Efficacy of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium in patients with inadequately controlled asthma with respect to baseline eosinophil count: Post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Baseline characteristics could potentially guide asthma treatments. We evaluated whether baseline eosinophil levels affect the efficacy of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. METHOD: In this post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study, efficacy of high-dose MF/IND/GLY (160/150/50 μg, once-daily [o.d.]) versus high-dose MF/IND (320/150 μg o.d.) and high-dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL [500/50 μg, twice-daily [b.i.d.]); and efficacy of pooled MF/IND/GLY (160/150/50 μg and 80/150/50 μg) versus pooled MF/IND (320/150 μg and 160/150 μg) was evaluated in patient subgroups with baseline blood eosinophil count of <300 cells/μL or ≥300 cells/μL. RESULTS: versus pooled MF/IND (Δ75mL [<300 cells/μL]; Δ68mL [≥300 cells/μL]). Over 52 weeks, high-dose MF/IND/GLY reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe asthma exacerbations by 23% and 10%, severe exacerbations by 31% and 15%, and all exacerbation by 33% and 10% versus high-dose MF/IND for subgroups with <300 cells/μL and ≥300 cells/μL, respectively; and by 33% and 41%, 45% and 42%, 42% and 39% versus FLU/SAL, respectively. Similarly, pooled MF/IND/GLY reduced exacerbations by 22% and 8%, 21% and 7%, 27% and 8%, versus pooled MF/IND, for the respective subgroups. CONCLUSION: MF/IND/GLY showed improvement in lung function and reduction in asthma exacerbations over MF/IND and FLU/SAL independent of baseline eosinophil levels, indicating that eosinophil levels did not affect the efficacy of MF/IND/GLY in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571777 (IRIDIUM).
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".