Search

While Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) research has at its core the desire to support student learning, experience from other AI domains suggest that such ethical intentions are not by themselves sufficient. There is also the need to consider explicitly issues such as fairness, accountability, transparency, bias, autonomy, agency, and inclusion. At a more general level, there is also a need to differentiate between doing ethical things and doing things ethically, to understand and to make pedagogical choices that are ethical, and to account for the ever-present possibility of unintended consequences. However, addressing these and related questions is far from trivial. As a first step towards addressing this critical gap, we invited 60 of the AIED community’s leading researchers to respond to a survey of questions about ethics and the application of AI in educational contexts. In this paper, we first introduce issues around the ethics of AI in education. Next, we summarise the contributions of the 17 respondents, and discuss the complex issues that they raised. Specific outcomes include the recognition that most AIED researchers are not trained to tackle the emerging ethical questions. A well-designed framework for engaging with ethics of AIED that combined a multidisciplinary approach and a set of robust guidelines seems vital in this context.

While Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) research has at its core the desire to support student learning, experience from other AI domains suggest that such ethical intentions are not by themselves sufficient. There is also the need to consider explicitly issues such as fairness, accountability, transparency, bias, autonomy, agency, and inclusion. At a more general level, there is also a need to differentiate between doing ethical things and doing things ethically, to understand and to make pedagogical choices that are ethical, and to account for the ever-present possibility of unintended consequences. However, addressing these and related questions is far from trivial. As a first step towards addressing this critical gap, we invited 60 of the AIED community’s leading researchers to respond to a survey of questions about ethics and the application of AI in educational contexts. In this paper, we first introduce issues around the ethics of AI in education. Next, we summarise the contributions of the 17 respondents, and discuss the complex issues that they raised. Specific outcomes include the recognition that most AIED researchers are not trained to tackle the emerging ethical questions. A well-designed framework for engaging with ethics of AIED that combined a multidisciplinary approach and a set of robust guidelines seems vital in this context.

Background and purpose: Nitrous oxide misuse is a recognized issue worldwide. Prolonged misuse inactivates vitamin B12, causing a myeloneuropathy. Method(s): Twenty patients presenting between 2016 and 2020 to tertiary hospitals in Sydney with myeloneuropathy due to nitrous oxide misuse were reviewed. Result(s): The average age was 24 years, and mean canister consumption was 148 per day for 9 months. At presentation, paresthesias and gait unsteadiness were common, and seven patients were bedbound. Mean serum B12 was normal (258 pmol/L, normal range [NR] = 140-750) as was active B12 (87 pmol/L, normal > 35). In contrast, mean serum homocysteine was high (51 mumol/L, NR = 5-15). Spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed characteristic dorsal column T2 hyperintensities in all 20 patients. Nerve conduction studies showed a predominantly axonal sensorimotor neuropathy (n = 5). Patients were treated with intramuscular vitamin B12, with variable functional recovery. Three of the seven patients who were bedbound at presentation were able to walk again with an aid at discharge. Of eight patients with follow-up data, most had persistent paresthesias and/or sensory ataxia. Mobility scores at admission and discharge were not significantly correlated with the serum total and active B12 levels or cumulative nitrous oxide use. There were no significant trends between serum active B12 level and cumulative nitrous oxide use (Spearman rho = -0.331, p = 0.195). Conclusion(s): Nitrous oxide misuse can cause a severe but potentially reversible subacute myeloneuropathy. Serum and active B12 can be normal, while elevated homocysteine and dorsal column high T2 signal on MRI strongly suggest the diagnosis. Neurological deficits can improve with abstinence and B12 supplementation, even in the most severely affected patients.Copyright © 2021 European Academy of Neurology.

Background and purpose: Nitrous oxide misuse is a recognized issue worldwide. Prolonged misuse inactivates vitamin B12, causing a myeloneuropathy. Method(s): Twenty patients presenting between 2016 and 2020 to tertiary hospitals in Sydney with myeloneuropathy due to nitrous oxide misuse were reviewed. Result(s): The average age was 24 years, and mean canister consumption was 148 per day for 9 months. At presentation, paresthesias and gait unsteadiness were common, and seven patients were bedbound. Mean serum B12 was normal (258 pmol/L, normal range [NR] = 140-750) as was active B12 (87 pmol/L, normal > 35). In contrast, mean serum homocysteine was high (51 mumol/L, NR = 5-15). Spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed characteristic dorsal column T2 hyperintensities in all 20 patients. Nerve conduction studies showed a predominantly axonal sensorimotor neuropathy (n = 5). Patients were treated with intramuscular vitamin B12, with variable functional recovery. Three of the seven patients who were bedbound at presentation were able to walk again with an aid at discharge. Of eight patients with follow-up data, most had persistent paresthesias and/or sensory ataxia. Mobility scores at admission and discharge were not significantly correlated with the serum total and active B12 levels or cumulative nitrous oxide use. There were no significant trends between serum active B12 level and cumulative nitrous oxide use (Spearman rho = -0.331, p = 0.195). Conclusion(s): Nitrous oxide misuse can cause a severe but potentially reversible subacute myeloneuropathy. Serum and active B12 can be normal, while elevated homocysteine and dorsal column high T2 signal on MRI strongly suggest the diagnosis. Neurological deficits can improve with abstinence and B12 supplementation, even in the most severely affected patients.Copyright © 2021 European Academy of Neurology.

BACKGROUND: Decisions around planned ultrafiltration volumes are the only part of the haemodialysis prescription decided upon at every session. Removing too much fluid or too little is associated with both acute symptoms and long-term outcomes. The degree to which patients engage with or influence decision-making is not clear. We explored patient perspectives of prescribing ultrafiltration volumes, their understanding of the process and engagement with it. METHODS: A questionnaire developed for this study was administered to 1077 patients across 10 UK Renal Units. Factor analysis reduced the dataset into factors representing common themes. Relationships between survey results and factors were investigated using regression models. ANCOVA was used to explore differences between Renal Units. RESULTS: Patients generally felt in control of their fluid management and that they were given the final say on planned ultrafiltration volumes. Around half of the respondents reported they take an active role in their treatment. However, respondents were largely unable to relate signs and symptoms to fluid management practice and a third said they would not report common signs and symptoms to clinicians. A fifth of patients reported not to know how ultrafiltration volumes were calculated. Patients responded positively to questions relating to healthcare staff, though with significant variation between units, highlighting differences in perception of care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of formal acknowledgement in fluid management protocols, patients have significant involvement in decisions regarding fluid removal during dialysis. Furthermore, substantial gaps remain in patient knowledge and engagement. Formalizing the role of patients in these decisions, including patient education, may improve prescription and achievement of target weights.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community‐sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive‐specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community‐sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive‐specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches. Plain Language Summary Standardizing the way data are described and shared is key to accelerating the progress of science. Building on recent advances in paleoceanography and paleoclimatology, we present the first community‐led reporting standard for such datasets. The Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (P

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community‐sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive‐specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community‐sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive‐specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community‐sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate datasets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive‐specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new vs. legacy datasets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate datasets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path towards implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches.

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community‐sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive‐specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom‐up and top‐down approaches. Plain Language Summary Standardizing the way data are described and shared is key to accelerating the progress of science. Building on recent advances in paleoceanography and paleoclimatology, we present the first community‐led reporting standard for such datasets. The Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (P

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches. ©2019. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

BackgroundCOPD patients have a great burden of comorbidity. However, it is not well established whether this is due to shared risk factors such as smoking, if they impact patients exercise capacity and quality of life, or whether there are racial disparities in their impact on COPD.MethodsWe analyzed data from 10,192 current and ex-smokers with (cases) and without COPD (controls) from the COPDGene® cohort to establish risk for COPD comorbidities adjusted for pertinent covariates. In adjusted models, we examined comorbidities prevalence and impact in African-Americans (AA) and Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW).ResultsComorbidities are more common in COPD compared to those with normal spirometry (controls), and the risk persists after adjustments for covariates including pack-years smoked. After adjustment for confounders, eight conditions were independently associated with worse exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnea. There were racial disparities in the impact of comorbidities on exercise capacity, dyspnea and quality of life, presence of osteoarthritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease having a greater negative impact on all three outcomes in AAs than NHWs (p<0.05 for all interaction terms).ConclusionsIndividuals with COPD have a higher risk for comorbidities than controls, an important finding shown for the first time comprehensively after accounting for confounders. Individual comorbidities are associated with worse exercise capacity, quality of life, and dyspnea, in African-Americans compared to non-Hispanic Whites.

ContextNo consensus exists for adjusting inhaled corticosteroid therapy in patients with asthma. Approaches include adjustment at outpatient visits guided by physician assessment of asthma control (symptoms, rescue therapy, pulmonary function), based on exhaled nitric oxide, or on a day-to-day basis guided by symptoms.ObjectiveTo determine if adjustment of inhaled corticosteroid therapy based on exhaled nitric oxide or day-to-day symptoms is superior to guideline-informed, physician assessment-based adjustment in preventing treatment failure in adults with mild to moderate asthma.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized, parallel, 3-group, placebo-controlled, multiply-blinded trial of 342 adults with mild to moderate asthma controlled by low-dose inhaled corticosteroid therapy (n = 114 assigned to physician assessment-based adjustment [101 completed], n = 115 to biomarker-based [exhaled nitric oxide] adjustment [92 completed], and n = 113 to symptom-based adjustment [97 completed]), the Best Adjustment Strategy for Asthma in the Long Term (BASALT) trial was conducted by the Asthma Clinical Research Network at 10 academic medical centers in the United States for 9 months between June 2007 and July 2010.InterventionsFor physician assessment-based adjustment and biomarker-based (exhaled nitric oxide) adjustment, the dose of inhaled corticosteroids was adjusted every 6 weeks; for symptom-based adjustment, inhaled corticosteroids were taken with each albuterol rescue use.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome was time to treatment failure.ResultsThere were no significant differences in time to treatment failure. The 9-month Kaplan-Meier failure rates were 22% (97.5% CI, 14%-33%; 24 events) for physician assessment-based adjustment, 20% (97.5% CI, 13%-30%; 21 events) for biomarker-based adjustment, and 15% (97.5% CI, 9%-25%; 16 events) for symptom-based adjustment. The hazard ratio for physician assessment-based adjustment vs biomarker-based adjustment was 1.2 (97.5

Methods are developed for different audiences and purposes. HCI researchers develop methods to shape the future through pure, applied and blue sky research – as is still the case with most affective interactive applications. Unsurprisingly, practitioners will be more concerned that the methods they use not only are tractable but produce better and more innovative results in terms of the systems they ultimately release into the world. Researchers, on the other hand, may have other concerns, such as the novelty of their techniques. Up until recently, most HCI methods (both for researchers and practitioners) were developed for work applications and desktop situations. They focused on efficiency, learnability, transparency, control and other work-related values. They were developed in response to a theoretical orientation which viewed the user as an information processing system not so dissimilar to the computer itself. But now that HCI is concerned with technologies that enter all aspects of life, our methods have begun to change and will need to continue to change. In keeping with our changing conception of what a “user” is and a wider concern with their experience of use of new technologies, a key challenge will be to develop and expand methods for analyzing not just what people do with the technology but how it makes them feel, and not just how people understand technology but how they make sense of it as part of their lives. Methods must be concerned, not only with issues of usefulness and usability, but also with issues of aesthetics, expression, and emotion. In addition we need to focus on evaluating technology not just in the short term under controlled conditions but also in the longer term and in broader social and cultural contexts. In this section, we will therefore provide two strands of evaluation methods. The first concerns what we might see as more traditional usability evaluation: is my system usable for the purpose it was designed for? The second stran, QC 20220212

The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor, CRTH2, plays a role in allergic airway inflammation. The efficacy of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, was assessed in 2 separate trials in patients with asthma, in either the absence or the presence of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. In this study, BI 671800 (50, 200 or 400 mg) and fluticasone propionate (220 mg) all given twice daily (bid) were compared with bid placebo in symptomatic controller-naïve adults with asthma (Trial 1), and BI 671800 400 mg bid compared with montelukast 10 mg once daily (qd), and matching placebo bid, in patients with asthma receiving inhaled fluticasone (88 mg bid) (Trial 2). The primary endpoint in both trials was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted. After 6 weeks' treatment, adjusted mean treatment differences (SE) for the primary endpoint compared with placebo in Trial 1 were 3.08% (1.65%), 3.59% (1.60%) and 3.98% (1.64%) for BI 671800 50, 200 and 400 mg bid, respectively, and 8.62% (1.68%) for fluticasone 220 mg bid (p ¼ 0.0311, p ¼ 0.0126, p ¼ 0.0078 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In Trial 2, adjusted mean FEV1 (SE) treatment differences compared with placebo were 3.87% (1.49%) for BI 671800 400 mg bid and 2.37% (1.57%) for montelukast (p ¼ 0.0050 and p ¼ 0.0657, respectively). These findings suggest that BI 671800 is associated with a small improvement in FEV1 in symptomatic controller-naïve asthma patients, and in patients on ICS.

The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor, CRTH2, plays a role in allergic airway inflammation. The efficacy of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, was assessed in 2 separate trials in patients with asthma, in either the absence or the presence of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. In this study, BI 671800 (50, 200 or 400 mg) and fluticasone propionate (220 mg) all given twice daily (bid) were compared with bid placebo in symptomatic controller-naïve adults with asthma (Trial 1), and BI 671800 400 mg bid compared with montelukast 10 mg once daily (qd), and matching placebo bid, in patients with asthma receiving inhaled fluticasone (88 mg bid) (Trial 2). The primary endpoint in both trials was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted. After 6 weeks' treatment, adjusted mean treatment differences (SE) for the primary endpoint compared with placebo in Trial 1 were 3.08% (1.65%), 3.59% (1.60%) and 3.98% (1.64%) for BI 671800 50, 200 and 400 mg bid, respectively, and 8.62% (1.68%) for fluticasone 220 mg bid (p ¼ 0.0311, p ¼ 0.0126, p ¼ 0.0078 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In Trial 2, adjusted mean FEV1 (SE) treatment differences compared with placebo were 3.87% (1.49%) for BI 671800 400 mg bid and 2.37% (1.57%) for montelukast (p ¼ 0.0050 and p ¼ 0.0657, respectively). These findings suggest that BI 671800 is associated with a small improvement in FEV1 in symptomatic controller-naïve asthma patients, and in patients on ICS.

The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor, CRTH2, plays a role in allergic airway inflammation. The efficacy of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, was assessed in 2 separate trials in patients with asthma, in either the absence or the presence of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. In this study, BI 671800 (50, 200 or 400 mg) and fluticasone propionate (220 mg) all given twice daily (bid) were compared with bid placebo in symptomatic controller-naïve adults with asthma (Trial 1), and BI 671800 400 mg bid compared with montelukast 10 mg once daily (qd), and matching placebo bid, in patients with asthma receiving inhaled fluticasone (88 mg bid) (Trial 2). The primary endpoint in both trials was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted. After 6 weeks' treatment, adjusted mean treatment differences (SE) for the primary endpoint compared with placebo in Trial 1 were 3.08% (1.65%), 3.59% (1.60%) and 3.98% (1.64%) for BI 671800 50, 200 and 400 mg bid, respectively, and 8.62% (1.68%) for fluticasone 220 mg bid (p ¼ 0.0311, p ¼ 0.0126, p ¼ 0.0078 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In Trial 2, adjusted mean FEV1 (SE) treatment differences compared with placebo were 3.87% (1.49%) for BI 671800 400 mg bid and 2.37% (1.57%) for montelukast (p ¼ 0.0050 and p ¼ 0.0657, respectively). These findings suggest that BI 671800 is associated with a small improvement in FEV1 in symptomatic controller-naïve asthma patients, and in patients on ICS.

The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor, CRTH2, plays a role in allergic airway inflammation. The efficacy of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, was assessed in 2 separate trials in patients with asthma, in either the absence or the presence of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. In this study, BI 671800 (50, 200 or 400 mg) and fluticasone propionate (220 mg) all given twice daily (bid) were compared with bid placebo in symptomatic controller-naïve adults with asthma (Trial 1), and BI 671800 400 mg bid compared with montelukast 10 mg once daily (qd), and matching placebo bid, in patients with asthma receiving inhaled fluticasone (88 mg bid) (Trial 2). The primary endpoint in both trials was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted. After 6 weeks' treatment, adjusted mean treatment differences (SE) for the primary endpoint compared with placebo in Trial 1 were 3.08% (1.65%), 3.59% (1.60%) and 3.98% (1.64%) for BI 671800 50, 200 and 400 mg bid, respectively, and 8.62% (1.68%) for fluticasone 220 mg bid (p ¼ 0.0311, p ¼ 0.0126, p ¼ 0.0078 and p < 0.0001, respectively). In Trial 2, adjusted mean FEV1 (SE) treatment differences compared with placebo were 3.87% (1.49%) for BI 671800 400 mg bid and 2.37% (1.57%) for montelukast (p ¼ 0.0050 and p ¼ 0.0657, respectively). These findings suggest that BI 671800 is associated with a small improvement in FEV1 in symptomatic controller-naïve asthma patients, and in patients on ICS.