MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037720821

Efficacy and safety of olodaterol once daily delivered via Respimat® in patients with GOLD 2–4 COPD: results from two replicate 48-week studies

2014· other· en· W7037720821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEngineering and Agricultural Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboAdverse effectLung functionPulmonary function testingClinical trialBronchodilatorPulmonary disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gary T Ferguson,1 Gregory J Feldman,2 Peter Hofbauer,3 Alan Hamilton,4 Lisa Allen,5 Lawrence Korducki,5 Paul Sachs6 1Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Livonia, MI, 2S Carolina Pharmaceutical Research, Spartanburg, SC, USA; 3Pneumologie, Weinheim, Germany; 4Boehringer Ingelheim, Burlington, ON, Canada; 5Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ridgefield, CT, 6Pulmonary Associates of Stamford, Stamford, CT, USA Background: Olodaterol is a long-acting β2-agonist with a 24-hour bronchodilator profile. Two replicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase III trials were performed as part of a comprehensive clinical program to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of olodaterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving usual-care background therapy. Methods: Patients received olodaterol 5 µg or 10 µg or placebo once daily for 48 weeks. Coprimary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 3 hours (AUC0–3) response (change from baseline), and trough FEV1 response at 12 weeks. Secondary end points included additional lung function assessments, use of rescue medications, FEV1 AUC response from 0 to 12 hours, and Patient Global Rating over 48 weeks. Results: Overall, 624 and 642 patients were evaluated in studies 1222.11 and 1222.12, respectively. In both studies, olodaterol 5 µg and 10 µg significantly improved the FEV1 AUC0–3 response (P<0.0001) and trough FEV1 (study 1222.11, P<0.0001; study 1222.12, P<0.05, post hoc) at week 12, with an incidence of adverse events comparable with that of placebo. Secondary end points supported the efficacy of olodaterol. Conclusion: These studies demonstrate the long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily olodaterol 5 µg and 10 µg in patients with moderate to very severe COPD continuing with usual-care maintenance therapy. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchodilator, olodaterol

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designRandomized 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group)Same topicEngineering and Agricultural InnovationsFrench-language works237,207