MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

M15 Dupilumab efficacy across baseline eosinophil counts in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with type 2 inflammation

2025· article· W4416134471 on OpenAlexaff
SA Christenson, FC Sciurba, C. Franz Vogelmeier, Marc Miravitlles, John R. Hurst, Fuqiang Wen, FJ Martinez, Paramita Saha‐Chaudhuri, Mena Soliman, J. Heble

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDupilumabExacerbationPlaceboCOPDEosinophilClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialPost-hoc analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Objectives Type 2 inflammation (indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts [BEC]) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often correlates with higher exacerbation risk. In BOREAS and NOTUS, dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbation rates and improved lung function. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. This post hoc analysis evaluated dupilumab efficacy in patients, grouped by baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL or ≥300 cells/µL. Methods BOREAS (NCT03930732) and NOTUS (NCT04456673), phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, enrolled 1,874 patients (40–85 years) with COPD, moderate-to-severe airflow limitation, and type 2 inflammation (screening BEC ≥300 cells/µL). Patients were randomized to dupilumab 300 mg or placebo q2w for 52 weeks. Baseline BEC for subgroups was measured at randomization. This analysis included patients from the intention-to-treat population, grouped by baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL, or ≥300 cells/µL. Endpoints assessed included annualized moderate or severe exacerbation rate, change from baseline to Week 52 in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS): COPD total scores. Data are shown as least squares mean difference vs placebo (95% CI) at Week 52, unless stated otherwise. Results Of 1,874 patients, 1,703 (dupilumab n=855; placebo n=848) had baseline BEC ≥150 cells/µL, and 1,135 (dupilumab n=573; placebo n=562) had baseline BEC ≥300 cells/µL. Dupilumab reduced annualized exacerbation rates vs placebo by 36.9% (BEC ≥150 cells/µL) and 35.8% (BEC ≥300 cells/µL). Dupilumab improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 by 76 mL (42, 110; BEC ≥150 cells/µL) and 92 mL (51, 133; BEC ≥300 cells/µL) and reduced patient-reported SGRQ scores at Week 52 by −3.1 points (−4.7, −1.4; BEC ≥150 cells/µL) and −4.0 points (−6.0, −1.9; BEC ≥300 cells/µL), as well as ERS:COPD scores by −1.0 point (−1.5, −0.4; BEC ≥150 cells/µL) and −1.0 point (−1.7, −0.4;BEC ≥300 cells/µL). Conclusions In patients with COPD and type 2 inflammation, dupilumab reduced annualized exacerbation rates and symptom burden, and improved lung function and quality of life, with greater treatment effects observed in those patients with higher baseline BEC.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→