Skoner 2011.
Methods | DESIGN: a phase III, multi‐centre, randomised, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, double‐blind, long‐term safety study | |
Participants | SYMPTOMATIC PARTICIPANTS RANDOMLY ASSIGNED: N = 92 ANALYSED: N = 66 INTERVENTION: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg/d): 48 CONTROL: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg twice daily): 44 WITHDRAWALS: reported AGE: mean (range) years INTERVENTION: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg/d): 6.4 (4‐9) CONTROL: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg twice daily): 6.3 (4‐9) GENDER: male N (%) INTERVENTION: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg/d): 34 (70.8) CONTROL: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg twice daily): 28 (63.6) ASTHMA SEVERITY: persistent asthma; severity not reported ASTHMA DURATION: mean (range) years INTERVENTION: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg/d): 3.8 (0.67‐8.0) CONTROL: ICS (mometasone furoate 100 μg twice daily): 4.0 (0.83‐9.0) MEAN (± SD) β2‐AGONIST USE (puffs/d): not reported DOSE OF ICS AT STUDY ENTRY AND AT RUN‐IN: washout period of 3 months 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: Analyses were done using a longitudinal random slope (LRS) model, an individual regression (IR) model and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) by extracting sources of variation due to treatment, age and gender OUTCOMES GROWTH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE: Growth velocity was determined from heights measured by a Harpenden stadiometer during the 52‐week treatment period PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS: This study was not designed to evaluate efficacy measures PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS
FUNCTIONAL STATUS
BIOMARKERS
ADVERSE EVENTS: reported WITHDRAWALS: reported |
|
Notes | PUBLICATION: full paper (2011) FUNDING: supported by Merck & Co, Inc CONFIRMATION OF METHODOLOGY: not received |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information on sequence generation; randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to different comparison groups |
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 |