Exacerbation heterogeneity in COPD: subgroup analyses from the FLAME study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Claus F Vogelmeier,1 Kenneth R Chapman,2 Marc Miravitlles,3 Nicolas Roche,4 Jørgen Vestbo,5 Chau Thach,6 Donald Banerji,6 Robert Fogel,6 Francesco Patalano,7 Petter Olsson,8 Konstantinos Kostikas,7 Jadwiga A Wedzicha9 1Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany; 2Asthma and Airway Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 4Service de Pneumologie AP-HP, Cochin Hospital, University Paris Descartes (EA2511), Paris, France; 5Institute of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 6Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 7Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 8Novartis Sverige AB, Täby, Sweden; 9National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK Background: The FLAME study compared once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 µg with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) 50/500 µg in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the previous year. Methods: This prespecified and post hoc subgroup analysis evaluated treatment efficacy on 1) moderate/severe exacerbations according to prior exacerbation history and treatment, and 2) types of exacerbations according to health care resource utilization (HCRU) during 1-year follow-up. Results: IND/GLY reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus SFC in patients with a history of 1 exacerbation (rate ratio [RR]: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75–0.93), ≥2 exacerbations (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70–1.03) and ≥2 exacerbations or ≥1 hospitalization in the previous year (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74–1.00). Prolonged time-to-first exacerbation was observed in all the groups according to exacerbation history. Moderate/severe exacerbations decreased with IND/GLY versus SFC, independent of previous treatment. IND/GLY significantly reduced rates of moderate/severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.93) and systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70–0.91); rates of exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone were comparable (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80–1.22). Conclusion: Overall, IND/GLY demonstrated consistent beneficial effects versus SFC on moderate/severe exacerbations, independent of prior exacerbation history or treatment. The efficacy of IND/GLY on exacerbation prevention was superior to SFC for exacerbations treated with antibiotics with/without systemic corticosteroids and was similar for exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone. Keywords: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, salmeterol/fluticasone, LABA/LAMA, LABA/ICS
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".