Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Study found that leukotriene antagonists are unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to inhaled corticosteroids, at 2005 prices, as initial asthma controller therapy at step 2 of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines, but evidence suggests that they are clinically equivalent to long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) as add-on to inhaled corticosteroids in terms of quality of life as well as secondary measures; furthermore, they could be an alternative to LABAs at step 3 of the BTS guidelines

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

D Price, S Musgrave, E Wilson, E Sims, L Shepstone, A Blyth, J Murdoch, M Mugford, E Juniper, J Ayres, S Wolfe, D Freeman, A Lipp, R Gilbert & I Harvey.

D Price 1,*, S Musgrave 2, E Wilson 2, E Sims 2, L Shepstone 2, A Blyth 2, J Murdoch 3, M Mugford 2, E Juniper 4, J Ayres 5, S Wolfe 6, D Freeman 7, A Lipp 8, R Gilbert 9, I Harvey 2

1 Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
2 Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
3 School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
4 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
5 School of Health & Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
6 Thorpewood GP Surgery, Norwich, UK
7 Sheringham Medical Practice, Norfolk, UK
8 Great Yarmouth and Waveney Primary Care Trust, Norfolk, UK
9 Castle GP Partnership, Norwich, UK
* Corresponding author Email: david@respiratoryresearch.org

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document