↓ Skip to main content

Corticosteroid plus β2-agonist in a single inhaler as reliever therapy in intermittent and mild asthma: a proof-of-concept systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Corticosteroid plus β2-agonist in a single inhaler as reliever therapy in intermittent and mild asthma: a proof-of-concept systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Respiratory Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0687-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gang Wang, Xin Zhang, Hong Ping Zhang, Lei Wang, De Ying Kang, Peter J. Barnes, Gang Wang

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend a single inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) regimen for moderate to severe asthma. However, evidence for the inhaled corticosteroid plus fast-onset-acting β2-agonist (ICS/FABA) as reliever therapy in management of intermittent and mild asthma patients is lacking. To systematically explore efficacy and safety of the proof-of-concept of the ICS plus FABA regimen in a single inhaler as reliever therapy across children and adults with intermittent and mild persistent asthma. We searched online bibliographic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the as-needed use of ICS/FABA as monotherapy in intermittent or mild asthma patients. The primary outcomes were exacerbations and the hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first exacerbation. Six RCTs (n = 1300) met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the as-needed FABA regimen, the as-needed use of ICS/FABA as monotherapy statistically reduced exacerbations (RR = 0.56, P = 0.001). Compared with regular ICS regimen, the as-needed ICS/FABA therapy had slightly higher risk of exacerbations (RR = 1.39, P = 0.011). The HR for time to first exacerbations in the ICS/FABA regimen was significant lower when compared with FABA regimen (HR = 0.52, P = 0.002) but had no difference when compared with ICS regimen (HR = 1.30, P = 0.286). The corticosteroid exposure in the daily ICS regimen was 2- to 5-fold compared with as-needed use of ICS/FABA regimen. Our analysis shows that the ICS/FABA as a symptom-driven therapy may be a promising alternative regimen for the patients with intermittent or mild asthma, but it needs further real-world RCTs to confirm these findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,772,095
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#487
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,833
of 446,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#13
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.