MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Use of Systemic Corticosteroids and Antibiotics in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Type 2 Inflammation Receiving Dupilumab

2025· article· en· W4410274349 on OpenAlexaff
Mona Bafadhel, A. Anzueto, Jean Bourbeau, Alberto Papi, Surya Prakash Bhatt, Stephanie Korn, Imran Satia, Fernando J. Martínez, Gaëtan Deslée, C. Xia, J. Heble, Mena Soliman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary diseaseDupilumabSystemic inflammationAntibioticsInflammationDiseaseImmunologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: A subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have type 2 inflammation. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, blocks interleukins 4 and 13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation. In BOREAS and NOTUS, add-on dupilumab vs placebo reduced moderate or severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation (screening blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL). Systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and antibiotics are often prescribed together for relief of COPD exacerbations. Long-duration or repeat treatment with SCS is associated with adverse and serious adverse events. This post hoc analysis pooled data from the BOREAS and NOTUS trials to evaluate whether dupilumab reduced the burden of SCS and antibiotic use, compared with placebo, in patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation. METHODS: BOREAS (NCT03930732) and NOTUS (NCT04456673) were phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in which patients with COPD, moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, and type 2 inflammation, on triple therapy, were randomized to dupilumab 300 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks. This analysis evaluated SCS and antibiotic use for patients in the intention-to-treat population with ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation within 1 year prior to baseline or during the 52-week treatment period. RESULTS: For patients with ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation within 1 year prior to baseline (dupilumab: n = 937; placebo n = 936), the annualized total SCS intake duration (mean [SD]) was 17.5 (25.2) and 21.9 (33.8) days for dupilumab and placebo (P = 0.05), respectively, and annualized total antibiotic intake duration (mean [SD]) was 24.6 (55.3) and 26.9 (56.8) days for dupilumab and placebo (P = 0.56), respectively. For patients with ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation during the 52-week treatment period (dupilumab: n = 338; placebo: n = 394), annualized total SCS intake duration (mean [SD]) was 16.1 (22.1) and 22.2 (34.1) days for dupilumab and placebo (P = 0.008), respectively, and annualized total antibiotic intake duration (mean [SD]) was 23.0 (49.2) and 24.8 (49.4) days for dupilumab and placebo (P = 0.67), respectively. Safety of dupilumab was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: In BOREAS and NOTUS, dupilumab vs placebo reduced exacerbation events and decreased the cumulative number of days exposed to SCS or antibiotic, despite differences in exacerbation clinical treatment practices and regardless of whether patients exacerbated during or within the year prior to the study period.

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)0.004
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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→