ArticleDrugs2011
Long-acting β-agonists in asthma management: what is the current status?
Article in Drugs, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The practical understanding and treatment of asthma.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2012Article
- Poor asthma education and medication compliance are associated with increased emergency department visits by asthmatic children.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large surveillance studies or phase IV clinical studies of long-acting β-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo in asthma patients using variable (from nil to regular) doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have raised the issue of mortality risk in patients with asthma taking regular LABA. There have been a number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that have examined the risk of LABA in asthma patients, and the general conclusion is that LABA added to ICS reduces asthma-related hospitalizations compared with ICS alone and there is no statistical increase in mortality. However, LABA without ICS do increase mortality risk in asthma. All reviews and analyses show a greater number of LABA deaths, but not all are statistically significant. A recent meta-analysis found LABA with concomitant ICS had a higher mortality rate in asthma than ICS alone. The flaw in the study is the higher doses of ICS in the control arms, but the implicit message remains: the essential need for enough ICS to control airway inflammation. We suggest that the pragmatic solution is to have LABA only available in the same device as ICS for asthma treatment. We do not think that a study comparing the safety of LABA plus ICS versus ICS alone in asthma is necessary. If such a study is conducted, the measurement of morbidity from increased doses of ICS is an essential design consideration. Furthermore, the critical focus in asthma management should not be forgotten - education of health professionals and the community of the critical role of ICS, and the need for good communication between health professionals and the asthma patient to facilitate good asthma control. The same arguments apply to the asthma-with-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome in older patients. There is an urgent need to provide medical practitioners with the capability to diagnose the overlap syndrome.
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.