Trial reportChinese medical journal2015
Efficacy of add-on montelukast in nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis: the additive effect on airway inflammation, cough and life quality.
Trial report in Chinese medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of treatment with montelukast alone, budesonide/formoterol alone and a combination of both in cough variant asthma.Respiratory research · 2022Trial
- Duration of treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis: a randomized open label trial.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseTrial
- Article
- 2019 ERS cough guideline: consensus and controversy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Article
- KAAACI Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Cough in Adults and Children in Korea.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2018Review
- Effect of montelukast on the expression of CD4Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Non-astmatic Eosinophilic Bronchitis.Turkish thoracic journal · 2018Review
- Combating cough.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of montelukast (MONT), a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist, in nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (NAEB), especially its influence on cough associated life quality is still indefinite. We evaluated the efficacy of MONT combined with budesonide (BUD) as compared to BUD monotherapy in improving life quality, suppressing airway eosinophilia and cough remission in NAEB.
methodsA prospective, open-labeled, multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients with NAEB (aged 18-75 years) were randomized to inhaled BUD (200 μg, bid) or BUD plus oral MONT (10 μg, qn) for 4 weeks. Leicester cough questionnaire (LCQ) life quality scores, cough visual analog scale (CVAS) scores, eosinophil differential ratio (Eos), and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in induced sputum were monitored and compared.
resultsThe control and MONT groups contained 33 and 32 patients, respectively, with similar baseline characteristics. Significant with-in group improvement in CVAS, LCQ scores, Eos, and ECP was observed in both groups during treatment. After 2-week treatment, add-on treatment of MONT was significantly more effective than BUD monotherapy for CVAS decrease and LCQ scores improvement (both P < 0.05). Similar results were seen at 4-week assessment (both P < 0.05). 4-week add-on therapy of MONT also resulted in a higher percentage of patients with normal sputum Eos (<2.5%) and greater decrease of ECP (both P < 0.05).
conclusionsMONT combined with BUD was demonstrated cooperative effects in improvement of life quality, suppression of eosinophilic inflammation, and cough remission in patients with NAEB.
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.