SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002
Inhaled fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Add-on therapy options in asthma not adequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids: a comprehensive review.Respiratory research · 2004Pooled it
- Trends in the use of inhaled corticosteroids for childhood asthma in New Zealand.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma.
objectives1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes in studies that compared inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. 2. To test for the presence of a dose response effect. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register (1999) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997-1999). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager 4.0.3 with Metaview 3.1. MAIN
results20 studies (>6000 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was high. In non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild-moderate disease, a dose response effect was present for morning PEF; when comparing low doses (200 vs 100 mcg/d) Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 6 L/min, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1, 10 L/min; medium-low dose (400-500 vs 100 mcg/d), WMD 8 L/min, 95%CI 1,15 L/min); and high vs low dose (800-1000 vs 50-100 mcg/d), WMD 22 L/min 95% CI 15,29 L/min). There was no dose response in symptoms or rescue beta2 agonist use. Hoarseness and oral Candidiasis was significantly higher with 800-1000 mcg/d than 50-100 mcg/d. In oral steroid dependent disease gain 2000 mcg/d had a greater effect than 1000-1500 mcg/d in likelihood of stopping prednisolone (Peto Odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3, 6.3) and reduced daily prednisolone dose (WMD 2.0 mg/d, 95% CI 0.1, 4.0 mg/d). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsEffects of fluticasone are dose dependent but relatively small. Patients with mild to moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on low doses of fluticasone (200 mcg/d or less) as they do on high doses (500 mcg/d or greater). In oral corticosteroid dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 mcg/d.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11869675What 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.