MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990894138 · doi:10.1002/ebch.540

Cochrane Review: Addition of long‐acting beta‐agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

2010· article· en· W1990894138 on OpenAlexaff
Muireann Ní Chróinín, Toby J Lasserson, Ilana Greenstone, Francine M. Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaInhaled corticosteroidsAdverse effectInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Long‐acting ß2‐ agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children. Objectives To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008). Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals. Data collection and analysis Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. Main results A total of 25 trials representing 31 control‐intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS: (1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV1 at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV1 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom‐free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA. (2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV1 was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV1, symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7). Authors' conclusions In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined. Plain Language Summary Addition of long‐acting beta‐agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children Most consensus statements recommend the use of long‐acting ß2‐agonists (LABA) as adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for poorly controlled asthma. The purpose of this review was to identify the benefits and safety profile of adding long‐acting ß2‐agonists to inhaled corticosteroids in asthmatic children. Based on the identified paediatric randomised trials, the addition of long‐acting ß2‐agonists did not significantly reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic steroids, but improved lung function compared to ongoing treatment with a similar dose of inhaled corticosteroids. There was no evidence of increased serious side effects or withdrawals with the addition of long‐acting ß2‐agonists. Compared to doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids, the combination of LABA and inhaled steroids did not lead to a significant reduction in the rate of moderate exacerbations or hospital admissions, but it improved lung function and lead to greater growth.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207