Dupilumab 200 mg was efficacious in children (6–11 years) with moderate‐to‐severe asthma for up to 2 years: EXCURSION open‐label extension study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phase 3 VOYAGE (NCT02948959) and open-label extension EXCURSION (NCT03560466) studies evaluated dupilumab in children (6-11 years) with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma. This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of add-on dupilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), the largest dose cohort in both studies, in children from VOYAGE who participated in EXCURSION. METHODS: ), and treatment-emergent adverse events were assessed in children with moderate-to-severe asthma who received dupilumab 200 mg q2w in VOYAGE and EXCURSION (dupilumab/dupilumab arm) and those who received placebo in VOYAGE and dupilumab 200 mg q2w in EXCURSION (placebo/dupilumab arm). These endpoints were also assessed in children with moderate-to-severe type 2 asthma (defined as blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells/µL or FeNO ≥20 ppb at the parent study baseline [PSBL]). RESULTS: in the dupilumab/dupilumab arm (n = 158) for up to 2 years. Children receiving placebo/dupilumab (n = 85) showed similar reductions after initiation of dupilumab 200 mg q2w in EXCURSION. Similar results were observed for children with type 2 asthma at PSBL. The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of dupilumab. CONCLUSION: In children (6-11 years) with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe type 2 asthma, dupilumab 200 mg reduced exacerbation rates and improved lung function for up to 2 years and showed safety consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".