MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dupilumab Efficacy in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) With Type 2 Inflammation Across Baseline Eosinophil Counts

2025· article· en· W4410268280 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie A. Christenson, Frank C. Sciurba, Claus Vogelmeier, Marc Miravitlles, John R. Hurst, Fuqiang Wen, F.J. Martinez, Paramita Saha‐Chaudhuri, Mena Soliman, J. Heble

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDEosinophilPulmonary diseaseDupilumabInflammationImmunologyDiseaseInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: Type 2 (T2) inflammation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is evidenced by elevated blood eosinophil counts (BEC), often correlating with higher risk for exacerbations. In the BOREAS and NOTUS trials, add-on dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) vs placebo significantly reduced exacerbation rates and improved lung function in patients with COPD and T2 inflammation. This post-hoc analysis of pooled data from BOREAS and NOTUS evaluated efficacy of dupilumab in patients stratified by baseline BEC of ≥150 cells/µL or ≥300 cells/µL. METHODS: BOREAS (NCT03930732) and NOTUS (NCT04456673), both phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, enrolled 1,874 patients (40-85 years) with COPD, moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, and T2 inflammation. The inclusion criterion was screening BEC ≥300 cells/µL (at Visit 1, 1-4 weeks before randomization). Baseline BEC was measured at day of randomization. Patients were randomized to dupilumab 300 mg or placebo q2w for 52 weeks. This analysis included patients from the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of BOREAS and NOTUS, stratified by baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL, 150-300 cells/µL or ≥300 cells/µL (at randomization). Endpoints assessed included annualized moderate-to-severe exacerbation rate, change from baseline to Week 52 in pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. RESULTS: Of 1,873 patients, 1,703 (dupilumab n = 855; placebo n = 848) had baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL, and 1,135 (dupilumab n = 573; placebo n = 562) still had baseline BEC ≥300 cells/µL. Dupilumab vs placebo reduced annualized exacerbation rates by up to 36.9%. At Week 52, dupilumab vs placebo improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 by (least squares [LS] mean difference [95% CI]) 0.07 (0.04, 0.11) L in the ITT population, 0.08 (0.04, 0.11) L in patients with baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL, and 0.09 (0.05, 0.13) L in those with baseline BEC ≥300 cells/µL. Similar results were observed for changes in post-bronchodilator FEV1. Dupilumab also reduced SGRQ total scores at Week 52 by (LS mean [95% CI]) −3.37 (−4.95, −1.78) (ITT population), −3.07 (−4.7, −1.44) (baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL), and −3.98 (−6.01, −1.95) (baseline BEC ≥300 cells/µL). Overall study safety of BOREAS and NOTUS was consistent with known dupilumab profile. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD and T2 inflammation, dupilumab reduced annualized exacerbation rates, and improved lung function and quality of life in patients in ITT and across baseline BEC of ≥150 cells/µL and ≥300 cells/µL, with slightly greater treatment effects observed in patient with higher baseline BEC.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→