MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of Dupilumab on Type 2 Inflammatory Biomarkers in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

2025· article· en· W4410268611 on OpenAlexaff
Devraj Singh, I.D. Pavord, John R. Hurst, Simon Couillard, Mona Bafadhel, Sanjay Ramakrishnan, Xin Lu, Ashish Bansal, L.B. Robinson, 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 institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDDupilumabPulmonary diseaseDiseaseImmunologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: Up to 40% of patients with COPD have type 2 inflammation, indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody, blocks interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. In the BOREAS and NOTUS trials, dupilumab significantly reduced moderate or severe exacerbations and improved lung function in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation. Safety was generally consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. This post hoc analysis of pooled data assessed the impact of dupilumab on type 2 biomarkers in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation. METHODS: BOREAS (NCT03930732) and NOTUS (NCT04456673), both phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, enrolled 1,874 patients (aged 40 to 85 years) with COPD, moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, and type 2 inflammation (blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/L at screening). Patients were treated with dupilumab 300 mg (n = 938) or placebo (n = 936) every 2 weeks. Endpoints assessed included change from baseline to Week 52 in blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and IgE levels in the intention-to-treat population. All data are shown as median (Q1 to Q3). RESULTS: Baseline blood eosinophil counts were 340.0 (240.0 to 460.0) cells/μL for patients receiving dupilumab and 330.0 (230.0 to 460.0) for those on placebo. By Week 52, similar median change from baseline in blood eosinophil count was observed in the dupilumab group (−40 [-160 to 80] cells/μL [14% decrease]) and in the placebo group (-40 [-140 to 50] cells/µL [11% decrease]). Patients receiving dupilumab had baseline FeNO of 17.0 (10.0 to 29.0) ppb and those on placebo 16.0 (10.0 to 30.0) ppb. By Week 52, median change from baseline in FeNO was -3 (-13 to 10) ppb (23.3% decrease) in the dupilumab group and 0 (-7 to 4) ppb (no change) in the placebo group. Baseline IgE levels were 126.5 (46.1 to 423.0) IU/mL for patients on dupilumab and 123.0 (40.2 to 347.0) for those on placebo. Median change from baseline to Week 52 in IgE levels in dupilumab recipients was -77 (-255 to -20) IU/mL (65% decrease) and in placebo was -2 (-39 to 21) IU/mL (4% decrease). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, treatment with dupilumab resulted in reductions in type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, including serum IgE and FeNO levels over time; blood eosinophil counts remained stable, consistent with the known mechanism of action of dupilumab.

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)0.002
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.304 · 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→