Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2004
Effects of hydrofluoroalkane formulations of ciclesonide 400 microg once daily vs fluticasone 250 microg twice daily on methacholine hyper-responsiveness in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Anti-leukotriene agents compared to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of recurrent and/or chronic asthma in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Ciclesonide versus other inhaled steroids for chronic asthma in children and adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Ciclesonide versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- Inhaled ciclesonide versus inhaled budesonide or inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled fluticasone for chronic asthma in adults: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2006Pooled it
- Methacholine challenge testing: comparative pharmacology.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2018Review
- Ciclesonide: a safe and effective inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2009Article
- Review
- Systematic Review: FDA-Approved Prescription Medications for Adults With Constipation.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2006Article
- Ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2006Article
- Ciclesonide in persistent asthma: the evidence of its therapeutic value.Core evidence · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThere are no data comparing the relative efficacy of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) formulations of ciclesonide (CIC) and fluticasone propionate (FP) on airway hyper-responsiveness, in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. We therefore elected to evaluate the comparative efficacy of HFA pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations of CIC and FP, assessing methacholine challenge, in addition to exhaled nitric oxide, lung function, diary cards and quality of life.
methodsNineteen mild-to-moderate asthmatic patients completed the study per protocol in randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover fashion. Patients were required to stop their usual inhaled corticosteroid therapy for the duration of the study. Patients were commenced instead on salmeterol (SM) 50 microg one puff twice daily + montelukast (ML) 10 mg once daily for 2-week washout periods prior to each randomized treatment, in order to prevent dropouts. Patients received 4 weeks of either CIC 200 microg two puffs once daily (08.00 h) + CIC-placebo (PL) two puffs once daily (20.00 h) + FP-PL two puffs twice daily (08.00 h and 20.00 h), or FP 125 microg two puffs twice daily (08.00 h and 20.00 h) + CIC-PL two puffs twice daily (08.00 h and 20.00 h). SM + ML were withheld for 72 h prior to post-washout visits and CIC or FP was withheld for 24 h prior to study visits.
resultsThere was no significant difference between CIC vs. FP for the primary outcome of methacholine PC20 as doubling dilution (dd) shift from respective baseline; mean difference: 0.4 dd (95% CI -0.4, 1.2). Moreover, there was no difference between treatments for the sequence of CIC first vs FP second; mean difference: 0.2 dd (95% CI -1.3, 1.7) or FP first vs CIC second; mean difference: 0.9 dd (95% CI -0.1, 1.8). There were also no differences for other secondary outcomes between treatments, either respective or irrespective of sequence, as change from baseline.
conclusionsThere were no differences between 4 weeks of CIC 400 microg once daily and FP 250 microg twice daily on methacholine hyper-responsiveness in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Longer-term studies are indicated to evaluate their relative efficacy on asthma exacerbations.
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.