ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020
Nebulized step-down budesonide vs. fluticasone in infantile asthma: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved budesonide in infantile asthma but nebulization of infants under budesonide has the risk of relapse of asthma. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of fluticasone step-down treatment with budesonide step-down treatment in infantile asthma. The data of 778 infants with confirmed asthma were included in the analysis. Infants who had received nebulized 500 µg budesonide twice daily for 6 weeks followed by 250 µg budesonide twice daily for 6 weeks were included in the BS group (n=389), while infants who had received nebulized 250 µg fluticasone twice daily for 6 weeks followed by 125 µg fluticasone twice daily for 6 weeks were included in the FC group (n=389). The data of lung function tests and a safety study were collected and analyzed. Budesonide treatment achieved a reduced specific airway resistance (sRaw; 1.28±0.11 vs. 1.21±0.10 kPa/sec; P<0.0001, q=13.45) and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1; 0.977±0.068 vs. 0.997±0.085 l/sec; P<0.0001, q=5.54). In addition, fluticasone treatment achieved a reduced sRaw (1.27±0.1 vs. 1.23±0.11 kPa/sec, P<0.0001, q=7.39) and improved FEV1 (0.971±0.069 vs. 0.992±0.085 l/sec; P=0.0003, q=5.46). Of note, the efficacy of budesonide to reduce sRaw (P=0.008, q=3.69) and improve FEV1 (P<0.0001, q=6.93) was greater than that of fluticasone. The budesonide treatment group had more post-treatment symptom-free days than the fluticasone treatment group (165.56±23.15 vs. 112.21±9.45 days; P<0.0001). The step-down approach of budesonide nebulization may better support the functional and clinical outcomes with an increased number of post-treatment symptom-free days compared with fluticasone in infantile asthma (level of evidence, 3).
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.