↓ Skip to main content

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as maintenance and intermittent therapy for episodic viral wheeze in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Leukotriene receptor antagonists as maintenance and intermittent therapy for episodic viral wheeze in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008202.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malcolm Brodlie, Atul Gupta, Carlos E Rodriguez-Martinez, Jose A Castro-Rodriguez, Francine M Ducharme, Michael C McKean

Abstract

Episodic viral wheeze (EVW) associated with viral respiratory tract infections is a common reason for pre-school children to utilise health care resources and for carers to take time away from employment. About a third of children experience a wheezing episode before the age of five years. EVW therefore represents a significant public health problem. Many pre-school children only wheeze in association with viral infections and in such cases EVW appears to be a separate entity from atopic asthma. Some trials have explored the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as regular (maintenance) or episodic (intermittent) treatment in this context. To evaluate the evidence for the efficacy and safety of maintenance and intermittent LTRAs in the management of EVW in children aged one to six years. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with pre-specified terms. We performed additional searches by consulting the authors of identified trials, online trial registries of manufacturers' web sites, and reference lists of identified primary papers and reviews. Search results are current to June 2015. We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group or cross-over (for intermittent LTRA only) design. Maintenance was considered as treatment for more than two months and intermittent as less than 14 days. EVW was defined as a history of at least one previous episode of wheezing in association with a viral respiratory tract infection in the absence of symptoms between episodes. As far as possible, relevant specific data were obtained from authors of studies that included children of a wider age group or phenotype.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was number of children with one or more viral-induced episodes requiring one or more treatments with rescue oral corticosteroids. We analysed combined continuous data outcomes with the mean difference and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We identified five studies eligible for inclusion in the review (one investigated maintenance treatment, three intermittent therapy and one had both maintenance and intermittent treatment arms) these included 3741 participants. Each study involved oral montelukast and was of good methodological quality, but differed in choice of outcome measures thus limiting our ability to aggregate data across studies. Only primary outcome and adverse event data are reported in this abstract.For maintenance treatment, specific data obtained from a single study, pertaining to children with only an EVW phenotype, showed no statistically significant group reduction in the number of episodes requiring rescue oral corticosteroids associated with daily montelukast versus placebo (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.06, moderate quality evidence).For intermittent LTRA, pooled data showed no statistically significant reduction in the number of episodes requiring rescue oral steroids in children treated with LTRA versus placebo (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, moderate quality evidence). Specific data for children with an EVW phenotype obtained from a single study of intermittent montelukast treatment showed a small, but statistically significant reduction in unscheduled medical attendances due to wheeze (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98).For maintenance compared to intermittent LTRA treatment no data relating to the primary outcome of the review were identified.There were no other significant group differences identified in other secondary efficacy outcomes for maintenance or intermittent LTRA treatment versus placebo, or maintenance versus intermittent LTRA treatment. We collected descriptive data on adverse events as reported by four of the five included studies, and rates were similar between treatment and placebo groups.Potential heterogeneity in the phenotype of participants within and across trials is a limitation of the evidence. In pre-school children with EVW, there is no evidence of benefit associated with maintenance or intermittent LTRA treatment, compared to placebo, for reducing the number of children with one or more viral-induced episodes requiring rescue oral corticosteroids, and little evidence of significant clinical benefit for other secondary outcomes. Therefore until further data are available, LTRA should be used with caution in individual children. When used, we suggest a therapeutic trial is undertaken, during which efficacy should be carefully monitored. It is likely that children with an apparent EVW phenotype are not a homogeneous group and that subgroups may respond to LTRA treatment depending on the exact patho-physiological mechanisms involved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Korea, Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 19%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Unspecified 6 10%
Other 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 49%
Unspecified 10 16%
Psychology 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#475,864
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,516
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,004
of 274,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 274,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.