A Comparison of Inhaled Fluticasone and Oral Prednisone for Children with Severe Acute Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are effective in the treatment of children with asthma. It is uncertain how inhaled corticosteroids compare with oral corticosteroids in the management of severe acute disease. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, randomized trial involving 100 children five years of age or older who had severe acute asthma (indicated by a forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] that was less than 60 percent of the predicted value) and in whom the results could be evaluated. All were treated with an aggressive bronchodilator regimen and received one dose of either 2 mg of inhaled fluticasone through a metered-dose inhaler with a spacer or 2 mg of oral prednisone per kilogram of body weight. They were assessed hourly for up to four hours. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) base-line FEV1 as a percentage of the predicted value was 46.3+/-12.5 in the fluticasone group (51 subjects) and 43.9+/-9.9 in the prednisone group (49 subjects). The FEV1 increased by a mean of 9.4+/-12.5 percentage points in the fluticasone group and by 18.9+/-9.8 percentage points in the prednisone group four hours after therapy (P< 0.001). None of the children in the prednisone group had a reduction in FEV1 as a percentage of the predicted value from base line to four hours, as compared with 25 percent of those in the fluticasone group (P<0.001). Sixteen (31 percent) of the children treated with fluticasone were hospitalized, as compared with five (10 percent) of those treated with prednisone (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Children with severe acute asthma should be treated with oral prednisone and not with inhaled fluticasone or a similar inhaled corticosteroid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".