ArticleWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2021
Treatment of pediatric mild persistent asthma with low-dose budesonide inhalation suspension vs. montelukast in China.
Article in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence study of montelukast sodium oral soluble film and chewable tablet in healthy Chinese volunteers: randomized trials under fasting and fed conditions.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Management of Preschool Wheezing: Guideline from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited studies comparing budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) with montelukast in real-world settings where treatment adherence and persistency may be suboptimal. This real-world study aims to investigate the control effectiveness of montelukast or BIS as a monotherapy in Chinese children with mild asthma.
methodsData were derived from a retrospective questionnaire-based analysis of 2‒14-year-old children with mild persistent asthma, who received either 500 µg of BIS (n = 153) or 4‒5 mg of montelukast (n = 240) once daily. The indicators of asthma control, the Asthma Control Test (ACT)/Childhood ACT (C-ACT) score, and the asthma-related medical costs were assessed. The differences between the two groups were compared using an unpaired t-test (normally distributed), Mann-Whitney U test (non-normally distributed) or chi-squared test (categorical variables).
resultsMedication compliance in the past 3-month period was better in the montelukast group than in the BIS group (P = 0.042). The montelukast group exhibited better asthma control in the past 4-week period, including lower percentages of asthmatic children with symptoms more than twice a week (P = 0.021), had night waking or night coughing (P = 0.022), or required reliever medication more than twice a week (P < 0.001). The montelukast group had a lower percentage of children with an ACT/C-ACT score ≤ 19 (P = 0.015). Caregivers reported a significantly better exercise tolerance in the children who received montelukast vs. BIS in the past 12 months (P < 0.001). Significantly higher medical expenditures attributable to asthma in the past 12 months were observed in the BIS group vs. montelukast group (P < 0.001).
conclusionBoth treatments provided acceptable overall asthma control in children with mild persistent asthma; however, more reliever medication and more medical expenditures attributable to asthma were needed for BIS vs. montelukast in real-world settings, where factors such as compliance were also taken into account.
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.