AIRLEAF <sup>®</sup> –a study of verducatib as a new kind of treatment for bronchiectasis: a plain language summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plain Language SummaryWhat is this summary about?This plain language summary describes the key findings from a recent study of adults with a lung disease called bronchiectasis.What is bronchiectasis?Bronchiectasis is the third most common lung disease worldwide, and the number of people with the disease is growing. People with bronchiectasis have significantly reduced quality of life, and disease flare-ups in bronchiectasis (also known as exacerbations) are linked to an increased chance of the disease getting worse.What happened in the AIRLEAF® study?The AIRLEAF® study looked at a potential new bronchiectasis treatment called BI 1291583, which is now known as ‘verducatib’. In AIRLEAF®, 322 adults with bronchiectasis took part in the study. In order to be eligible to participate in the study, the adults who participated in AIRLEAF® had to have experienced at least two exacerbations that needed treatment with antibiotics in the year before they were enrolled in the study, or one exacerbation that needed treatment with antibiotics in the year before they were enrolled in the study as well as a high symptom burden. People were given either verducatib in one of three amounts (a low, medium, or high dose) or a placebo, taken as a pill (swallowed by mouth). A placebo looks like the study treatment but does not contain active ingredients. The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of verducatib when given to adults with bronchiectasis. The investigators also aimed to find out which dose of the study treatment would be most effective for people with bronchiectasis.What were the results?Researchers found that treatment with verducatib reduced the risk of people experiencing disease flare-ups, also known as exacerbations. People who took verducatib also had improved lung function, better quality of life, and spent less time on antibiotic treatment throughout the study period. The medium dose of verducatib was the most effective dose. Overall, the adverse events were similar between people who received verducatib and placebo.What do the results mean?The favorable results from the AIRLEAF® study mean that verducatib can be further investigated. A larger study called AIRTIVITY™, which is investigating the effectiveness and safety of verducatib in people with bronchiectasis, began in 2025.How to say (download PDF and double click sound icon to play sound)…Aeruginosa: ay-ruh-jih-noh-suhBronchiectasis: bronk-ee-ek-tuh-sisCathepsin: kuh-thep-sinDipeptidyl peptidase: di-pep-tih-dul pep-tid-azeProtease: pro-tee-azeThis is an abstract of the Plain Language Summary of Publication article.View the full Plain Language Summary PDF of this article to read the full-textLink to original article hereTrial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05238675.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".