Lack of paradoxical bronchoconstriction after administration of tiotropium via Respimat® Soft Mist™ Inhaler in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rick Hodder1, Demetri Pavia2, Angela Lee2, Eric Bateman31Divisions of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 2Boehringer Ingelheim Limited, Bracknell, England, UK; 3Division of Pulmonology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South AfricaAbstract: Bronchoconstriction has been reported in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients after administration of some aqueous inhalation solutions. We investigated the incidence of this event during long-term clinical trials of tiotropium delivered via Respimat® Soft Mist™ Inhaler (SMI). We retrospectively analyzed pooled data from two identical Phase III clinical trials, in which 1990 patients with COPD received 48 weeks' treatment with once-daily tiotropium (5 or 10 µg) or placebo inhaled via Respimat® SMI. We recorded the incidence of bronchospasm and of a range of respiratory events that could suggest bronchoconstriction during the first 30 minutes after inhalation of study treatment on each of the eight test days. No patients reported bronchospasm. Six patients (0.3%) reported a combination of at least two events suggestive of bronchoconstriction, and 21 (1.1%) reported either rescue medication use or a respiratory adverse event. Asymptomatic falls in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of ≥15% were recorded on all test days, with no change in incidence over time, and affected 8.2% of those in the tiotropium groups and 14.5% of those on placebo. In COPD patients receiving long-term treatment with tiotropium 5 or 10 µg via Respimat® SMI, no bronchospasm was recorded, and the number of events possibly indicative of paradoxical bronchoconstriction was very low.Keywords: inhalation device, bronchoconstriction, COPD, tiotropium
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".