MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415615176 · doi:10.1007/s41030-025-00327-w

Exacerbation Reduction in Patients with Asthma Following Escalation to FF/UMEC/VI from ICS/LABA: Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4415615176 on OpenAlexaff
Alan P. Baptist, Rosirene Paczkowski, Guillaume Germain, J. Klimek, François Laliberté, Robert C. Schell, Sergio Forero-Schwanhaeuser, Alison Moore, Stephen G. Noorduyn

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonary Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)Group for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyAsthmaExacerbationCohort studyAsthma exacerbationsReduction (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) being available for asthma treatment in the US (United states) since 2020, real-world evidence on its clinical and economic benefits in patients with asthma is lacking. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg and 200/62.5/25 µg) in US patients with asthma previously on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonists (ICS/LABA) using administrative claims data. Retrospective, longitudinal, pre-post study utilizing data from the Komodo Health database between 09/09/2019 and 12/31/2023. Eligible adults with asthma had been treated with ICS/LABA prior to FF/UMEC/VI initiation (index date: first FF/UMEC/VI prescription). Rates of moderate–severe exacerbations, asthma-related healthcare resource utilization, oral corticosteroid (OCS) and short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) use, and asthma-related medical costs were evaluated pre- (12 months pre-index) and post-FF/UMEC/VI initiation (12 months post-index). Statistical analyses involved rate ratios (RRs) from a Poisson regression model, odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models, and mean differences from linear regression models. Exploratory analyses stratified these results by pre-index ICS/LABA combination and FF/UMEC/VI index dose. In total, 17,959 patients were included. Following FF/UMEC/VI initiation, odds of having ≥ 1 exacerbation were reduced by 52% (OR [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.48 [0.46, 0.50]; P < 0.001), rate of moderate–severe exacerbations reduced by 38% (RR [95% CI] 0.62 [0.61, 0.64]; P < 0.001) and asthma-related hospitalizations by 25% (RR [95% CI] 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]; P < 0.001). Odds of ≥ 1 OCS dispensing were reduced by 36% (OR [95% CI] 0.64 [0.62, 0.67]; P < 0.001) and ≥ 1 SABA canister use by 54% (OR [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.44, 0.48]; P < 0.001) post initiation; mean annualized asthma-related medical costs were reduced by $1115 ([95% CI] [$ −1771, $ −459]; P < 0.001). Both FF/UMEC/VI dosage groups had similar results. In patients who remain uncontrolled despite ICS/LABA treatment, escalating to FF/UMEC/VI is associated with reductions in asthma exacerbations, asthma-related hospitalizations, OCS use, SABA use, and asthma-related medical costs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePulmonary TherapySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207