SynthesisAllergy and asthma proceedings
Stepping down from inhaled corticosteroids with leukotriene inhibitors in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Allergy and asthma proceedings. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antileukotrienes in upper airway inflammatory diseases.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2015Review
- Disorders for which the allergist-immunologist is particularly well-qualified to treat.Allergy and asthma proceedingsArticle
- Addressing the challenges of severe asthma.Allergy and asthma proceedingsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe risks of using leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) as part of a strategy for stepping down inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are not well known.
objectiveTo estimate the risk of asthma exacerbation in individuals with stable asthma who start LTRA when stopping ICS or reducing ICS dose.
methodsWe identified articles from a systematic review of English and non-English articles by using a number of data bases. We included randomized controlled trials with a stable asthma run-in period of 4 weeks or more and a follow-up period of at least 3 months. We included studies of individuals with stable asthma who stopped ICS and substituted LTRA (versus continuing ICS) and who reduced ICS while starting LTRA (versus placebo).
resultsThe search strategy identified 1132 potential articles, of which 52 were reviewed at the full-text level, and four met criteria for inclusion. The single article that met the inclusion criteria for substitution of LTRA for ICS as a step-down strategy found a statistically increased risk of treatment failure of 30.3% for substituting LTRA compared with 20.2% for continuing ICS. The three articles that met the inclusion criteria for comparing LTRA versus placebo in patients with stable asthma who reduce ICS found a modestly decreased risk ratio that favored LTRA of 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.90; I(2) = 0%) in studies that only included individuals >15 years old.
conclusionOnly one study addressed the risk of substitution of LTRA for ICS in stable asthma, which limited any strong conclusions about this step-down strategy.
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.