MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993800650 · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7353.1545

Anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to inhaled glucocorticoids in patients with asthma: systematic review of current evidence

2002· review· en· W1993800650 on OpenAlexaff
FM Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaPlaceboGlucocorticoidRelative riskInhalationRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalClinical trialInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives: To examine the evidence for the efficacy and glucocorticoid sparing effect of oral anti-leukotrienes taken daily as add-on therapy to inhaled glucocorticoids in patients with asthma. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of children and adults with asthma comparing the addition of anti-leukotrienes or placebo to inhaled glucocorticoids. Main outcome measures: The rate of exacerbations of asthma requiring rescue systemic glucocorticoids when the intervention was compared to the same or double dose of inhaled glucocorticoids, and the glucocorticoid sparing effect when the intervention was aimed at tapering the glucocorticoid. Results: Of 376 citations, 13 were included: 12 in adult patients and one in children. The addition of licensed doses of anti-leukotrienes to inhaled glucocorticoids resulted in a non-significant reduction in the risk of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (two trials; relative risk 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.05). No trials comparing the use of anti-leukotrienes with double the dose of inhaled glucocorticoids could be pooled. The use of anti-leukotrienes resulted in no overall group difference in the lowest achieved dose of inhaled glucocorticoids (three trials; weighted mean difference −44.43 μg/day, −147.87 to 59.02: random effect model) but was associated with a reduction in withdrawals owing to poor asthma control (four trials; relative risk 0.56, 0.35 to 0.89). Conclusions: The addition of anti-leukotrienes to inhaled glucocorticoids may modestly improve asthma control compared with inhaled glucocorticoids alone but this strategy cannot be recommended as a substitute for increasing the dose of inhaled glucocorticoids. The addition of anti-leukotrienes is possibly associated with superior asthma control after tapering of glucocorticoids, but the glucocorticoids sparing effect cannot be quantified at present. What is already known on this topic Anti-leukotrienes are increasingly being used as add-on therapy to inhaled glucocorticoids No systematic review of randomised controlled trials has examined the evidence to support this treatment strategy What this study adds There is a shortage of relevant trials testing anti-leukotrienes at licensed doses as add-on therapy to inhaled glucocorticoids in patients, particularly children

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations81
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207