Skip to main content
. 2014 Jul 16;2014(7):CD009471. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009471.pub2

Kannisto 2000.

Methods Design: single‐centre, randomised, open‐label, parallel‐group, controlled trial
Sponsor: Finnish Foundation for Pediatric Research and Kuopio University Hospital
Participants Setting: Allergy Unit of the Department of Pediatrics, Kuopio University Hospital, Finland
Eligible: not reported
Randomly assigned: 30 (fluticasone); 30 (budesonide); 15 (cromones)
Gender (male): 48%
Age, years, mean (range): 9.5 (5.5–14.7)
Inclusion criteria: children with newly diagnosed asthma who had started their first period of maintenance medication
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Previous regular use of ICS: none of the participants
Interventions Test group:
  • Fluticasone, 500 μg/d during first 2 months, 200 μg/d thereafter

  • Budesonide, 800 μg/d during first 2 months, 400 μg/d thereafter


Control group:
  • Cromones (cromolyn 30‐60 mg/d or nedocromil 12 mg/d)


Fluticasone was given via Diskus and budesonide was given via Turbuhaler, twice daily. Cromones were given via MDI with a large volume spacer or via DPI. Treatment duration was 12 months
Outcomes
  • Change in height SDS

  • Adrenal function test


Height was measured by an experienced asthma nurse using a calibrated Harpenden stadiometer
Notes Compliance was assessed by a home monitoring diary in which participants had recorded used medication doses. Compliance rate was not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk No details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No details provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No details provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No withdrawal reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Study protocol is not available, but published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified
Other bias Low risk Study appears to be free of other sources of bias