ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Study of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists As Controller Options for Mildly to Moderately Persistent, Stable Asthma.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAsthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways characterized by bronchoconstriction, airway hyperresponsiveness, and variable airflow limitation. This results in symptoms such as wheezing, difficulty breathing, chest tightness, chest pain, and coughing.
objectivesThe primary objective of the study is to compare the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) in improving asthma control, lung function, and quality of life in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. METHODOLOGY: This prospective comparative study was conducted at Khyber Teaching Hospital and Dow University Hospital from January 2018 to July 2021. 210 patients suffering from asthma were included in the study. Patients aged 18 years and older, diagnosed with mild to moderate persistent asthma as per Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, and requiring pharmacological intervention were included in the study. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups. Treatment efficacy was compared based on asthma control (Asthma Control Test (ACT) score), lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)), and quality of life using validated questionnaires.
resultsIn this study involving 210 patients with asthma, Group A (ICS) had a mean age of 36.23 ± 7.09 years, while Group B (LTRA) had a mean age of 35.23 ± 8.01 years. Both groups exhibited similar baseline asthma control, as indicated by ACT scores of 17.2 ± 3.5 for Group A and 16.8 ± 3.2 for Group B. Significant improvements were observed in both groups at the end of the study, with ACT scores rising to 21.8 ± 2.1 (p < 0.001) for Group A and 20.5 ± 2.5 (p < 0.001) for Group B. Additionally, lung function, measured by FEV1 and PEFR, showed similar enhancements; Group A improved from a baseline FEV1 of 2.5 ± 0.8 L to 3.2 ± 0.6 L (p < 0.01), while Group B improved from 2.4 ± 0.7 L to 3.0 ± 0.5 L. The PEFR values also increased significantly from 300 ± 50 L/min to 380 ± 40 L/min (p < 0.001) for Group A and from 290 ± 45 L/min to 360 ± 30 L/min (p < 0.001) for Group B. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with adverse events being low and comparable between the groups.
conclusionThis study reveals that both ICS and LTRA significantly improve asthma control, lung function, and quality of life in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma, with ICS showing superior efficacy. ICS led to greater improvements in ACT scores and lung function parameters, supporting its use as a more effective treatment option in this patient population.
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.