Trial reportCanadian respiratory journal
Effects of a short course of inhaled corticosteroids in noneosinophilic asthmatic subjects.
Trial report in Canadian respiratory journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subtype prevalence and treatment implication in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2025Article
- Article
- Novel approaches to the management of noneosinophilic asthma.Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoneosinophilic asthma has been regarded as a distinct phenotype characterized by a poor response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
objectiveTo determine whether noneosinophilic, steroid-naive asthmatic subjects show an improvement in asthma control, asthma symptoms and spirometry after four weeks of treatment with ICS, and whether they further benefit from the addition of a long-acting beta-2 agonists to ICS.
methodsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study comparing the efficacy of placebo versus inhaled fluticasone propionate 250 mcg twice daily for four weeks in mildly uncontrolled, steroid-naive asthmatic subjects with a sputum eosinophil count of 2% or less. This was followed by an open-label, four-week treatment period with fluticasone propionate 250 mcg⁄salmeterol 50 mcg, twice daily for all subjects.
resultsAfter four weeks of double-blind treatment, there was a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in the mean (± SD) Asthma Control Questionnaire score in the ICS-treated group (n = 6) (decrease of 1.0 ± 0.5) compared with the placebo group (n = 6) (decrease of 0.09 ± 0.4) (P = 0.008). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s declined in the placebo group (-0.2 ± 0.2 L) and did not change in the ICS group (0.04 ± 0.1 L) after four weeks of treatment (P = 0.02). The open-label treatment with fluticasone propionate 250 mcg⁄salmeterol 50 mcg did not produce additional improvements in those who were previously treated for four weeks with inhaled fluticasone alone.
conclusionA clinically important and statistically significant response to ICS was observed in mildly uncontrolled noneosinophilic asthmatic subjects.
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.