Study finds steroids don’t prevent asthma
Reviewed By
Rating
Study finds steroids don’t prevent asthma
Our Review Summary
This article reported on the results of two recent studies that found that inhaled corticosteroid treatment of infants or pre-school aged children did not have any affect on future asthma severity. It did a good job of informing readers of this observation and was careful to include mention of drug company funding of the studies but could have done a better job of summarizing information for consumers about treatment costs, benefits that might be obtained during treatment, potential harms of the treatment as well as other approaches to asthma management in small children.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
Although both drugs mentioned in this article are currently available as prescription medications, the article did not include estimates for their cost.
Satisfactory
This article did a good job of pointing out that treatment of either pre-school aged children or one-month old infants with symptoms of asthma did not result in any benefit in terms of asthma severity as compared with children who were given a placebo. However, it did mention the observation from the study of pre-school aged, that during active treatment, inhaled corticosteroid did result in fewer and less-severe symptoms than those receiving the placebo without providing any sort of quantification of this benefit. Nonetheless we give a satisfactory score here.
Not Satisfactory
This article did not include mention of any side effects or harms associated with the use of inhaled corticosteroids in young children.
Satisfactory
This article reported on two recent studies that examined the impact of inhaled corticosteroid treatment in treatment of symptoms of asthma and prevention of chronic asthma in young children. It explained that the children treated were compared with children who received a placebo and included reference to where the studies were published so that a reader could track down more information if they were interested.
Satisfactory
This article did not disease monger but rather reported on two studies examining the ability for inhaled corticosteroid treatment to provide long term benefit to young children with asthma. It neither inflated the seriousness of asthma nor exaggerated the benefit that could be obtained from corticosteroid treatment.
Satisfactory
This article reported on results from two studies that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and included a quote from an editorial (by authors having no connection with either study) in the same issue of this journal that commented on the results of these studies. Comments from other authorities on the treatment of childhood asthma might have been useful. Nonetheless we give this a satisfactory score.
Not Satisfactory
This article failed to mention other approaches to management or treatment of asthmatic symptoms in young children.
Not Satisfactory
The article mentioned that inhaled steroids are often used to help control symptoms of asthma with the underlying assumption that these medications are readily available. However, it failed to note that the medications used in the two studies described do not currently have FDA approval for use in the age groups that were studied. As of 3/26/2006 Flovent received FDA approval for use in children 4-11, while the study reported on use in children 2-3 years of age. The second study involved infants one month of age given Pulmicort, which is currently FDA approved for use in children one year of age and older.
Satisfactory
This article reported on the results from two recent studies in young children. Rather than being a new or novel treatment, the studies were careful examinations of what this treatment can and cannot do for young children.
Not Applicable
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Total Score: 5 of 9 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like