Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12917905›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Long acting beta-agonists versus theophylline for maintenance treatment of asthma.

L Shah, A J Wilson, P G Gibson, J Coughlan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The Treatment of Mild and Moderate Asthma in Adults.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Long-acting bronchodilators: time for a re-think.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2006
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

L ShahCritical Care Unit, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 1W8.
A J Wilson
P G Gibson
J Coughlan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTheophylline and long acting beta-2 agonists are bronchodilators used for the management of persistent asthma symptoms, especially nocturnal asthma. They represent different classes of drug with differing side-effect profiles.

objectivesTo assess the comparative efficacy, safety and side-effects of long-acting beta-2 agonists and theophylline in the maintenance treatment of asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group register. The register was searched using the following terms: asthma and theophylline and long acting beta-agonist or formoterol or foradile or eformoterol or salmeterol or bambuterol or bitolterol. Date of last search was April 2003. Titles and abstracts were then screened to identify potentially relevant studies. The bibliography of each RCT was searched for additional RCTs. Authors of identified RCTs were contacted for other relevant published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All included studies were RCTs involving adults and children with clinical evidence of asthma. These studies must have compared oral sustained release and/or dose adjusted theophylline with an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Potentially relevant trials, identified by screening titles and/or abstracts, were obtained. Two reviewers independently assessed full text versions of these trials to decide whether the trial should be included in the review, and assessed its methodological quality. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, this was resolved by consensus, or reference to a third party. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by simple agreement. Study authors were contacted to clarify randomisation methods, provide missing data, verify the data extracted and identify unpublished studies. Relevant pharmaceutical manufacturers were also contacted. MAIN

resultsSix trials originally met the inclusion criteria. Five used salmeterol and one, bitolterol. In an updated version of the review, six more trials were included. Four trials used salmeterol and two used formoterol. They were of varying quality. Salmeterol improved FEV1 significantly more than theophylline in five studies and salmeterol use was associated with significantly more symptom free nights in all the studies comparing these agents. Formoterol, used in two studies was reported to be as effective as theophylline. Bitolterol, used in only one study, was reported to be less effective than theophylline. Subjects taking salmeterol experienced fewer adverse events than those using theophylline (Parallel studies: Relative Risk 0.44; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.63), Risk Difference -0.11 (95%CI: -0.16 to -0.07), NNT 9 (6, 14). Significant reductions were reported for central nervous system adverse events (Relative Risk 0.50; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.29, 0.86), Risk Difference -0.07(95% CI -0.12, -0.02), NNT 14(8, 50) and gastrointestinal adverse events (Relative Risk 0.30; 95%Confidence Intervals 0.17, 0.55), Risk Difference -0.11(-0.16, -0.06), NNT 9(6, 16). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsLong-acting beta-2 agonists are at least as effective than theophylline in reducing asthma symptoms including night waking and improving lung function. Fewer adverse events occurred in subjects using long-acting beta-2 agonists(salmeterol and formoterol) as compared to theophylline.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AgonistsAdultAlbuterolAsthmaBronchodilator AgentsDelayed-Action PreparationsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTheophyllineAdrenergic beta-AgonistsAlbuterolBronchodilator AgentsDelayed-Action PreparationsTheophylline

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.