Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Classification and regression trees to identify COPD subgroups in clinical trial populations: insights from the IMPACT trial.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02164513 (A Phase III, 52 Week, Randomized, Double-blind, 3-arm Parallel Group Study, Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of the Fixed Dose Triple Combination FF/UMEC/VI With the Fixed Dose Dual Combinations of FF/VI and UMEC/VI, All Administered Once-daily in the Morning Via a Dry Powder Inhaler in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase III, 52 Week, Randomized, Double-blind, 3-arm Parallel Group Study, Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of the Fixed Dose Triple Combination FF/UMEC/VI With the Fixed Dose Dual Combinations of FF/VI and UMEC/VI, All Administered Once-daily in the Morning Via a Dry Powder Inhaler in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeterogeneity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) challenges the identification of optimal treatment populations. Subgroups derived from real-life cohorts using classification and regression trees (CARTs) have shown prognostic value for mortality, but their applicability to clinical trial populations to predict treatment response needs to be further investigated. We sought to evaluate whether previously identified CART-based subgroups are relevant for predicting outcomes and treatment response in the IMPACT trial, and to assess the stability of these subgroups using de novo clustering.
methodsPost-hoc analysis of the IMPACT trial, a randomized controlled trial comparing inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing dual or triple therapy to dual long-acting bronchodilation in patients with COPD. CART-based classification from prior real-life cohorts was applied to trial participants. Additionally, de novo clustering was performed using factor analysis of mixed data to identify alternative subgroup structures. Outcomes included mortality, exacerbation rates, lung function, dyspnea, and health status. Subgroups were compared descriptively in terms of baseline characteristics and on-treatment outcomes, with particular attention to blood eosinophil count and treatment response.
resultsAmong 10,355 patients, both CART-based (5 classes) and de novo (5 clusters) classifications identified subgroups with distinct baseline profiles and variable on-treatment outcomes. Exacerbation and mortality rates differed markedly across subgroups, with numerically greater differences between treatment arms in higher-risk groups. Most clusters showed heterogeneous patterns of outcomes, while one cluster, characterized by elevated blood eosinophils (median 930/mm³), showed a numerically lower exacerbation rate with triple versus dual bronchodilation. Improvements in lung function and symptom scores were also more pronounced in this group. Despite limited concordance between the two methods, both consistently identified subgroups with higher event rates and greater numerical separation between treatment arms, supporting their potential value for clinical trial enrichment and personalized treatment strategies.
conclusionsApplication of a CART-based classification derived from real-life cohorts to a clinical trial population revealed subgroups with distinct baseline characteristics and differential treatment outcomes. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating, and may inform future work on trial enrichment strategies and personalized approaches to COPD management.
trial registrationThe IMPACT trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT02164513, first submitted on 12 June 2014.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.