Bronchial thermoplasty attenuates bronchodilator responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionBronchial thermoplasty is an effective intervention to improve respiratory symptoms and to reduce the rate of exacerbations in uncontrolled severe asthma. A reduction in airway smooth muscle is arguably the most widely discussed mechanisms accounting for these clinical benefits. Yet, this smooth muscle reduction should also translate into an impaired response to bronchodilator drugs. This study was designed to address this question.MethodsEight patients with clinical indication for thermoplasty were studied. They were uncontrolled severe asthmatics despite optimal environmental control, treatment of comorbidities, and the use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists. Lung function measured by spirometry and respiratory mechanics measured by oscillometry were examined pre- and post-bronchodilator (salbutamol, 400 μg), both before and at least 1 year after thermoplasty.ResultsConsistent with previous studies, thermoplasty yielded no benefits in terms of baseline lung function and respiratory mechanics, despite improving symptoms based on two asthma questionnaires (ACQ-5 and ACT-5). The response to salbutamol was also not affected by thermoplasty based on spirometric readouts, including forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEV1/FVC ratio. However, a significant interaction was observed between thermoplasty and salbutamol for two oscillometric readouts, namely reactance at 5 Hz (Xrs5) and reactance area (Ax), showing an attenuated response to salbutamol after thermoplasty.ConclusionsThermoplasty attenuates the response to a bronchodilator. We argue that this result is a physiological proof of therapeutic efficacy, consistent with the well-described effect of thermoplasty in reducing the amount of airway smooth muscle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".