Efficacy of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) on lung function and exacerbations in patients with inadequately controlled asthma with high-dose ICS/LABA therapy (on GINA step 5) prior to study entry: Results from IRIDIUM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: GINA 2020 recommends high-dose ICS/LABA as preferred controller for patients (pts) with asthma in step 5 therapy. This post hoc analysis from IRIDIUM study evaluated efficacy of once-daily high-dose (160/150/50 µg) vs medium-dose (80/150/50 µg) MF/IND/GLY in pts with inadequately controlled asthma (ACQ-7≥1.5) with high-dose ICS/LABA prior to enrolment. Methods: IRIDIUM (NCT02571777) was a 52-wk, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study in pts with symptomatic asthma (ACQ-7≥1.5), ≥1 exacerbation in previous year and predicted FEV1 <80%. Trough FEV1 at Wk 26 and annualised rate of exacerbations over 52 wks were assessed. Results: In pts with inadequately controlled asthma with high-dose ICS/LABA (37% at baseline), high-dose MF/IND/GLY showed comparable improvements in trough FEV1 at Wk 26 and relevant reduction in exacerbation rate (non-significant in this underpowered analysis) vs medium-dose MF/IND/GLY (Table). Conclusion: In pts with inadequately controlled asthma with high-dose ICS/LABA, comparable FEV1 improvement and a trend toward exacerbation rate reduction were seen with high-dose than medium-dose MF/IND/GLY. These results suggest high-dose MF/IND/GLY as step-up therapy provides better clinical benefit than medium-dose 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".