ReviewERJ open research2015
Revisiting early intervention in adult asthma.
Review in ERJ open research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Easier Biologic Access with Remission and Other Clinical Outcomes in Severe Asthma: A Global Real-World Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
- Budesonide Attains Its Wide Clinical Profile by Alternative Kinetics.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Systemic and local cytokine profile and risk factors for persistent allergic airway inflammation in patients sensitised to house dust mite allergens.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Review
- Two Sides of the Same Coin?-Treatment of Chronic Asthma in Children and Adults.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Review
- What We Know to Date About Early Treatment With Biologics in Severe Asthma: A Scoping Review About the Use of Biologics in Severe Asthma and Possible Parallels With Early Rheumatoid Arthritis.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term "early intervention" with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma is used in different ways, thereby causing confusion and misinterpretation of data. We propose that the term should be reserved for start of ICS therapy in patients with a diagnosis of asthma but within a short period of time after the first symptoms, not from the date of diagnosis. Prospective clinical studies suggest a time frame of 2 years for the term "early" from the onset of symptoms to starting anti-inflammatory treatment with ICS. The current literature supports early intervention with ICS for all patients with asthma including patients with mild disease, who often have normal or near-normal lung function. This approach reduces symptoms rapidly and allows patients to achieve early asthma control. Later introduction of ICS therapy may not reduce effectiveness in terms of lung function but delays asthma control and exposes patients to unnecessary morbidity. Results of nationwide intervention programmes support the early use of ICS, as it significantly minimises the disease burden. Acute asthma exacerbations are usually preceded by progressing symptoms and lung function decline over a period of 1-2 weeks. Treatment with an increased dose of ICS together with a rapid- and long-acting inhaled β
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.