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
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
|
Interventions | PROTOCOL DURATION
DEVICE: Diskus (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) DOSE OF ICS
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
FUNCTIONAL STATUS
BIOMARKERS
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 |