Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Exposure of Once-Daily Indacaterol Acetate in Pediatric Asthma: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Dose-Finding Study

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol acetate (IND), a long-acting β2-agonist in combination with mometasone furoate (MF), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), is being explored as a once-daily (od) treatment for asthma in children. This study examined the efficacy, safety, and systemic exposure of IND 75 µg and IND 150 µg in children with persistent asthma.

METHODS

In this Phase IIb, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, pediatric patients (aged ≥ 6 to < 12 years) with persistent asthma were randomized (1:1) to receive either IND 75 µg od or IND 150 µg od via Breezhaler® in combination with ICS background therapy. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after two weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 80 patients received IND 75 µg (n = 39) or IND 150 µg (n = 41). The study met its primary endpoint; both doses demonstrated improvements in pre-dose trough FEV1 from baseline to Day 14 (mean change [Δ]: 212 mL, IND 75 µg; 171 mL, IND 150 µg). The secondary spirometry parameters (post-dose FEV1 after 1-h, post-dose forced vital capacity; morning and evening peak expiratory flow) also improved. Overall, 36.1% in IND 75 μg group and 25% patients in IND 150 μg group achieved a decrease from baseline in Pediatric Interviewer-administered Asthma Control Questionnaire score of ≥ 0.5 units. A dose-dependent increase in plasma IND concentration was noted between the two groups. Both IND doses demonstrated an acceptable safety profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily IND 75 μg and IND 150 μg via Breezhaler® in combination with background ICS therapy provided substantial bronchodilation in children with asthma and were well tolerated. Taken together, these clinical and systemic exposure findings support IND 75 μg as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in combination with MF in pediatric asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02892019; 08-Sep-2016).

Comparison of Two Therapies on Asthma Control in Children

Background: Childhood asthma carries significant morbidity. Aim/Objectives: Aim of the study was to compare efficacy of 2 commonly used therapies for asthma control in children with asthma. Methods: This was a 1-year, prospective cohort study at a tertiary care children's hospital. Patients were referred by their primary care physicians (PCPs) for asthma control. All patients were on low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) at baseline. They were either switched to medium-dose ICS (ICS group) or medium-dose ICS and long-acting beta agonist (ICS+LABA group). Results were compared over time and between both groups. Results: Our cohort included 163 children (ages 2-18 years) with mean age of 5.62 ± 3.61 years. Mean Asthma Control Test (ACT) score at baseline was 15.9 ± 5.4. Mean ACT and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second improved (P < 0.0001 for both) in both groups. Median emergency department visits, short courses of oral steroids, and unscheduled PCP visits for acute asthma significantly decreased (P < 0.001 for all) in both groups. Similarly, days/month with wheezing, nighttime cough, and missed school days significantly decreased in both groups (P < 0.001 for all). Patients in ICS group were more likely to fail to achieve asthma control compared to patients in ICS+LABA group. Conclusion: Our study suggests that in children with uncontrolled asthma on low-dose ICS, switching to either medium-dose ICS or medium-dose ICS+LABA resulted in better symptom control, ACT improvement, and less asthma exacerbations over time. ICS+LABA had the additional benefit of less risk of treatment failure when compared to medium-dose ICS.

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for paediatric asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The comparison of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) for paediatric asthma remains controversial.

Aim

We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma.

Material and methods

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of FP/FORM versus FP/SAL for paediatric asthma. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

Results

Three RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall for paediatric asthma, FP/FORM and FP/SAL demonstrate a comparable influence on FEVj (Std. MD = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.03; p = 0.62), FVC (Std. MD = 0; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.06; p = 0.87), FEF25 (Std. MD = -1.69; 95% CI: -6.69 to 3.31; p = 0.51), FEF50 (Std. MD = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.12 to 0.33; p = 0.37), FEF75 (Std. MD = 0.01; 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.24; p = 0.91), asthma symptom scores (Std. MD = -0.03; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.04; p = 0.43), sleep disturbance scores (Std. MD = 0.03; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.24; p = 0.81) and adverse events (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.38; p = 0.61).

Conclusions

FP/FORM and FP/SAL show a comparable efficacy for paediatric asthma.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in treating pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) in treating pediatric asthma during a 12-week treatment cycle.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL in treating pediatric asthma were searched systematically using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

Results

Two articles including 546 patients were evaluated. The FP/SAL group showed obvious improvements in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) from day 0 to 84, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores compared with the FP/FORM group; however, the FP/FORM group had improved peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). In terms of 2-hour post-dose FEV₁ from day 0 to 84, 2-hour forced expiratory flow at 25%, 50%, and 75%, and 2-hour forced vital capacity, we observed no significant differences between the two groups. For safety, including patients with at least one adverse event, bronchitis, cough, or pharyngitis, both groups had similar incidences, differing only in incidence of nasopharyngitis.

Conclusion

Compared with FP/FORM, FP/SAL showed a clear improvement in pre-dose FEV₁, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores. However, FP/FORM resulted in improved PEFR with a lower incidence of nasopharyngitis.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient–doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.

RESULTS

A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

The use of inhaled corticosteroids in pediatric asthma: update

Despite the availability of several formulations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and delivery devices for treatment of childhood asthma and despite the development of evidence-based guidelines, childhood asthma control remains suboptimal. Improving uptake of asthma management plans, both by families and practitioners, is needed. Adherence to daily ICS therapy is a key determinant of asthma control and this mandates that asthma education follow a repetitive pattern and involve literal explanation and physical demonstration of the optimal use of inhaler devices. The potential adverse effects of ICS need to be weighed against the benefit of these drugs to control persistent asthma especially that its safety profile is markedly better than oral glucocorticoids. This article reviews the key mechanisms of inhaled corticosteroid action; recommendations on dosage and therapeutic regimens; potential optimization of effectiveness by addressing inhaler technique and adherence to therapy; and updated knowledge on the real magnitude of adverse events.

A 12-week open-label, randomized, controlled trial and 24-week extension to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in children with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

Randomised trial of once-daily vilanterol in children with asthma on inhaled corticosteroid therapy

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are effective maintenance treatments for childhood asthma; however, many children remain uncontrolled. Vilanterol (VI) is an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist which, in combination with the ICS fluticasone furoate, is being explored as a once-daily treatment for asthma in children. We evaluated the dose-response, efficacy, and safety of once-daily VI (6.25 μg, 12.5 μg and 25 μg) administered in the evening over 4 weeks, on background fluticasone propionate (FP) in children with asthma inadequately controlled on ICS.

METHODS

This was a Phase IIb, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study in children ages 5-11 years with persistent asthma on ICS and as-needed short-acting beta-agonist. The study comprised a 4-week run-in, 4-week treatment period, and 1-week follow-up. From study start, children replaced their current ICS with open-label FP 100 μg twice daily. Children were randomised to receive placebo, VI 6.25 μg, VI 12.5 μg or VI 25 μg once daily. Primary endpoint was treatment difference between VI 25 and placebo groups in mean change from baseline in evening peak expiratory flow averaged over the 4-week treatment. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Week 4 and change from baseline in percentage of rescue-free and symptom-free 24-h periods. Safety assessments included incidence of adverse events (AEs) and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 456 children comprised the intention-to-treat population. The adjusted treatment difference between VI 25 and placebo groups for the primary endpoint was not statistically significant (p = 0.227) so no statistical inference was made for other VI dose comparisons or other endpoints. No difference in change from baseline in trough FEV1 was observed for any VI treatments versus placebo; however, VI 25 resulted in an additional 0.6 rescue-free days and 0.7 symptom-free days per week versus placebo. The incidence of AEs was slightly higher in the VI groups (28-33 %) versus placebo (22 %). Nine children experienced asthma exacerbations during the treatment period.

CONCLUSION

VI plus FP did not result in significant improvements in lung function versus placebo plus FP, but was well tolerated at all doses assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01573767 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate in the management of asthma: clinical trial evidence and experience

The treatment of persistent asthma has been aided by the recent approval of new medications. The combined inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) powder inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol trifenatate (VI) is one of these new agents, which was recently approved as a maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This once-daily ICS/LABA inhaler has previously been approved and used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a maintenance therapy. Both FF and VI individually have been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of persistent asthma; the combination of FF/VI at the dose of 100/25 μg daily improves trough peak expiratory flows and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. It also reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. The once-daily dosing is well tolerated, with limited clinically significant adverse events; the once-daily inhaled dosing regimen should also improve medication adherence. The data supporting the use of the FF/VI inhaler in persistent asthma are reviewed. The dry powder inhaler of FF/VI (100/25 μg) is an effective and well tolerated once-daily maintenance treatment for patients with persistent asthma.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Analysis of prescription pattern and guideline adherence in the management of asthma among medical institutions and physician specialties in Taiwan between 2000 and 2010

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate prescription patterns of antiasthmatic medications in ambulatory care, guideline adherence by physician specialties and medical institutions, and the rate of hospitalization and emergency department visits due to asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

The ambulatory visits between 2000 and 2010 from the Taiwan Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 were analyzed for prescription trends. Seven classes of antiasthmatic medications were identified for prescription trend analysis. Prescription patterns of different medical institutions and physician specialties were further evaluated.

FINDINGS

We studied 4495 patients with newly diagnosed asthma in 2000. Estimates indicated an increased use in fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists (3.6% in 2002 to 28.8% in 2010) with decreased use of inhaled corticosteroids (14.5% in 2001 to 7.3% in 2010). Xanthine was still the most frequently used medication for asthmatic patients (60.2% in 2001 and 45.2% in 2010). Another marked increase was the use of leukotriene receptor antagonists (2.6% in 2001 to 6.0% in 2010). In the studied population, the rate of hospital admission or emergency department visit moderately decreased from 1.42% to 0.59% during 10 years. Physicians in medical centers and regional hospitals, as well as asthma specialists, dominated the increased use of fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists.

IMPLICATIONS

Physicians in academic medical centers and asthma specialists achieved better adherence to the core recommendations of the international guidelines for asthma management. The reasons for guideline nonadherence among physicians in district hospitals and primary care clinics deserve health care professionals' attention and require further investigation.

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for children with asthma well controlled on LABA and inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition among children and is one of the most common causes of hospitalisation and medical visits. Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, hospital stays, or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for children with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The US Food and Drug Administration has issued a 'black box' warning for LABA in asthma, and now recommends that they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect on asthma control and adverse effects of stepping down to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-only therapy versus continuing ICS plus LABA in children whose asthma is well controlled on combined ICS and LABA therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, and also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to the present, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. The most recent search was done in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials of at least eight weeks' duration, available as published full text, abstract only, or unpublished data. We excluded studies including participants with other chronic respiratory comorbidities (for example bronchiectasis).We looked for studies in which children (18 years or younger) whose asthma was well controlled on any dose of ICS and LABA combination therapy were randomised to: a) step-down therapy to ICS alone or b) continued use of ICS and LABA.We included any dose of LABA (formoterol, salmeterol, vilanterol) and any dose of ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, triamcinolone) delivered in a combination inhaler or in separate inhalers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified in the searches. We used a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel to manage searches and document reasons for inclusion and exclusion, and to extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting the inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral steroids, asthma control, and all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Despite conducting extensive searches of electronic databases, trial registries and manufacturers' websites we identified no trials matching the inclusion criteria.After removing duplicates, we screened 1031 abstracts, and assessed 43 full-text articles for inclusion. We identified several adult studies, which will be summarised in a separate review (Ahmad 2014). The most common reasons for exclusion after viewing full texts were 'wrong comparison' (n = 22) and 'adult population' (n = 18).Some adult studies recruited adolescents from age 15, but none reported data separately for those under 18.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from randomised trials to inform the discontinuation of LABAs in children once asthma control is achieved with ICS plus LABA. It is disappointing that such an important issue has not been studied, and a randomised double-blind trial recruiting children who are controlled on ICS plus LABA is warranted. The study should be large enough to assess children of different ages, and to measure the important safety and efficacy outcomes suggested in this review over at least six months.The only randomised evidence for stopping LABA has been conducted in adults; it will be summarised in a separate review.

Addition of antileukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma

For the current issue of the Journal, we asked Drs Jimmy Chong and Bhupendrasinh Chauhan to comment on and put into context the Cochrane Review on the efficacy and safety of adding antileukotriene agents (LTRAs) to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children with persistent asthma (1).

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of children with mild persistent asthma, low-dose ICS are recommended as the preferred monotherapy (referred to as step 2 of therapy). In children with inadequate asthma control on low doses of ICS (step 2), asthma management guidelines recommend adding an LTRA to existing ICS as one of three therapeutic options to intensify therapy (step 3).

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographical databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL, and a manual search of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts, as well as the web-site www.clinicaltrials.gov. The search was conducted until January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved children and adolescents one to 18 years of age, with asthma, who remained symptomatic despite the use of a stable maintenance dose of ICS, and in whom LTRAs were added to ICS and compared with the same, an increased or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks were considered for inclusion.

DATA ANALYSIS

Sandard methods outlined by The Cochrane Collaboration were used.

RESULTS

Five paediatric (parallel group or cross-over) trials met the inclusion criteria. Two (40%) trials were considered to be at a low risk for bias. Four published trials, representing 559 children (≥6 years of age) and adolescents with mild-to-moderate asthma, contributed data to the review. No trial enrolled preschool-age children. All trials used montelukast as the LTRA, administered for between four and 16 weeks. Three trials evaluated the combination of LTRAs and ICS compared with the same dose of ICS alone (step 3 versus step 2). No statistically significant group difference was observed in the only trial reporting participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over four weeks (n=268 participants; RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.34 to 1.91]). There was also no statistically significant difference in percent change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in this trial, with a mean difference (MD) of 1.3 (95% CI -0.09 to 2.69); however, a significant group difference was observed in the morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates: n=218 participants; MD 9.70 L/min (95% CI 1.27 L/min to 18.13 L/min) and MD 10.70 L/min (95% CI 2.41 L/min to 18.99 L/min), respectively. One trial compared the combination of LTRAs and ICS with a higher dose of ICS (step 3 versus step 3). No significant group difference was observed in this trial for participants with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over a 16-week period (n=182 participants; RR 0.82 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.25]), nor was there any significant difference in exacerbations requiring hospitalization. There was no statistically significant group difference in withdrawals overall or because of any cause with either protocol. No trial explored the impact of adding LTRAs as a means to taper the dose of ICS.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of LTRAs to ICS is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids or hospital admission compared with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma. Although LTRAs have been licensed for use in children for >10 years, the paucity of paediatric trials, the absence of data regarding preschool-age children and the variability in the reporting of relevant clinical outcomes considerably limit firm conclusions. At present, there is no firm evidence to support the efficacy and safety of LTRAs as add-on therapy to ICS as a step 3 option in the therapeutic arsenal for children with uncontrolled asthma symptoms on low-dose ICS. The full text of the Cochrane Review is available in The Cochrane Library (1).

Cardiovascular safety of long acting beta agonist-inhaled corticosteroid combination products in adult patients with asthma: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting beta agonists and inhaled corticosteroids combination products (LABA-ICS) are widely used in the treatment of asthma. However, there appears to be little data on their cardiovascular safety. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the available studies and trials on the cardiovascular safety of LABA-ICS in adults with asthma.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers screened citations from PubMed and National Clinical Trials registry to identify studies and trials on the cardiovascular effects of LABA-ICS in patients with asthma.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies (with 17 cohorts on LABA-ICS to compare with a comparator or placebo) with 5,440 total study participants met the inclusion criteria. Two studies on budesonide-formoterol and one on fluticasone-salmeterol reported treatment emergent cardiovascular adverse events, all of which were dysrhythmias. For comparison, the pooled estimate of the Peto odds ratio (0.72; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.17-3; p = 0.65) and the summary risk ratio (0.77; 95 % CI 0.26-2.3; p = 0.64) indicated a nonsignificant difference between LABA-ICS and comparator/placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review found that few studies and trials reported treatment emergent cardiovascular adverse events with LABA-ICS. However, the Peto odds ratio and risk ratio for these outcomes was statistically nonsignificant. This suggests that LABA-ICS products may have a safe cardiovascular profile in asthma patients.

Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous group of conditions that result in recurrent, reversible bronchial obstruction. Although the disease can start at any age, the first symptoms occur during childhood in most cases. Asthma has a strong genetic component, and genome-wide association studies have identified variations in several genes that slightly increase the risk of disease. Asthma is often associated with increased susceptibility to infection with rhinoviruses and with changes in the composition of microbial communities colonising the airways, but whether these changes are a cause or consequence of the disease is unknown. There is currently no proven prevention strategy; however, the finding that exposure to microbial products in early life, particularly in farming environments, seems to be protective against asthma offers hope that surrogates of such exposure could be used to prevent the disease. Genetic and immunological studies point to defective responses of lung resident cells, especially those associated with the mucosal epithelium, as crucial elements in the pathogenesis of asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids continue to be the mainstay for the treatment of mild and moderate asthma, but limited adherence to daily inhaled medication is a major obstacle to the success of such therapy. Severe asthma that is refractory to usual treatment continues to be a challenge, but new biological therapies, such as humanised antibodies against IgE, interleukin 5, and interleukin 13, offer hope to improve the quality of life and long-term prognosis of severe asthmatics with specific molecular phenotypes.

Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus current best practice (including inhaled steroid maintenance), for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Traditionally inhaled treatment for asthma has used separate preventer and reliever therapies. The combination of formoterol and budesonide in one inhaler has made possible a single inhaler for both prevention and relief of symptoms (single inhaler therapy or SiT).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma compared with maintenance with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (alone or as part of current best practice) and any reliever therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials of 12 weeks or longer in adults and children with chronic asthma. Studies had to assess the combination of formoterol and budesonide as SiT, against a control group that received inhaled steroids and a separate reliever inhaler.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 13,152 adults and one of the trials also involved 224 children (which have been separately reported). All studies were sponsored by the manufacturer of the SiT inhaler. We considered the nine studies assessing SiT against best practice to be at a low risk of selection bias, but a high risk of detection bias as they were unblinded.In adults whose asthma was not well-controlled on ICS, the reduction in hospital admission with SiT did not reach statistical significance (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.44, eight trials, N = 8841, low quality evidence due to risk of detection bias in open studies and imprecision). The rates of hospital admission were low; for every 1000 people treated with current best practice six would experience a hospital admission over six months compared with between three and eight treated with SiT. The odds of experiencing exacerbations needing treatment with oral steroids were lower with SiT compared with control (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, eight trials, N = 8841, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias). For every 100 adults treated with current best practice over six months, seven required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be six (95% CI 5 to 7). The small reduction in time to first severe exacerbation needing medical intervention was not statistically significant (hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04, five trials, N = 7355). Most trials demonstrated a reduction in the mean total daily dose of ICS with SiT (mean reduction was based on self-reported data from patient diaries and ranged from 107 to 385 µg/day). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.89 to 4.30, moderate quality evidence due to risk of detection bias).Three studies including 4209 adults compared SiT with higher dose budesonide maintenance and terbutaline for symptom relief. The studies were considered as low risk of bias. The run-in for these studies involved withdrawal of LABA, and patients were recruited who were symptomatic during run-in. The reduction in the odds of hospitalisation with SiT compared with higher dose ICS did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR; 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.09, moderate quality evidence due to imprecision). Fewer patients on SiT needed a course of oral corticosteroids (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, high quality evidence). For every 100 adults treated with ICS over 11 months, 18 required a course of oral steroids, whilst for SiT there would be 11 (95% CI 9 to 12). Withdrawals due to adverse events were more common in people treated with SiT (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93, high quality evidence).One study included children (N = 224), in which SiT was compared with higher dose budesonide. There was a significant reduction in participants who needed an increase in their inhaled steroids with SiT, but there were only two hospitalisations for asthma and no separate data on courses of oral corticosteroids. Less inhaled and oral corticosteroids were used in the SiT group and the annual height gain was also 1 cm greater in the SiT group, (95% CI 0.3 cm to 1.7 cm).The results for fatal serious adverse events were too rare to rule out either treatment being harmful. There was no significant difference found in non-fatal serious adverse events for any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single inhaler therapy has now been demonstrated to reduce exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids against current best practice strategies and against a fixed higher dose of inhaled steroids. The strength of evidence that SiT reduces hospitalisation against these same treatments is weak. There were more discontinuations due to adverse events on SiT compared to current best practice, but no significant differences in serious adverse events. Our confidence in these conclusions is limited by the open-label design of the trials, and by the unknown adherence to treatment in the current best practice arms of the trials.Single inhaler therapy can reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations needing oral corticosteroids in comparison with fixed dose maintenance ICS and separate relief medication. The reduced odds of exacerbations with SiT compared with higher dose ICS should be viewed in the context of the possible impact of LABA withdrawal during study run-in. This may have made the study populations more likely to respond to SiT.Single inhaler therapy is not currently licensed for children under 18 years of age in the United Kingdom and there is currently very little research evidence for this approach in children or adolescents.

Childhood asthma: diagnosis and treatment

Many children suffer from recurrent coughing, wheezing and chest tightness. In preschool children one third of all children have these symptoms before the age of six, but only 40% of these wheezing preschoolers will continue to have asthma. In older school-aged children the majority of the children have asthma. Quality of life is affected by asthma control. Sleep disruption and exercised induced airflow limitation have a negative impact on participation in sports and social activities, and may influence family life. The goal of asthma therapy is to achieve asthma control, but only a limited number of patients are able to reach total control. This may be due to an incorrect diagnosis, co-morbidities or poor inhalation technique, but in the majority of cases non-adherence is the main reason for therapy failures. However, partnership with the parents and the child is important in order to set individually chosen goals of therapy and may be of help to improve control. Non-pharmacological measures aim at avoiding tobacco smoke, and when a child is sensitised, to avoid allergens. In pharmacological management international guidelines such as the GINA guideline and the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma are leading.

Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Two large surveillance studies in adults with asthma have found an increased risk of asthma-related mortality in those who took regular salmeterol as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or regular salbutamol. No similar sized surveillance studies have been carried out in children with asthma, and we remain uncertain about the comparative safety of regular combination therapy with either formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

We have used the paediatric trial results from Cochrane systematic reviews to assess the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol, either as monotherapy or as combination therapy, in children with asthma.

METHODS

We included Cochrane reviews relating to the safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol from a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews conducted in May 2012, and ran updated searches for each of the reviews. These were independently assessed. All the reviews were assessed for quality using the AMSTAR tool. We extracted the data relating to children from each review and from new trials found in the updated searches (including risks of bias, study characteristics, serious adverse event outcomes, and control arm event rates).The safety of regular formoterol and salmeterol were assessed directly from the paediatric trials in the Cochrane reviews of monotherapy and combination therapy with each product. Then monotherapy was indirectly compared to combination therapy by looking at the differences between the pooled trial results for monotherapy and the pooled results for combination therapy. The comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol was assessed using direct evidence from trials that randomised children to each treatment; this was combined with the result of an indirect comparison of the combination therapy trials, which represents the difference between the pooled results of each product when randomised against inhaled corticosteroids alone.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six high quality, up to date Cochrane reviews. Four of these related to the safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and these included 19 studies in children. We added data from two recent studies on salmeterol combination therapy in 689 children which were published after the relevant Cochrane review had been completed, making a total of 21 trials on 7474 children (from four to 17 years of age). The two remaining reviews compared the safety of formoterol with salmeterol from trials randomising participants to one or other treatment, but the reviews only included a single trial in children in which there were 156 participants.Only one child died across all the trials, so impact on mortality could not be assessed.We found a statistically significant increase in the odds of suffering a non-fatal serious adverse event of any cause in children on formoterol monotherapy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.83, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1335, high quality) and smaller increases in odds which were not statistically significant for salmeterol monotherapy (Peto OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.05, I(2) = 17%, 5 trials, N = 1333, moderate quality), formoterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.80 to 3.28, I(2) = 32%, 7 trials, N = 2788, moderate quality) and salmeterol combination therapy (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.91, I(2) = 0%, 5 trials, N = 1862, moderate quality).We compared the pooled results of the monotherapy and combination therapy trials. There was no significant difference between the pooled ORs of children with a serious adverse event (SAE) from long-acting beta(2)-agonist beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy (Peto OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33, 10 trials, N = 2668) and combination trials (Peto OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.75, 12 trials, N = 4,650). However, there were fewer children with an SAE in the regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) control group (0.7%) than in the placebo control group (3.6%). As a result, there was an absolute increase of an additional 21 children (95% CI 4 to 45) suffering such an SAE of any cause for every 1000 children treated over six months with either regular formoterol or salmeterol monotherapy, whilst for combination therapy the increased risk was an additional three children (95% CI 1 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 over three months.We only found a single trial in 156 children comparing the safety of regular salmeterol to regular formoterol monotherapy, and even with the additional evidence from indirect comparisons between the combination formoterol and salmeterol trials, the CI around the effect on SAEs is too wide to tell whether there is a difference in the comparative safety of formoterol and salmeterol (OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.37 to 4.32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We do not know if regular combination therapy with formoterol or salmeterol in children alters the risk of dying from asthma.Regular combination therapy is likely to be less risky than monotherapy in children with asthma, but we cannot say that combination therapy is risk free. There are probably an additional three children per 1000 who suffer a non-fatal serious adverse event on combination therapy in comparison to ICS over three months. This is currently our best estimate of the risk of using LABA combination therapy in children and has to be balanced against the symptomatic benefit obtained for each child. We await the results of large on-going surveillance studies to further clarify the risks of combination therapy in children and adolescents with asthma.The relative safety of formoterol in comparison to salmeterol remains unclear, even when all currently available direct and indirect trial evidence is combined.

A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four

Background

The recommendations for the treatment of moderate persistent asthma in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for paediatric asthma are mainly based on scientific evidence extrapolated from studies in adults or on consensus. Furthermore, clinical decision-making would benefit from formal ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness.

Our objective is to assess all randomized trial-based evidence specifically pertaining to 5-18 year olds with moderate persistent asthma. Rank the different drug treatments of GINA guideline steps 3&4 in terms of effectiveness.

Methods

Systematic review with network meta-analysis. After a comprehensive search in Central, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO search portal two reviewers selected RCTs performed in 4,129 children from 5-18 year old, with moderate persistent asthma comparing any GINA step 3&4 medication options. Further quality was assessed according the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and data-extracted included papers and built a network of the trials. Attempt at ranking treatments with formal statistical methods employing direct and indirect (e.g. through placebo) connections between all treatments.

Results

8,175 references were screened; 23 randomized trials (RCT), comparing head-to-head (n=17) or against placebo (n=10), met the inclusion criteria. Except for theophylline as add-on therapy in step 4, a closed network allowed all comparisons to be made, either directly or indirectly. Huge variation in, and incomplete reporting of, outcome measurements across RCTs precluded assessment of relative efficacies.

Conclusion

Evidence-based ranking of effectiveness of drug treatments in GINA steps 3&4 is not possible yet. Existing initiatives for harmonization of outcome measurements in asthma trials need urgent implementation.

Loss of asthma control in pediatric patients after discontinuation of long-acting Beta-agonists

Recent asthma recommendations advocate the use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) in uncontrolled asthma, but also stress the importance of stepping down this therapy once asthma control has been achieved. The objective of this study was to evaluate downtitration of LABA therapy in pediatric patients who are well-controlled on combination-inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapy. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were studied in children with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma after switching from combination (ICS/LABA) to monotherapy with ICS. Of the 54 patients, 34 (63%) were determined to have stable asthma after the switch, with a mean followup of 10.7 weeks. Twenty (37%) had loss of asthma control leading to addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists, increased ICS, or restarting LABA. There were 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic steroids. In patients with loss of control, there was a statistically significant decline in FEV(1) (-8% versus -1.9%, P = 0.03) and asthma control test (-3.2 versus -0.5, P = 0.03). This did not approach significance for FEF(25-75%), exhaled nitric oxide, lung volumes or airway reactivity. No demographic, asthma control measures, or lung function variables predicted loss of control. Pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma who discontinue LABA therapy have a 37% chance of losing asthma control resulting in augmented maintenance therapies. Recent recommendations of discontinuing LABA therapy as soon as control is achieved should be evaluated in a prospective long-term study.

Cost considerations of therapeutic options for children with asthma

Asthma is a prevalent health condition in children, with economic implications for the individual and their family, as well as for societies with nationalized healthcare. Pharmaceutical cost is the main driver of healthcare expenditure in asthma. Existent explicit guidelines are meant to guide asthma management across all age groups, but they are failing. Pharmacologic management of asthma consists of a stepwise treatment approach to achieve symptom control. Various studies suggest a significant number of medical practitioners are prescribing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combination inhalers inappropriately, including prescribing high doses of ICS without specialist consultation. ICS/LABA combination inhalers should only be used in persistent asthmatics, which account for approximately 5% of all children with asthma. Despite this, there is an increase in prescribing rates of ICS/LABA combination inhalers in the context of a decrease in the prevalence of asthma. Furthermore, there is inappropriate prescribing of ICS/LABA combination inhalers in children under 5 years of age, and initiation of relatively more expensive ICS/LABA combination inhalers in patients who have not previously been prescribed ICS. There is evidence to suggest that cost is a significant barrier to asthma management, especially for the more expensive ICS/LABA combination inhalers. Hence, prescribing cost-effective asthma medications appropriately is one of the most important strategies in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with asthma. It is incumbent on every medical practitioner to not prescribe expensive medications if not indicated, both for the sake of the patient and for society.

Canadian Thoracic Society 2012 guideline update: diagnosis and management of asthma in preschoolers, children and adults

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) published a Consensus Summary for the diagnosis and management of asthma in children six years of age and older, and adults, including an updated Asthma Management Continuum. The CTS Asthma Clinical Assembly subsequently began a formal clinical practice guideline update process, focusing, in this first iteration, on topics of controversy and⁄or gaps in the previous guidelines.

METHODS

Four clinical questions were identified as a focus for the updated guideline: the role of noninvasive measurements of airway inflammation for the adjustment of anti-inflammatory therapy; the initiation of adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for uncontrolled asthma; the role of a single inhaler of an ICS⁄long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination as a reliever, and as a reliever and a controller; and the escalation of controller medication for acute loss of asthma control as part of a self-management action plan. The expert panel followed an adaptation process to identify and appraise existing guidelines on the specified topics. In addition, literature searches were performed to identify relevant systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. The panel formally assessed and graded the evidence, and made 34 recommendations.

RESULTS

The updated guideline recommendations outline a role for inclusion of assessment of sputum eosinophils, in addition to standard measures of asthma control, to guide adjustment of controller therapy in adults with moderate to severe asthma. Appraisal of the evidence regarding which adjunct controller therapy to add to ICS and at what ICS dose to begin adjunct therapy in children and adults with poor asthma control supported the 2010 CTS Consensus Summary recommendations. New recommendations for the adjustment of controller medication within written action plans are provided. Finally, priority areas for future research were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The present clinical practice guideline is the first update of the CTS Asthma Guidelines following the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee's new guideline development process. Tools and strategies to support guideline implementation will be developed and the CTS will continue to regularly provide updates reflecting new evidence.

Combination fluticasone and salmeterol versus fixed dose combination budesonide and formoterol for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists are a common second line treatment in people with asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Single device inhalers combine a long-acting beta-agonist with an inhaled steroid delivering both drugs as a maintenance treatment regimen. This updated review compares two fixed-dose options, fluticasone/salmeterol FP/SALand budesonide/formoterol, since this comparison represents a common therapeutic choice.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group register of trials with prespecified terms. We performed additional hand searching of manufacturers' web sites and online trial registries. Search results are current to June 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised studies comparing fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol in adults or children with a diagnosis of asthma. Treatment in the studies had to last for a minimum of 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. We combined continuous data outcomes with a mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data outcomes with an odds ratio (OR). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies met the review entry criteria (5537 adults). Study populations entered the studies having previously been treated with inhaled steroids and had moderate or mild airway obstruction (mean FEV(1) predicted between 65% and 84% at baseline). Most of the studies assessed treatment over a period of six months. The studies were at a low risk of selection and performance/detection bias, although we could not determine whether missing data had an impact on the results. Availablility of outcome data was satisfactory.Primary outcomesThe odds ratio for exacerbations requiring oral steroids was lower with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.07, four studies, N = 4949). With an assumed risk with budesonide/formoterol of 106/1000 participants requiring oral steroids, treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol would lead to between 25 fewer and seven more people per 1000 experiencing a course of oral steroids. Although the odds of hospital admission was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol, this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.47, four studies, 4879 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 10 more people per 1000 would be hospitalised on fluticasone/salmeterol. The odds of a serious adverse event related to asthma was higher with fluticasone/salmeterol but did not differ significantly between treatments (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.86, three studies, 4054 participants). With an assumed risk in the budesonide/formoterol of 7/1000, between two fewer and 13 more people per 1000 would experience a serious adverse event on fluticasone/salmeterol.Secondary outcomesLung function outcomes, symptoms, rescue medication, composite of exacerbations leading to either emergency department visit or hospital admission, withdrawals and adverse events did not differ statistically between treatments. Assessment of quality of life was limited to two studies, both of which gave results that did not reach statistical significance. One study reported one death out of 1000 participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and no deaths in a similar number of participants treated with budesonide/formoterol. No deaths were reported in the other studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.

Prescription patterns in asthma patients initiating salmeterol in UK general practice: a retrospective cohort study using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD)

BACKGROUND

An association between salmeterol, a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA), use and rare serious asthma events or asthma mortality was observed in two large clinical trials. This has resulted in heightened scrutiny of LABAs and comprehensive reviews by regulatory agencies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective observational cohort study was to better characterize salmeterol medication use patterns in the UK. We describe asthma prescription patterns in a cohort of patients (n =17,745) in the General Practice Research Database who initiated treatment with salmeterol-containing prescriptions between 2003 and 2006, including salmeterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in a single device.

METHODS

Prescriptions patterns by medication class, including concurrent prescription of salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), were described using 6-month intervals in the 1-year period before and after the salmeterol-containing index prescription.

RESULTS

In the 0- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month periods prior to initiation of the salmeterol-containing prescription, the cohort experienced worsening of asthma, measured by an increase in the proportion of patients with prescriptions for short-acting β-agonists [SABA] (73-89%), ICS (70-81%) and systemic corticosteroids (14-28%). Nearly all patients prescribed salmeterol were concurrently prescribed ICS (≥95% within 90 days). In the 12 months following initiation of the salmeterol-containing prescription, a decrease in asthma prescriptions was observed.

DISCUSSION

These results support the appropriate prescribing of salmeterol-containing medications, as per recommendations in asthma treatment guidelines in the UK.

CONCLUSION

Salmeterol was consistently prescribed as an add-on asthma-controller with an ICS for most patients, and was associated with improvements in asthma control, as indicated by decreases in SABA and systemic corticosteroid prescriptions following salmeterol introduction.

Inhaled corticosteroids in childhood asthma: the story continues

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of persistent asthma in children. Treatment with ICS decreases asthma mortality and morbidity, reduces symptoms, improves lung function, reduces bronchial hyperresponsiveness and reduces the number of exacerbations. The efficacy of ICS in preschool wheezing is controversial. A recent task force from the European Respiratory Society on preschool wheeze defined two different phenotypes: episodic viral wheeze, wheeze that occurs only during respiratory viral infections, and multiple-trigger wheeze, where wheeze also occurs in between viral episodes. Treatment with ICS appears to be more efficacious in the latter phenotype. Small particle ICS may offer a potential benefit in preschool children because of the favourable spray characteristics. However, the efficacy of small particle ICS in preschool children has not yet been evaluated in prospective clinical trials. The use of ICS in school children with asthma is safe with regard to systemic side effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, growth and bone metabolism, when used in low to medium doses. Although safety data in wheezing preschoolers is limited, the data are reassuring. Also for this age group, adverse events tend to be minimal when the ICS is used in appropriate doses.

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta(2)-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.

Current concepts on the use of glucocorticosteroids and beta-2-adrenoreceptor agonists to treat childhood asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews current concepts regarding the clinical and scientific rationale for the combined use of glucocorticosteroids and beta-2-adrenoreceptor (beta2AR) agonists in the treatment of childhood asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have demonstrated that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and beta2AR agonists are the most effective medications for the management of asthma in children. Given substantial evidence of an increased clinical benefit when these agents are used together, new studies are being pursued to establish the efficacy and safety of this combinational therapy in infants and children. Ongoing research is also investigating the mechanisms of beta2AR and glucocorticosteroids signaling and their molecular interactions. This new knowledge will likely lead to novel therapeutic approaches to asthma control.

SUMMARY

There is increasing evidence demonstrating that the combination of long-acting beta2AR agonists and ICS may be more effective than high-dose ICS therapy alone in the management of children with uncontrolled asthma. In addition, the use of a single inhaler containing ICS and a quick-acting beta2AR agonist might be a convenient alternative to prevent and treat asthma exacerbations. Future investigations should be designed to more specifically evaluate the efficacy and safety of these therapies in the different asthmatic phenotypes of infants and children.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

Mechanism of glucocorticoid protection of airway smooth muscle from proasthmatic effects of long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist exposure

BACKGROUND

Chronic use of long-acting beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABAs), resulting in beta2-adrenergic receptor desensitization, has been associated with increased asthma morbidity. When LABAs are used in combination with inhaled glucocorticoids, however, asthma control is improved, raising the following question: Do glucocorticoids inhibit the proasthmatic mechanism that mediates altered contractility in LABA-exposed airway smooth muscle (ASM)?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the potential protective role and mechanism of action of glucocorticoids in mitigating the effects of prolonged LABA exposure on ASM constrictor and relaxation responsiveness.

METHODS

Cultured human ASM cells and isolated rabbit ASM tissues were examined for induced changes in agonist-mediated cyclic adenosine monophosphate accumulation, constrictor and relaxation responsiveness, and expression of specific glucocorticoid-regulated molecules after 24-hour exposure to the LABA salmeterol in the absence and presence of dexamethasone.

RESULTS

Salmeterol-exposed ASM exhibited impaired cyclic adenosine monophosphate and relaxation responses to isoproterenol and increased acetylcholine-induced contractility. These proasthmatic effects of prolonged LABA exposure were attributed to upregulated phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) activity and were ablated by pretreatment with dexamethasone. Further studies demonstrated that (1) dexamethasone suppressed activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinases extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2), which upregulate PDE4 expression in salmeterol-exposed ASM; and (2) the inhibitory actions of dexamethasone on salmeterol-induced ERK1/2 activation and resultant PDE4-mediated changes in ASM responsiveness were prevented by gene silencing or pharmacologic inhibition of dexamethasone-induced expression of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 1, an endogenous deactivator of ERK1/2 signaling.

CONCLUSION

Glucocorticoids prevent the adverse proasthmatic effects of prolonged LABA exposure on airway responsiveness as a result of glucocorticoid-induced upregulation of mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 1, which inhibits proasthmatic ERK1/2 signaling in the LABA-exposed ASM.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.

Step-up therapy for children with uncontrolled asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

For children who have uncontrolled asthma despite the use of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), evidence to guide step-up therapy is lacking.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 182 children (6 to 17 years of age), who had uncontrolled asthma while receiving 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily, to receive each of three blinded step-up therapies in random order for 16 weeks: 250 microg of fluticasone twice daily (ICS step-up), 100 microg of fluticasone plus 50 microg of a long-acting beta-agonist twice daily (LABA step-up), or 100 microg of fluticasone twice daily plus 5 or 10 mg of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist daily (LTRA step-up). We used a triple-crossover design and a composite of three outcomes (exacerbations, asthma-control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second) to determine whether the frequency of a differential response to the step-up regimens was more than 25%.

RESULTS

A differential response occurred in 161 of 165 patients who were evaluated (P<0.001). The response to LABA step-up therapy was most likely to be the best response, as compared with responses to LTRA step-up (relative probability, 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.3; P=0.004) and ICS step-up (relative probability, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.4; P=0.002). Higher scores on the Asthma Control Test before randomization (indicating better control at baseline) predicted a better response to LABA step-up (P=0.009). White race predicted a better response to LABA step-up, whereas black patients were least likely to have a best response to LTRA step-up (P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all the children had a differential response to each step-up therapy. LABA step-up was significantly more likely to provide the best response than either ICS or LTRA step-up. However, many children had a best response to ICS or LTRA step-up therapy, highlighting the need to regularly monitor and appropriately adjust each child's asthma therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00395304.)

Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Management Continuum--2010 Consensus Summary for children six years of age and over, and adults

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To integrate new evidence into the Canadian Asthma Management Continuum diagram, encompassing both pediatric and adult asthma.

METHODS

The Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Committee members, comprised of experts in pediatric and adult respirology, allergy and immunology, emergency medicine, general pediatrics, family medicine, pharmacoepidemiology and evidence-based medicine, updated the continuum diagram, based primarily on the 2008 Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, and performed a focused review of literature pertaining to key aspects of asthma diagnosis and management in children six years of age and over, and adults.

RESULTS

In patients six years of age and over, management of asthma begins with establishing an accurate diagnosis, typically by supplementing medical history with objective measures of lung function. All patients and caregivers should receive self-management education, including a written action plan. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the first-line controller therapy for all ages. When asthma is not controlled with a low dose of ICS, the literature supports the addition of long-acting beta2-agonists in adults, while the preferred approach in children is to increase the dose of ICS. Leukotriene receptor antagonists are acceptable as second-line monotherapy and as an alternative add-on therapy in both age groups. Antiimmunoglobulin E therapy may be of benefit in adults, and in children 12 years of age and over with difficult to control allergic asthma, despite high-dose ICS and at least one other controller.

CONCLUSIONS

The foundation of asthma management is establishing an accurate diagnosis based on objective measures (eg, spirometry) in individuals six years of age and over. Emphasis is placed on the similarities and differences between pediatric and adult asthma management approaches to achieve asthma control.