MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dupilumab Efficacy on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Exacerbations and Lung Function by Cough and Sputum Score: Pooled Results From Phase 3 BOREAS and NOTUS

2025· article· en· W4410273957 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola A. Hanania, Klaus F. Rabe, Stephanie A. Christenson, Imran Satia, Κonstantinos Porpodis, R-C Chen, Hisatoshi Sugiura, Dirk Bauer, Mena Soliman, J. Heble, A. Bansal, L.B. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDSputumLung functionPulmonary diseaseDupilumabLungInternal medicinePulmonary function testingChronic coughIntensive care medicinePathologyAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: Chronic cough and sputum production are prevalent in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are associated with increased risk of exacerbations and morbidity. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation. In BOREAS and NOTUS trials, add-on dupilumab reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. This post-hoc pooled analysis investigated dupilumab efficacy based on baseline cough and sputum scores in patients with COPD from BOREAS and NOTUS. METHODS: BOREAS (NCT03930732) and NOTUS (NCT04456673) both were phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of patients with COPD, moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, and type 2 inflammation (blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL at screening) on triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists) unless contraindicated, with investigator reported chronic cough/chronic bronchitis (emphysema not excluded). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive dupilumab 300 mg or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD tool (E-RS:COPD) was used to evaluate baseline cough and sputum scores (range 0−11, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms). Assessed endpoints included the moderate or severe exacerbation rates and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Week 12, in patients dichotomized by median baseline cough and sputum score. RESULTS: Median baseline cough and sputum score was 3.4 points. Of 1,851 patients with cough and sputum scores at baseline, 914 (dupilumab n=449; placebo n=465) had a baseline score equal to median or higher, and 937 (dupilumab n=475; placebo n=462) scored below the median. Compared with placebo, dupilumab reduced moderate or severe exacerbations by 29% (relative risk, RR [95% CI]: 0.71 [0.59, 0.87]) in patients with baseline cough and sputum score equal to median or higher, and by 33% (RR [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.54, 0.83]) in those who scored below the median. Dupilumab improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at Week 12 compared with placebo by least squares mean difference (95% CI) of 91 (51, 131) mL (baseline score equal to median or higher) and 81 (36, 125) mL (below median baseline score). CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis of BOREAS and NOTUS, dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbation rates and improved lung function compared to placebo irrespective of high or low E-RS:COPD cough and sputum score at baseline.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.019
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.307 · 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→