This study compared oral montelukast with inhaled tiotropium for children aged 6 to 14 who had partly controlled asthma. The children were already taking inhaled corticosteroids as part of their standard treatment plan. Researchers followed the group for three and six months to see how well each medicine worked.
At the three-month mark, 64.4 percent of children on montelukast had better asthma control scores compared to 50 percent on tiotropium. However, this difference was not statistically significant. By six months, there were still no significant differences between the two groups in lung function, quality of life, or the need for rescue therapy.
Safety was a key concern. One child in the montelukast group developed neuropsychiatric symptoms. No other significant adverse events were noted, and no serious adverse events were reported. The study could not prove that tiotropium was non-inferior to montelukast.
Readers should note that this was a small trial with 152 participants from a single pediatric department. The inconclusive non-inferiority comparison means doctors cannot yet say one medicine is clearly better than the other for all patients. More research is needed before changing standard asthma care based on these results.
