Skip to main content
. 2014 Jul 16;2014(7):CD009878. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009878.pub2

Sorkness 2007.

Methods DESIGN: randomised, double‐blind, multi‐centre, parallel‐group study
Participants SYMPTOMATIC PARTICIPANTS
RANDOMLY ASSIGNED: N = 190
ANALYSED: N = 190
INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone/salmeterol 100/50 μg/d): 96
CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 94
WITHDRAWALS: reported
AGE: mean (SD) years
INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone/salmeterol 100/50 μg/d): 9.8(2.2)
CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 10.3 (2.1)
GENDER: male N (%)
INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone/salmeterol(100/50 μg/d): 96
CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 94
ASTHMA SEVERITY: mild to moderate persistent asthma
ASTHMA DURATION: mean (range) years
INTERVENTION: ICS (fluticasone/salmeterol 100/50 μg/d): 96
CONTROL: ICS (fluticasone 200 μg/d): 94
MEAN (± SD) β2‐AGONIST USE (puffs/d):
DOSE OF ICS AT STUDY ENTRY AND AT RUN‐IN:
ATOPY (% of participants): 78%
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
  • Physician‐diagnosed asthma, age 6 to younger than 14 years

  • Ability to perform reproducible spirometry

  • FEV1 (measured more than 4 hours since the most recent use of a bronchodilator) 80% predicted normal at screening and 70% predicted normal at randomisation

  • Methacholine FEV1 PC20 12.5 mg/mL.

  • All children had mild to moderate persistent asthma, as defined by diary‐reported symptoms or beta‐agonist use (not including pre‐exercise) or peak flows < 80% calculated from the mean of morning and evening peak flows obtained during the final week of the run‐in period, on average at least 3 times per week


EXCLUSION CRITERIA
  • Other lung diseases; respiratory tract infection, asthma exacerbation or systemic corticosteroid use within 4 weeks

  • 2 or more asthma hospitalisations in the past year

  • History of a life‐threatening asthma exacerbation

  • 4 courses of systemic corticosteroids in the past year

  • Cigarette smoking within the past year

  • Pregnancy or lactation

  • Failure to practice abstinence or to use a medically acceptable birth control method

  • History of adverse reactions to the PACT medications

Interventions PROTOCOL
DURATION
  • Run‐in = 2 to 4 weeks

  • Intervention = 48 weeks (1 year)


DEVICE: Diskus (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC)
DOSE OF ICS
  • INTERVENTION: fluticasone 100 + salmeterol 50 μg/d

  • CONTROL: fluticasone 200 μg/d


CRITERIA FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY:
Outcomes ANALYSIS: Primary analysis of asthma control days consisted of the 3 pair‐wise comparisons by ANOVA with post hoc pair‐wise comparisons of group means
OUTCOMES
GROWTH MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUE: Height was measured using the calibrated stadiometer
PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS
  • Percentage predicted FEV1

  • FEV1/FVC

  • Pre‐BD AM PEFR, % predicted

  • Pre‐BD PM PEFR, % predicted

  • Methacholine FEV1

  • PC20

  • Maximum bronchodilator response


FUNCTIONAL STATUS
  • Percentage of asthma control days

  • Growth

  • Failureto respond to treatment

  • ACQ

  • Monthly asthma control days

  • Monthly episode‐free days


BIOMARKERS
  • eNO


ADVERSE EVENTS: reported
WITHDRAWALS: reported
Notes PUBLICATION: full paper (2007)
FUNDING: grants from National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, USA
CONFIRMATION OF METHODOLOGY: not received
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk A stratified randomisation scheme was applied on the basis of bronchodilator response (< 12% or 12% change in FEV1), race (white or non‐white) and methacholine FEV1 PC20 (< 2 or 2 mg/mL)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Matching placebo was provided by sponsor
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double‐blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double‐blind
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Well‐balanced withdrawal in comparison groups. No missing outcome data. Primary and secondary outcomes specified
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Protocol available. All analyses performed under the intent‐to‐treat paradigm
Other bias Low risk Study apparently free of other sources of bias