MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Mepolizumab Reduces the Risk of Severe Exacerbations and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results from the MATINEE Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410273674 on OpenAlexaff
Gerard J. Criner, H Watz, Frank C. Sciurba, Erika Penz, Mona Bafadhel, Jeff Min, Stefanie Kolterer, Bhabita Mayer, Fernando Betancourt Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCOPDMepolizumabPhysical therapyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and raised blood eosinophil counts (BEC) experience more frequent and severe exacerbations, which can lead to increased healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and mortality. Mepolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody specifically targeting interleukin-5, a central cytokine in type 2 inflammation. Methods: The MATINEE (NCT04133909) Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial enrolled patients with COPD, BEC ≥300 cells/µL at screening, and a history of exacerbations despite receiving optimal inhaled triple therapy (dual long-acting bronchodilators plus inhaled corticosteroid [fluticasone propionate ≥500 μg/day or equivalent]). Patients ≥40 years of age were randomized 1:1 to mepolizumab 100 mg administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52-104 weeks versus placebo, in addition to optimal inhaled triple therapy. This secondary analysis reports the time to first severe exacerbation (requiring hospitalization ≥24 hours or resulting in death) and to first exacerbation leading to emergency department (ED) visit and/or hospitalization, alongside the annualized rates and proportions of patients experiencing ≥1 of such exacerbations, and post hoc patient-reported HCRU, all up to Week 104. Results: Overall, 804 patients were randomized and treated (403 mepolizumab/401 placebo). Numerically lower proportions of mepolizumab-treated patients versus placebo experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation (11% vs 15%) and ≥1 exacerbation requiring ED visit and/or hospitalization (14% vs 18%; Table) by Week 104. With mepolizumab, compared with placebo, the annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 34% lower, alongside a 35% lower rate in exacerbations requiring ED visit and/or hospitalization (rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.66 [0.43, 1.01] and 0.65 [0.43, 0.96], respectively). The risk of experiencing a first severe exacerbation over 104 weeks was 26% lower with mepolizumab versus placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.74 [0.50, 1.08]), alongside a 27% lower risk of a first exacerbation leading to ED visit and/or hospitalization (0.73 [0.51, 1.04]). Patient-reported HCRU resulting from exacerbations by Week 104 was similar in mepolizumab- and placebo-treated patients, as illustrated by the number of exacerbations requiring ED visits (11% vs 15%), urgent care/outpatient clinic visits (6% vs 6%), general ward admissions (12% vs 12%), and intensive care admissions (5% vs 4%). Mepolizumab-treated patients experienced lower mean resource utilization per exacerbation in ED visits, urgent care/outpatient clinic visits, and days in intensive care (Table). Conclusions: Mepolizumab as add-on treatment to optimal triple therapy may help prevent severe exacerbations and reduce subsequent healthcare burden in patients with COPD, compared with placebo.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designRandomized trial
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→