MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Mepolizumab is Efficacious in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Regardless of Airflow Obstruction Level: Post Hoc Analysis of the MATINEE Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410273806 on OpenAlexaff
Moon‐Ku Han, David Halpin, Jean Bourbeau, Jeff Min, Stefanie Kolterer, Bhabita Mayer, Surya Prakash Bhatt

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMepolizumabCOPDPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: There is limited evidence on the clinical efficacy of biologics in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and very severe airflow obstruction (GOLD grade 4). MATINEE assessed the efficacy of mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody specifically targeting interleukin-5, in patients with COPD and postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤80% and >20%. Methods: MATINEE (NCT04133909) was a Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that enrolled patients with COPD, a history of recurrent moderate or severe exacerbations, and screening blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/µL. Patients aged ≥40 years were randomized 1:1 to mepolizumab 100 mg, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52-104 weeks, or placebo, in addition to optimal inhaled triple therapy (dual long-acting bronchodilators plus inhaled corticosteroid [fluticasone propionate ≥500 μg/day or equivalent]). Airflow obstruction was categorized based on postbronchodilator FEV1 at screening, defined by GOLD guidelines (Table). Here we report on the prespecified subgroup analysis of the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (‘moderate’: treated with systemic corticosteroids and/or antibiotics; ‘severe’: requiring hospitalization ≥24 hours or resulting in death), alongside post hoc subgroup analysis of exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visit and/or hospitalization, Week 52 change from baseline and proportion of responders in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ; ‘response’: ≥4-point improvement). Results: Airflow obstruction distribution by GOLD severity grade at screening was: 349 moderate (168 mepolizumab/181 placebo); 340 severe (180/160); 110 very severe (53/57). The annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations was lower with mepolizumab versus placebo, with the greatest difference of 27% observed in the severe subgroup (rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.73 [0.57, 0.94]; Table). Exacerbations requiring ED visit and/or hospitalization were 32% (0.68 [0.40, 1.17]) and 31% (0.69 [0.26, 1.86]) lower with mepolizumab versus placebo in the severe and very severe subgroups, respectively (Table). At Week 52, SGRQ total score had numerically decreased from baseline across all airflow categories and treatment arms, with mepolizumab demonstrating greater reductions versus placebo in the moderate and severe subgroups (Table). The proportion of SGRQ responders favored mepolizumab versus placebo in the moderate airflow category only, with 58% higher response odds (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.58 [1.01, 2.48]); there were no notable differences in the other subgroups (Table). Conclusions: Mepolizumab improved exacerbation rates in patients with COPD across GOLD grades 2, 3, and 4. Greatest SGRQ score improvements were observed in patients with GOLD grade 2 compared with 3 and 4.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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→