Summary of findings for the main comparisons: sputum eosinophilia-based studies
| Tailored interventions based on sputum eosinophils compared with tailored interventions based on clinical symptoms for asthma in adults and children | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults and children with asthma Settings: hospital outpatients Intervention: based on sputum eosinophil count Comparison: based on clinical symptoms | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk at 1 year | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Tailored interventions based on clinical symptoms | Tailored interventions based on sputum eosinophils | |||||
| No of participants who had one or more exacerbations over the study period Follow-up: 12 to 24 months | 82 per 100 | 62 per 100 (49 to 74) | OR 0.36 (0.21 to 0.62) | 228 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate1 | |
| Hospitalisations Follow-up: 12 to 24 months | 24 per 100 | 8 per 100 (3 to 21) | OR 0.28 (0.09 to 0.84) | 269 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate2 | |
| Mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per person per day (budesonide equivalent µg/day) Follow-up: 12 to 24 months | The mean dose of inhaled corticosteroids per person per day in the intervention groups was 13 µg/day higher (128 lower to 153 higher) | 316 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low3 | |||
*The basis for the assumed risk is the mean of the two studies with a duration of 1 year. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).