Observational studyBMJ open respiratory research2025
Effectiveness of inhaled therapies in asthma among adults in Northern Sri Lanka, a low-income and middle-income country: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or combined with long-acting beta
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of inhaled therapies in a cohort of adult patients with asthma who were receiving treatment in a tertiary hospital in Northern Sri Lanka.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients with asthma on either ICS alone or ICS/LABA combination for at least 3 months. Participants were followed up for 6 months, with two follow-up interviews conducted 3 months apart. The primary outcome measure was asthma control, assessed by a locally validated asthma control patient-reported outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included the use of short-acting beta
resultsOf the 1094 participants, 827 (76%) were on ICS monotherapy and 267 (24%) were on ICS/LABA. Though there were no changes in the treatment, progressive improvement in asthma control was observed from baseline to second follow-up in both ICS (54%-72%) and ICS/LABA (76%-81%) groups. Significant improvement in asthma control (p<0.001) and SABA overuse (p<0.001) at both follow-ups and nebulisation (0.008) at the first follow-up were observed in the ICS group.
conclusionBoth ICS monotherapy and ICS/LABA were effective in controlling asthma. Though control was greater with ICS/LABA, the effect of additional monitoring during the follow-up was higher and significant in ICS monotherapy. Considering the low access to ICS/LABA, a treatment package comprising ICS plus non-pharmacological approaches could be a more realistic and cost-effective treatment strategy in the local context. ICS/LABA could be reserved for patients who fail to respond. However, this observation needs to be confirmed by interventional studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.