Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106238›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

High dose versus low dose inhaled corticosteroid as initial starting dose for asthma in adults and children.

H Powell, P G Gibson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Ciclesonide versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Inhaled corticosteroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: what is their role in therapy?International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Asthma control in adults.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H Powell
P G Gibson
John Hunter Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInhaled corticosteroids (ICS) form the basis of maintenance therapy in asthma and their efficacy is well established. However, the optimal starting dose of ICS is not clearly established. Recent reviews demonstrate a relatively flat efficacy curve for ICS and increasing side effects with increasing ICS doses. High doses are frequently prescribed and there are now reports of significant side effects occurring with high dose ICS use. These issues demonstrate the need to establish the optimal starting dose of ICS in asthma.

objectivesTo establish the optimal starting dose of ICS by evaluating the efficacy of initial high dose ICS with low dose ICS in subjects with asthma, not currently on ICS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: January 2003 SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of two different doses of the same ICS in adults and children with asthma with no concomitant ICS or OCS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. Trials were analysed according to the following ICS dose comparisons: step down vs constant dose ICS (n=7); high vs moderate (n=11); high vs low (n=9); moderate vs low (n=11); fold change in dose (all studies). MAIN

results31 papers reporting the results of 26 trials were included in the review. For studies that compared a step down approach to a constant moderate/low ICS dose, there were no significant differences in lung function, symptoms, rescue medications or asthma control between the two treatment approaches. Significant but clinically small improvements in percent predicted FEV(1) ( WMD 5.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.99) and non significant improvements in the change in morning PEF were found for high dose ICS compared to moderate dose ICS. There were no significant differences in efficacy between high and low dose ICS. For moderate dose ICS, compared to low dose ICS, there were significant improvements in the change in morning PEF l/min from baseline (WMD 11.14, 95% CI 1.34 to 20.93) and nocturnal symptoms (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.06 ). Commencing ICS at double or quadruple a base moderate or low dose had no greater effect than commencing with the base dose. Several studies reported greater improvement in airway hyperresponsiveness for high dose ICS. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsFor patients with asthma who require ICS, commencing with a moderate dose ICS is equivalent to commencing with a high dose ICS and down-titrating. The small significant benefits of commencing with a high ICS dose are not of sufficient clinical benefit to warrant its use when compared to moderate or low dose ICS. Initial moderate ICS dose appears to be more effective than initial low ICS dose. High dose ICS may be more effective than moderate or low dose ICS for airway hyperresponsiveness. There is no benefit in doubling or quadrupling ICS in subjects with stable asthma.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAdultAndrostadienesAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaBeclomethasoneBudesonideChildFluticasoneHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAndrostadienesAnti-Asthmatic AgentsBeclomethasoneBudesonideFluticasone

Identifiers

PMID15106238
PMCPMC6482394
OpenAlexW2104742123

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.