MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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

2025· article· en· W4410274611 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolás Roche, Ian Pavord, Frank C. Sciurba, Jean Bourbeau, Jeff Min, Stefanie Kolterer, Bhabita Mayer, Stephen E. Gould, Fernando Betancourt Martínez

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
KeywordsMedicineMepolizumabRandomized controlled trialCOPDPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis and initiation of therapy are frequently delayed, which may cause chronic inflammation resulting in irreversible lung damage, limiting treatment efficacy. MATINEE assessed the efficacy of mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody specifically targeting interleukin-5, a central type 2 inflammatory cytokine, in patients with COPD with a wide spectrum of airflow obstruction and disease duration. Post hoc analyses were performed to determine whether previous disease duration is associated with treatment response. Methods: MATINEE (NCT04133909) was a Phase III randomized, parallel-group trial in patients with COPD, a history of recurrent moderate or severe exacerbations, and screening blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells/µL. Patients were randomized 1:1 to mepolizumab 100 mg, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52-104 weeks, or placebo, in addition to background inhaled triple therapy. Subgroups were defined by median time since COPD diagnosis (<9/≥9 years). We report the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (‘moderate’: treated with systemic corticosteroids and/or antibiotics; ‘severe’: requiring hospitalization ≥24 hours or resulting in death), exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visit and/or hospitalization, time to first exacerbation, and proportion of responders at Week 52 in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ; ≥4-point improvement) and COPD assessment test (CAT; ≥2-unit improvement). Results: Of 804 randomized and treated patients (403 mepolizumab), 375 had <9 years (182 mepolizumab) and 429 had ≥9 years (221 mepolizumab) COPD duration. Annualized rates of moderate/severe exacerbations were lower with mepolizumab than placebo by 19% in the <9 years (rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.81 [0.62, 1.06]) and 24% in the ≥9 years subgroups (0.76 [0.60, 0.97]). Rates of exacerbations requiring ED visit and/or hospitalization were lower with mepolizumab than placebo, particularly in the ≥9 years subgroup (0.55 [0.32, 0.93]) compared with the <9 years subgroup (0.87 [0.49, 1.54]). The probability of experiencing a moderate/severe exacerbation by Week 104 was also lower with mepolizumab than placebo in both subgroups. The proportion of SGRQ responders (odds ratio [95% CI]) for mepolizumab versus placebo was 55% versus 47% in the <9 years (1.31 [0.85, 2.02]) and 46% versus 44% in the ≥9 years subgroup (1.08 [0.72, 1.61]); the proportion of CAT responders was similar between mepolizumab and placebo (Table). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, mepolizumab reduced exacerbation rates versus placebo, regardless of time since COPD diagnosis.Further data are needed to confirm if prompt treatment with mepolizumab results in better patient-reported outcomes.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNon-randomized 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→