Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients’ experience using Trelegy as compared with other inhalers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Trelegy is a combination inhaler that is often reported to offer benefits over multiple inhalers. We compared Trelegy use with multiple inhalers for adherence, symptoms, medication beliefs, and medication attitudes. Methods This cross-sectional survey of 58 patients compared the patient's experience with Trelegy (n = 18) versus any other inhaler (n = 40). Outcome variables consisted of Test of the Adherence to Inhalers scale, the Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Assessment Test (CAT) scale, attitude items from the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)-necessity subscale, and the BMQ-concerns subscale. Results We found that patients using Trelegy had greater CAT symptoms (M = 19.8, SD = 7.75) in comparison with the any other inhaler group (M = 15.7, SD = 11.10; P = 0.04). We did not find any difference between the groups for adherence or any of the medication attitudes or beliefs. CAT score was positively correlated with the number of months patients were on their current inhaler (r~s~ = 0.29, P \< 0.05) and their use of a rescue inhaler (r~s~ = 0.42, P \< 0.01). Patients with more concern about their medications were negatively correlated with the use of a rescue inhaler (r~s~ = −0.31, P \< 0.05). Discussion We found that patients using Trelegy had greater symptoms in comparison with the any other inhaler group, but did not differ for adherence, medication attitudes, or medication beliefs. Conclusion We recommend that clinicians should regularly re-evaluate their Trelegy recommendations, as Trelegy use may not be the best therapy for certain patients. Also, a study with a larger sample size can be beneficial to confirm these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".