Mepolizumab for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps across the United States: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Retrospective data are limited on the effectiveness of mepolizumab treatment that is reflective of real-world practice in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Objective: We evaluated changes in administration of nasal polyp (NP)-related oral corticosteroids (OCS) and other treatments, exacerbations, sinus surgeries, NP-related health care resource utilization, and costs before and after mepolizumab initiation in patients with CRSwNP. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Komodo Research database included adults with CRSwNP, without severe asthma, initiating mepolizumab therapy on or after July 29, 2021 (index date), with 12 months of continuous health care enrollment before index and ≥6 months after index. Treatment with reslizumab, benralizumab, or tezepelumab during the study period was excluded. Outcomes were compared pre- versus post-mepolizumab initiation for the overall population and on-label subgroup analysis. Results: < .001). Conclusion: In this first retrospective mepolizumab study for patients with CRSwNP without severe asthma, improvements in all outcomes were observed after mepolizumab initiation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".