The efficacy and safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) on cough symptoms in adult patients with asthma, a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study: Chronic Cough in Asthma (COCOA) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent cough bothers many patients with asthma because it worsens their quality of life; therefore, it must be remedied immediately. The efficacy of triple therapy as a first-line treatment for cough remains unclear. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the triple therapy against persistent cough, the clinical effect of regular treatment with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) or placebo in adult patients with asthma was investigated. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter trial recruited asthma patients with persistent cough from hospitals and primary care clinics between June 2022 and December 2023. Participants were randomly given FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg or placebo for 6 wk. The primary endpoint was the average change in the cough symptom score from baseline to week 6. Secondary outcomes were effectiveness on cough-related disease burdens (asthma control questionnaire [ACQ]-5, Leicester cough questionnaire [LCQ] and nighttime awakening). Furthermore, lung function and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: increased in the FF/UMEC/VI group as with the results of peak expiratory flow. No significant adverse events associated with FF/UMEC/VI were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In asthma patients with persistent cough, FF/UMEC/VI showed an early response and a significant effect on cough and lung function for 6 wk of treatment. This study is registered with jRCTs031210412.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".