Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15206989›Full record

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.

Daniel K C Lee, Kay Haggart, Graeme P Currie, Caroline E Bates, Brian J Lipworth

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Ciclesonide versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2006
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel K C LeeAsthma & Allergy Research Group, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DDI 9SY, Scotland, UK.
Kay Haggart
Graeme P Currie
Caroline E Bates
Brian J Lipworth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bronchoconstrictor AgentsMethacholine ChlorideAdministration, InhalationAndrostadienesAsthmaBronchial HyperreactivityBronchial Provocation TestsBronchodilator AgentsCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFluticasoneForced Expiratory VolumeHumansHydrocarbons, FluorinatedMaleAndrostadienesBronchoconstrictor AgentsBronchodilator AgentsciclesonideFluticasoneHydrocarbons, FluorinatedMethacholine ChloridePregnenediones

Identifiers

PMID15206989
PMCPMC1884548

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.