Summary of findings 2. Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1) for chronic asthma in children.
| Ciclesonide versus fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1) for chronic asthma in children | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with chronic asthma in children Settings: all settings Intervention: ciclesonide Comparison: fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Fluticasone (dose ratio 1:1) | Ciclesonide | |||||
| Asthma symptoms Asthma symptom score (scale 0 to 4) Follow‐up: 12 weeks | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 1468 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | 2 studies used a 5‐point scale and 1 study did not provide details how asthma symptoms were measured. Data could not be pooled due to diversity in scales |
| Patients with exacerbations Number of patients with exacerbations Follow‐up: 12 weeks | 18 per 1000 | 24 per 1000 (10 to 57) | RR 1.37 (0.58 to 3.21) | 1003 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
| Adverse events Number of patients with adverse events Follow‐up: 12 weeks | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 1560 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | Adverse events were defined differently across studies therefore results could not be pooled |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Two fully published studies were sponsored by the manufacturer and at least one of the authors of each study was an employee of the manufacturer that sponsored the study. 2 The intervention period of 12 weeks is too short to expect any major changes in this outcome. 3 Confidence intervals of estimated effect include no effect and exceed a relative reduction or increase risk of 25%.