MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335632779 · doi:10.4172/2155-6121.1000155

Should we Substitute Intermittent for Maintenance Inhaled Corticosteroids in Patients with Persistent Asthma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2013· review· en· W2335632779 on OpenAlexaff
Bhupendrasinh F Chauhan, Caroline Chartrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Allergy & Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaInhaled corticosteroidsMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewOmicsMEDLINEBioinformaticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although guidelines recommend maintenance inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in mild persistent asthma, most patients use, and many physicians prescribe, intermittent ICS.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of maintenance versus intermittent ICS in children and adults with persistent asthma and to explore potential effect modifiers attributable to either strategy. Methods:We searched the literature using: the Cochrane airways group specialized register of trials and ClinicalTrials.govwebsite until October 2012.All randomized controlled trials, at least of four-week duration, comparing maintenance and intermittent ICS initiated at the onset of exacerbations.The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids and serious adverse events, respectively.Secondary outcomes included exacerbations, asthma control, lung function, airway inflammation, withdrawals, and adverse events.Results: Six (4 pediatric; 2 adult) trials involving 1211 patients with mild persistent asthma met the eligibility criteria; they lasted 12-52 weeks.There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.87, 1.32).The response magnitude was not influenced by age, asthma severity, step-up protocol, and intervention duration.Maintenance ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of symptoms, ß2-agonist use, lung function, and airway inflammation.There was no group difference in the risk of patients with serious adverse events (RR=0.82;95% CI 0.33, 2.03).In children, maintenance ICS was associated with less linear growth (MD=0.4195% CI 0.13, 0.69) over 44-52 weeks.Conclusions: In children and adults with persistent asthma, maintenance and intermittent ICS strategies did not significantly differ in the risk of patients experiencing exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids and severe adverse events; however the wide confidence interval precludes equivalence.Maintenance ICS was superior to intermittent ICS in several indicators of lung function, airway inflammation, asthma control and reliever use.The paucity of trials prevents firm conclusions.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.018
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Allergy & TherapySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207