus fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL) in ex-smoker and never smoker patients with inadequately controlled asthma: Post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Smoking increases inflammation and contributes to lung function decline with detrimental effects on asthma control. IRIDIUM study established clinical benefit of MF/IND/GLY vs FLU/SAL in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. We evaluated the effect of once-daily medium- (80/150/50µg) and high-dose MF/IND/GLY (160/150/50µg) vs twice-daily high-dose FLU/SAL (500/50µg) in ex- and never smokers. Methods: IRIDIUM (NCT02571777), a 52-wk, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study included patients with symptomatic asthma (ACQ-7≥1.5), ≥1 exacerbation in previous year, FEV1 <80% and not current smokers. Trough FEV1 at wk 26 (primary end point) and exacerbations over 52 wks were evaluated by smoking history at screening. Results: ~80% patients were non-smokers; ~20% ex-smokers. Both doses of MF/IND/GLY showed greater improvements in trough FEV1 vs high-dose FLU/SAL, independent of smoking status (Figure 1A). There were trends for greater reduction in exacerbations with both doses of MF/IND/GLY vs high-dose FLU/SAL, with no clear difference dependent on smoking pattern (Figure 1B). Conclusion: Both doses of MF/IND/GLY showed benefit in lung function and asthma exacerbations vs high-dose FLU/SAL independent of smoking history, indicating no effect of smoking history on efficacy of MF/IND/GLY.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".