Shapiro 1998.
Methods | DESIGN: randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, multi‐centre study | |
Participants | SYMPTOMATIC PARTICIPANTS RANDOMLY ASSIGNED: N = 202 ANALYSED: N = 74 INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 100 μg/d): 102 CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 200 μg/d): 100 WITHDRAWALS: reported AGE: mean (range) years INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 100 μg/d): 11.8 (6‐18) CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 200 μg/d): 12.1 (6‐18) GENDER: male N (%) INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 100 μg/d): 76 (74.5) CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 200 μg/d): 76 (76) ASTHMA SEVERITY: moderate to severe persistent asthma ASTHMA DURATION: duration of ICS‐dependent asthma: mean (range) years INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 100 μg/d): 2.8 (0.5‐11) CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 200 μg/d): 2.5 (0.5‐13) MEAN (± SD) β2‐AGONIST USE (puffs/d): INTERVENTION: ICS (budesonide 100 μg/d): 2.8 CONTROL: ICS (budesonide 200 μg/day): 3.1 DOSE OF ICS AT STUDY ENTRY AND AT RUN‐IN: Participants discontinued their previous ICS at randomisation ATOPY (% of participants): not reported ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
|
Interventions | PROTOCOL DURATION
DEVICE: dry powder inhaler DOSE OF ICS
CRITERIA FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY: reported |
|
Outcomes | ANALYSIS: done by analysis of variance. Poportion of patients who discontinued enrolment in the study was compared between treatment groups by using the Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel statistic OUTCOMES GROWTH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE: not reported PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS
FUNCTIONAL STATUS
BIOMARKERS: before randomisation and after 12 weeks of treatment
ADVERSE EVENTS: reported WITHDRAWALS: reported |
|
Notes | PUBLICATION: full paper (1998) FUNDING: supported by a grant from Astra, USA CONFIRMATION OF METHODOLOGY: data received from Symbicort and Established Respiratory Brands, AstraZeneca R&D, Mölndal, Sweden |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information on sequence generation |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No missing outcome data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Study protocol not available but published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified |
Other bias | Low risk | Study apparently free of other sources of bias |