ArticleERJ open research2024
Real-world use of inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol as needed in adults with mild asthma: the PRIME study.
Article in ERJ open research, 2024. 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.
- As-needed inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: from evidence to implementation.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Reconsidering the overuse of short-acting βERJ open research · 2025Article
- Anti-inflammatory reliever therapy (AIR) for asthma.ERJ open research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Inhaled corticosteroid/formoterol fumarate (ICS/FF) as needed is recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) as sole therapy in adults with mild asthma, with low-dose maintenance ICS plus short-acting β Methods: Adults with asthma receiving low-dose maintenance ICS, or as needed ICS/FF or SABA were followed for 6 months. Data collected included Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire 5-item (ACQ-5), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV Results: The study was conducted in 883 patients in Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain; 833 (94.3%) completed follow-up. At enrolment, 32.2% received maintenance ICS, 56.3% ICS/FF as needed and 11.6% SABA as needed; 57.4%, 61.2% and 54.9%, respectively, had well-controlled asthma (ACQ-5/ACT definition). After 6 months, changes in mean FEV Conclusions: More patients received ICS/FF as needed than SABA as needed, suggesting that physicians are aware of the latest treatment recommendations. This real-world study provides additional support to the use of ICS/FF as needed as preferred treatment for patients with mild asthma, whereas SABA as needed was associated with a fall in lung function and more severe exacerbations.
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.