Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27272563›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids for exacerbations of chronic asthma in adults and children.

Kayleigh M Kew, Michael Quinn, Bradley S Quon, Francine M Ducharme

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Viral Infection and Airway Epithelial Immunity in Asthma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Management of Children with Acute Asthma Attack: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Inhaled corticosteroids for the prevention of asthma exacerbations.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Bringing asthma care into the twenty-first century.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Defective lung function following influenza virus is due to prolonged, reversible hyaluronan synthesis.Matrix biology : journal of the International Society for Matrix Biology · 2019
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. A Practical Approach to Severe Asthma in Children.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kayleigh M KewPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 0RE.
Michael Quinn
Bradley S Quon
Francine M Ducharme
St George's, University of London · GBUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with asthma may experience exacerbations or "attacks" during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans may advocate doubling the dose of inhaled steroids in the early stages of an asthma exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.

objectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as part of a patient-initiated action plan for home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to March 2016. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared increased versus stable doses of ICS for home management of asthma exacerbations. We included studies of children or adults with persistent asthma who were receiving daily maintenance ICS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality and extracted data. We contacted authors of RCTs for additional information. MAIN

resultsThis review update added three new studies including 419 participants to the review. In total, we identified eight RCTs, most of which were at low risk of bias, involving 1669 participants with mild to moderate asthma. We included three paediatric (n = 422) and five adult (n = 1247) studies; six were parallel-group trials and two had a cross-over design. All but one study followed participants for six months to one year. Allowed maintenance doses of ICS varied in adult and paediatric studies, as did use of concomitant medications and doses of ICS initiated during exacerbations. Investigators gave participants a study inhaler containing additional ICS or placebo to be started as part of an action plan for treatment of exacerbations.The odds of treatment failure, defined as the need for oral corticosteroids, were not significantly reduced among those randomised to increased ICS compared with those taking their usual stable maintenance dose (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.18; participants = 1520; studies = 7). When we analysed only people who actually took their study inhaler for an exacerbation, we found much variation between study results but the evidence did not show a significant benefit of increasing ICS dose (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; participants = 766; studies = 7). The odds of having an unscheduled physician visit (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.41; participants = 931; studies = 3) or acute visit (Peto OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.98; participants = 450; studies = 3) were not significantly reduced by an increased versus stable dose of ICS, and evidence was insufficient to permit assessment of impact on the duration of exacerbation; our ability to draw conclusions from these outcomes was limited by the number of studies reporting these events and by the number of events included in the analyses. The odds of serious events (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; participants = 394; studies = 2) and non-serious events, such as oral irritation, headaches and changes in appetite (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; participants = 142; studies = 2), were neither increased nor decreased significantly by increased versus stable doses of ICS during an exacerbation. Too few studies are available to allow firm conclusions on the basis of subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, doses used, smoking history and the fold increase of ICS on the magnitude of effect; yet, effect size appears similar in children and adults. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCurrent evidence does not support increasing the dose of ICS as part of a self initiated action plan to treat exacerbations in adults and children with mild to moderate asthma. Increased ICS dose is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of requiring rescue oral corticosteroids for the exacerbation, or of having adverse events, compared with a stable ICS dose. Wide confidence intervals for several outcomes mean we cannot rule out possible benefits of this approach.

Indexed as

Adrenal Cortex HormonesAdultAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaBeclomethasoneChildChronic DiseaseDisease ProgressionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdrenal Cortex HormonesAnti-Asthmatic AgentsBeclomethasone

Identifiers

PMID27272563
PMCPMC8504985
OpenAlexW1960462149

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.