MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400542764 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2024-epac.58

OP-059 Lung function improvement by dupilumab associated with better asthma control in children

2024· article· en· W4400542764 on OpenAlexaff
Leonard B. Bacharier, Sharon Dell, I. de Mir, Giorgio Piacentini, Eckard Hamelmann, Jérôme Msihid, Rebecca Gall, Olivier Ledanois, Zhixiao Wang, Wei‐Han Cheng, Harry Sacks, Juby A. Jacob‐Nara, Paul J. Rowe, Sena Dericioğlu, Yamo Deniz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDupilumabLung functionMedicineAsthmaComputer scienceLungImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim The relationship between lung function improvement and patient-reported outcomes is unclear. In LIBERTY ASTHMA VOYAGE ( NCT02948959), dupilumab reduced exacerbations and improved lung function, control, and quality of life in children (aged 6 to 11 years) with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma, with an acceptable safety profile. This post hoc analysis evaluated association between lung function change and asthma control in children with type 2 asthma (baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/µL or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥20 ppb) in each treatment group.Material and Method 321 children were randomized 2:1 to receive add-on dupilumab 100/200 mg q2w (body-weight based) or placebo for 52 weeks. We stratified patients into low, medium, or high tertiles according to change in pre-bronchodilator percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV1) from baseline to Week 52. We assessed proportion and odds ratio (OR) of children achieving controlled and well-controlled asthma (Interviewer-Administered 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire score [ACQ-5-IA]: <1.5 and ≤0.75, respectively) at Week 52 between tertile subgroups within each treatment arm using logistic regression models with age, weight, region, baseline eosinophils, FeNO, inhaled corticosteroid dose, baseline pre-bronchodilator ppFEV1, baseline ACQ-5-IA, and per-treatment tertile subgroups as covariates.Results Dupilumab and placebo arms showed a mean reduction from baseline in pre-bronchodilator ppFEV1 at Week 52 in the low tertile and mean improvement in both medium- and high-tertile subgroups ( table 1). Significantly greater proportions of children achieved well-controlled asthma in the dupilumab medium- and high-tertile vs low-tertile subgroup (table 1). In the placebo arm, the proportion of well-controlled asthma patients was significantly higher in the high- vs low-tertile subgroup only (table 1). Tertile subgroups were not significantly different in achievement of controlled asthma for dupilumab vs. placebo.Abstract OP-059 Table 1Achievement of controlled and well-controlled asthma by ppFEV1 change from baseline to Week 52 tertile subgroupsACQ-5-IA, Interviewer-Administered 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; BD, bronchodilator; CI, confidence interval; FeNO, fractional exhaled nitric oxide; OR, odds ratio; ppFEV1, percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second; SD, standard deviation. aPatients who did not meet the criterion or had missing value are considered as non-controlled. bDerived from logistic regression model with tertiles by treatment group, age, weight, region, baseline eosinophils, FeNO, inhaled corticosteroid dose, baseline pre-bronchodilator ppFEV1 and baseline ACQ-5-IA score as covariateConclusions In children with moderate-to-severe type 2 asthma, improvements in lung function were associated with achieving well-controlled asthma within dupilumab and placebo treatment arms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsthma and respiratory diseases→French-language works237,207→