Effectiveness of polyvalent bacterial lysate for pediatric asthma control: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies showed bacterial lysates were effective for pediatric asthma. However, evidence of polyvalent bacterial lysate Qipian is lacking. Methods: In this real-world retrospective cohort study, data of children with asthma, aged six months to 14 years old, attending to Jiangxi Provincial Children’s Hospital from January 2021 to April 2022, prescribed routine treatment for asthma plus Qipian (Qipian group) or not (control group) were extracted. To minimize the impact of confounders on the outcomes, baseline characteristics were utilized to perform propensity score matching through a multivariable logistic regression model. After matching, asthma control, exacerbation, etc. were compared. Results: Totally, 795 patients were included (337 in the Qipian group and 458 in the control group), with 278 pairs (556 patients) matched. Most baseline characteristics were well-balanced. The proportion of males were 68.3% and 70.1% in the two groups. The Qipian group favored better asthma control, with more “controlled” [3-month: 257 (92.4%) vs. 240 (86.3%); 6-month: 246 (88.5%) vs. 235 (84.5%)], and fewer “poorly/very poorly controlled” patients, compared with the control group (P=0.004 and 0.025, respectively). Patients in the Qipian group had lower risks of exacerbation. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for any exacerbation were 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33 to 0.93] in the 3-month period and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.55 to 1.26) in the 6-month period. IRR for severe exacerbations were 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.71) in the 3-month period and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.70) in the 6-month period (compared to the control group). Qipian significantly reduced the cumulative dose of short-acting beta-agonist (3-month: 3.22±10.37 vs. 8.08±16.71 mg; P<0.001; 6-month: 6.56±16.23 vs. 11.81±24.41 mg; P=0.002). There was no difference in incidences of respiratory tract infection or fever due to respiratory tract infection between the two groups. Numbers of antibacterial agent prescription were fewer in the Qipian group compared to the control group (3-month: 0.67±1.16 vs. 1.04±1.45; P=0.001; 6-month: 1.14±1.69 vs. 1.51±2.12; P=0.023). Conclusions: According to this retrospective study, Qipian may be effective for improved pediatric asthma control. Safety profile and mechanisms of action of Qipian need further investigation. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".