Combination formoterol and budesonide as maintenance and reliever therapy versus combination inhaler maintenance for chronic asthma in adults and children

Stepwise Approach in Asthma Revisited 2023: Expert Panel Opinion of Turkish Guideline of Asthma Diagnosis and Management Group

Introduction of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has been the cornerstone of the long-term management of asthma. ICSs either alone or in combination with long-acting beta-2 agonists have been shown to be associated with favorable asthma outcomes. However, asthma control is still reported to be below expectations all around the world. Research in the last decades focusing on the use of ICS/formoterol both as maintenance and as needed (maintenance and reliever therapy approach) showed improved asthma outcomes. As a result of recent developments, Turkish Asthma Guidelines group aimed to revise asthma treatment recommendations. In general, we recommend physicians to consider the risk factors for poor asthma outcomes, patients' compliance and expectations and then to determine "a personalized treatment plan." Importantly, the use of short-acting beta-2 agonists alone as a symptom reliever in asthma patients not using regular ICS is no longer recommended. In stepwise treatment approach, we primarily recommend to use ICS-based controllers and initiate ICS as soon as possible. We define 2 different treatment tracks in stepwise approaches as maintenance and reliever therapy or fixed-dose therapy and equally recommend each track depending on the patient's risks as well as decision of physicians in a personalized manner. For both tracks, a strong recommendation was made in favor of using add-on treatments before initiating phenotype-specific treatment in step 5. A strong recommendation was also made in favor of using biologic agents and/or aspirin treatment after desensitization in severe asthma when indicated.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.]

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

Short-acting β2-agonist prescriptions are associated with poor clinical outcomes of asthma: the multi-country, cross-sectional SABINA III study

Background

To gain a global perspective on short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) prescriptions and associated asthma-related clinical outcomes in patients with asthma, we assessed primary health data across 24 countries in five continents.

Methods

SABINA III was a cross-sectional study that employed electronic case report forms at a study visit (in primary or specialist care) to record prescribed medication(s), over-the-counter (OTC) SABA purchases and clinical outcomes in asthma patients (≥12 years old) during the past 12 months. In patients with ≥1 SABA prescriptions, associations of SABA with asthma symptom control and severe exacerbations were analysed using multivariable regression models.

Results

Of 8351 patients recruited (n=6872, specialists; n=1440, primary care), 76.5% had moderate-to-severe asthma and 45.4% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbations in the past 12 months. 38% of patients were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters; 18.0% purchased OTC SABA, of whom 76.8% also received SABA prescriptions. Prescriptions of 3–5, 6–9, 10–12 and ≥13 SABA canisters (versus 1–2) were associated with increasingly lower odds of controlled or partly controlled asthma (adjusted OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.53–0.78), 0.49 (95% CI 0.39–0.61), 0.42 (95% CI 0.34–0.51) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.25–0.45), respectively; n=4597) and higher severe exacerbation rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.40 (95% CI 1.24–1.58), 1.52 (95% CI 1.33–1.74), 1.78 (95% CI 1.57–2.02) and 1.92 (95% CI 1.61–2.29), respectively; n=4612).

Conclusions

This study indicates an association between high SABA prescriptions and poor clinical outcomes across a broad range of countries, healthcare settings and asthma severities, providing support for initiatives to improve asthma morbidity by reducing SABA overreliance.

Findings from SABINA III, which included 8351 patients from 24 countries, indicate that across treatment steps and clinical care settings, high SABA prescriptions were associated with higher rates of severe exacerbations and poorer asthma controlhttps://bit.ly/2VHBISg

Therapeutic Effects of an Anti-sialyl Lewis X Antibody in a Murine Model of Allergic Asthma

Asthma is an allergic disease that causes severe infiltration of leukocytes into the lungs. Leukocyte infiltration is mediated by the binding of sialyl Lewis X (sLex) glycans present on the leukocytes to E-and P-selectins present on the endothelial cells at the sites of inflammation. Here, we found that mouse eosinophils express sLex glycans, and their infiltration into the lungs and proliferation in the bone marrow were significantly suppressed by an anti-sLex monoclonal antibody (mAb) F2 in a murine model of ovalbumin-induced asthma. The percentage of eosinophils in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and bone marrow and serum IgE levels decreased significantly in the F2-administered mice. Levels of T helper type 2 (Th2) cytokines and chemokines, involved in IgE class switching and eosinophil proliferation and recruitment, were also decreased in the F2-administered mice. An ex vivo cell rolling assay revealed that sLex glycans mediate the rolling of mouse eosinophils on P-selectin-expressing cells. These results indicate that the mAb F2 exerts therapeutic effects in a murine model of allergen-induced asthma, suggesting that sLex carbohydrate antigen could serve as a novel therapeutic target for allergic asthma.

A Current Perspective of Allergic Asthma: From Mechanisms to Management

Asthma is a result of heterogenous, complex gene-environment interactions with variable clinical phenotypes, inflammation, and remodeling. It affects more than 330 million of people worldwide throughout their educational and working lives, while exacerbations put a heavy cost/burden on productivity. Childhood asthma is characterized by a predominance of allergic sensitization and multimorbidity, while in adults polysensitization has been positively associated with asthma occurrence. Despite significant improvements in recent decades, asthma management remains challenging. Recently, a group of specialists suggested that the term "asthma" should be preferably used as a descriptive term for symptoms. Moreover, type 2 inflammation has emerged as a pivotal disease mechanism including overlapping endotypes of specific IgE production, while type 2-low asthma includes several disease endotypes. Optimal asthma control requires both appropriate pharmacological interventions, tailored to each patient, as well as trigger avoidance measures. Regular monitoring for maintenance of symptom control, preservation of lung function, and detection of treatment-related adverse effects are warranted. Allergen-specific immunotherapy and the advent of new targeted therapies for patients with difficult to control asthma offer diverse treatment options. The current review summarizes up-to-date knowledge on epidemiology, definitions, diagnosis, and current therapeutic strategies.

Anti-asthma Drugs Formoterol and Budesonide (Symbicort) Induce Orofacial Clefts, Gastroschisis and Heart Septum Defects in an In Vivo Model

BACKGROUND

We had a case in which three consecutive pregnancies resulted in birth of three children with an orofacial cleft. Their mother suffered from bronchial asthma and was treated using symbicort (corticosteroid budesonide plus bronchodilator formoterol) during her pregnancies. A hypothesis was assessed: these anti-asthmatics can induce an orofacial cleft in experimental model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single administration of one of five increasing doses (including therapeutically used ones) of Symbicort, budesonide or formoterol was injected into the amnion of a chick embryo on day 4 or 5 of incubation. The teratogenic/lethal effects of the anti-asthmatics were assessed on a total of 600 embryos.

RESULTS

For budesonide, the teratogenic/lethal effect started at a dose 0.003 μg per embryo, for formoterol at 0.3 μg and for Symbicort 0.03 μg. Orofacial clefts and gastroschisis after exposure were found for all three anti-asthmatics. Heart septum defects occurred after exposure to formoterol.

CONCLUSION

The present results support those clinical/epidemiological studies pointing out that anti-asthmatics have the potential to induce orofacial clefts, gastroschisis and heart malformations during prenatal development in human.

Severe Adult Asthmas: Integrating Clinical Features, Biology, and Therapeutics to Improve Outcomes

Evaluation and effective management of asthma, and in particular severe asthma, remains at the core of pulmonary practice. Over the last 20-30 years, there has been increasing appreciation that "severe asthma" encompasses multiple different subgroups or phenotypes, each with differing presentations. Using clinical phenotyping, in combination with rapidly advancing molecular tools and targeted monoclonal antibodies (human knockouts), the understanding of these phenotypes, and our ability to treat them, have greatly advanced. Type-2 (T2)-high and -low severe asthmas are now easily identified. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophil counts can be routinely employed in clinical settings to identify these phenotypes and predict responses to specific therapies, meeting the initial goals of precision medicine. Integration of molecular signals, biomarkers, and clinical responses to targeted therapies has enabled identification of critical molecular pathways and, in certain phenotypes, advanced them to near-endotype status. Despite these advances, little guidance is available to determine which class of biologic is appropriate for a given patient, and current "breakthrough" therapies remain expensive and even inaccessible to many patients. Many of the most severe asthmas, with and without T2-biomarker elevations, remain poorly understood and treated. Nevertheless, conceptual understanding of "the severe asthmas" has evolved dramatically in a mere 25 years, leading to dramatic improvements in the lives of many.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam

OBJECTIVE

Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries.

METHODS

A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year).

RESULTS

Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.

Budesonide/Formoterol Anti-Inflammatory Reliever and Maintenance or Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Plus As-Needed, Short-Acting β2 Agonist: Real-World Effectiveness in pAtients without Optimally Controlled asThma (REACT) Study

Introduction

In the prospective, observational, 16-week REACT study conducted between October 21, 2008 and May 12, 2011, we compared the real-world effectiveness of anti-inflammatory reliever and maintenance therapy with budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort^® Turbuhaler) and maintenance therapy with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide^®) plus as-needed, short-acting β₂ agonists (SABAs) in Taiwanese patients with inadequate asthma control.

Methods

Asthma control was assessed using the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5) and standardized pulmonary function testing. Assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 4–5 and 12–16. Overall, we enrolled 842 patients at 11 clinics, 723 of whom were included in analyses (budesonide/formoterol, 563.3±1.3 μg/d, n=551; fluticasone/salmeterol, 1013.8±1.4 μg/d, n=172).

Results

At baseline, 72.5% and 27.5% of all patients had “partly” and “uncontrolled” asthma, respectively. Mean±SD ACQ-5 scores were 1.54±1.06 and 1.46±1.28 in the budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol groups, respectively. ACQ-5 scores significantly improved from baseline (ie, decreased) in both groups at weeks 4 and 16. ACQ-5 difference scores were significantly lower in the budesonide/formoterol group (−0.91±1.11) than the fluticasone/salmeterol group (−0.69±1.27) at the end of the study (p=0.027). Peak expiratory flow rate significantly improved from baseline in the budesonide/formoterol but not the fluticasone/salmeterol group at the end of the study. Severe exacerbation rates and medical resource utilization were comparable between the budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol groups.

Conclusion

Collectively, results indicate the real-world effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever and maintenance therapy is better than fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol plus as-needed SABA.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00784953.

Acute asthma management during SARS-CoV2-pandemic 2020

Background

The current COVID-19 pandemic has changed many medical practices in order to provide additional protection to both our patients and healthcare providers. In many cases this includes seeing patients through electronic means such as telehealth or telephone rather than seeing them in person. Asthma exacerbations cannot always be treated in this way.

Problem

Current emergency unit asthma guidelines recommend bronchodilators be administered by metered dose inhaler (MDI) and spacer for mild-moderate asthma and include it as a choice even in severe asthma, but many emergency units continue to prefer nebulised therapy for patients who urgently require beta-agonists. The utilization of nebulised therapy potentially increases the risk of aerosolization of the coronavirus. Since nosocomial transmission of respiratory pathogens is a major threat in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, use of nebulised therapy is of even greater concern due to the potential increased risk of infection spread to nearby patients and healthcare workers.

Practical implications

We propose a risk stratification plan that aims to avoid nebulised therapy, when possible, by providing an algorithm to help better delineate those who require nebulised therapy. Protocols that include strategies to allow flexibility in using MDIs rather than nebulisers in all but the most severe patients should help mitigate this risk of aerosolised infection transmission to patients and health care providers. Furthermore, expedient treatment of patients with high dose MDI therapy augmented with more rapid initiation of systemic therapy may help ensure patients are less likely to deteriorate to the stage where nebulisers are required.

Study of the beneficial role of exhaled nitric oxide in combination with GINA guidelines for titration of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

The use of FE_NO in association with current guidelines in the treatment of asthma has not been studied thoroughly. This study aimed to evaluate the beneficial role of FE_NO in combination with GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) guidelines for titration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthmatic children.

METHODS

It was a prospective and descriptive study. Uncontrolled asthmatic children were randomized to two groups: group 1 (followed GINA guidelines) or group 2 (followed GINA guidelines + FE_NO modification for ICS titration). The two groups were followed-up for 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients in the study was 10 ± 4 years for group 1 (n = 116) and 11 ± 5 years for group 2 (n = 108). There were 87.9% patients in group 1 and 82.4% in group 2 that had a familial allergic history. There were 58.6% of moderate asthma and 41.4% of severe asthma in group 1, versus 56.4% and 43.6% in group 2, respectively. The percentage of moderate and severe asthma was also significantly modified after 6th and 12th month versus at inclusion (43.1% and 35.3% versus 58.6%, P < 0.01 and P < 0.005; 23.2% and 12.9% versus 41.4%, P < 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively). The total daily dose of ICS in group 2 at 12th months was significantly lower than that in group 1 (3515 ± 1175 versus 4785 ± 1235 mcg; P < 0.005). The daily cost of ICS treatment in group 2 was also lower than that of group 1 (18 ± 4 versus 27 ± 3 USD; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of FE_NO in combination with GINA guidelines for ICS titration is useful in reducing the daily ICS dose and treatment cost.

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.

Dose-response relationship of ICS/fast-onset LABA as reliever therapy in asthma

Background and objective

The dose-response relationship of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/fast-onset long acting beta agonist (LABA) reliever therapy has not been formally addressed. The objective of this retrospective analysis is to ascertain from the available evidence whether ICS/fast-onset LABA administered as reliever therapy has a different dose-response relationship than maintenance fixed dose ICS/fast-onset LABA therapy in reducing risk of severe exacerbations.

Methods

A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which randomised treatments included either i) budesonide/formoterol reliever monotherapy versus budesonide/formoterol fixed dose maintenance with short acting beta agonist (SABA) reliever therapy, or ii) budesonide/formoterol reliever therapy in addition to budesonide/formoterol maintenance versus higher fixed dose maintenance budesonide/formoterol with SABA as reliever therapy. Eligible studies were reviewed to allow determination of the relative potency and efficacy of the comparator regimens to reduce the risk of a severe exacerbation.

Results

The one RCT of budesonide/formoterol reliever monotherapy showed a 4.6-fold (95% CI 2.9 to 7.3) greater potency than budesonide/formoterol fixed dose maintenance plus SABA reliever therapy in reducing the risk of severe exacerbations. In the one RCT that compared budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy with higher fixed dose maintenance budesonide/formoterol plus SABA reliever therapy, there was an additional 26% (95% CI 4 to 42%) reduction in severe exacerbation risk with the addition of budesonide/formoterol reliever therapy to maintenance budesonide/formoterol, despite a 25% lower total budesonide/formoterol dose.

Conclusion

The limited available evidence suggests that budesonide/formoterol reliever therapy has greater potency and efficacy than budesonide/formoterol fixed dose maintenance plus SABA reliever therapy in reducing the risk of a severe exacerbation. This is an important concept which has the potential to guide clinical practice in asthma, although the small number of studies available highlights the need for further research to better define these pharmacological properties.

Rational oral corticosteroid use in adult severe asthma: A narrative review

OCS play an important role in the management of asthma. However, steroid‐related AE are common and represent a leading cause of morbidity. Limited published studies suggest OCS usage varies across countries and recent registry data indicate that at least 25–60% of patients with severe asthma in developed countries may at some stage be prescribed OCS. Recent evidence indicate that many patients do not receive optimal therapy for asthma and are often prescribed maintenance OCS or repeated steroid bursts to treat exacerbations. Given the recent progress in adult severe asthma and new treatment options, judicious appraisal of steroid use is merited. A number of strategies and add‐on therapies are now available to treat severe asthma. These include increasing specialist referral for multidisciplinary assessments and implementing OCS‐sparing interventions, such as improving guideline adherence and add‐on tiotropium and macrolides. Biologics have recently become available for severe asthma; these agents reduce asthma exacerbations and lower OCS exposure. Further research, collaboration and consensus are necessary to develop a structured stewardship approach including realistic OCS‐weaning programmes for patients with severe asthma on regular OCS; education and public health campaigns to improve timely access to specialized severe asthma services for treatment optimization; and implementing targeted strategies to identify patients who warrant OCS use using objective biomarker‐based strategies.

A Practical Approach to Severe Asthma in Children

Severe asthma accounts for only a small proportion of the children with asthma but a disproportionately high amount of resource utilization and morbidity. It is a heterogeneous entity and requires a step-wise, evidence-based approach to evaluation and management by pediatric subspecialists. The first step is to confirm the diagnosis by eliciting confirmatory history and objective evidence of asthma and excluding possible masquerading diagnoses. The next step is to differentiate difficult-to-treat asthma, asthma that can be controlled with appropriate management, from asthma that requires the highest level of therapy to maintain control or remains uncontrolled despite management optimization. Evaluation of difficult-to-treat asthma includes an assessment of medication delivery, the home environment, and, if possible, the school and other frequented locations, the psychosocial situation, and comorbid conditions. Once identified, aggressive management of issues related to poor adherence and drug delivery, remediation of environmental triggers, and treatment of comorbid conditions is necessary to characterize the degree of control that can be achieved with standard therapies. For the small proportion of patients whose disease remains poorly controlled with these interventions, the clinician may assess steroid responsiveness and determine the inflammatory pattern and eligibility for biologic therapies. Management of severe asthma refractory to traditional therapies involves considering the various biologic and other newly approved treatments as well as emerging therapies based on the individual patient characteristics.

The Differences in Acute Management of Asthma in Adults and Children

Acute asthma or wheeze is a common presentation to emergency services for both adults and children. Although there are phenotypic differences between asthma syndromes, the management of acute symptoms follow similar lines. This article looks at the similarities and differences in approaches for children and adults. Some of these may be age dependent, such as the physiological parameters used to define the severity of the attack or the use of age appropriate inhaler devices. Other differences may reflect the availability of evidence. In other areas there is conflicting evidence between adult and pediatric studies such as a temporary increase in dose of inhaled corticosteroids during an acute attack. Overall there are more similarities than differences.

Two Sides of the Same Coin?-Treatment of Chronic Asthma in Children and Adults

Globally, asthma is one of the most common chronic conditions that affect individuals of all ages. When poorly controlled, it negatively impacts patient's ability to enjoy life and work. At the population level, effective use of recommended strategies in children and adults can reduce symptom burden, improve quality of life and significantly reduce the risk of exacerbation, decline of lung function and asthma-related death. Inhaled corticosteroid as the initial maintenance therapy, ideally started within 2 years of symptom onset, is highly effective in both children and adults and across various degrees of asthma severity. If asthma is not controlled, the choice of subsequent add-on therapies differs between children and adults. Evidence supporting pharmacological approach to asthma management, especially for those with more severe disease, is more robust in adults compared to children. This is, in part, due to various challenges in the diagnosis of asthma, in the recruitment into clinical trials and in the lack of objective outcomes in children, especially those in the preschool age group. Nevertheless, where evidence is emerging for younger children, it seems to mirror the observations in adults. Clinicians need to develop strategies to implement guideline-based recommendations while taking into consideration individual variations in asthma clinical phenotypes, pathophysiology and treatment responses at different ages.

Physician perspectives on the burden and management of asthma in six countries: The Global Asthma Physician Survey (GAPS)

Background

Despite recognition of asthma as a growing global issue and development of global guidelines, asthma treatment practices vary between countries. Several studies have reported patients’ perspectives on asthma control. This study presents physicians’ perspectives and strategies for asthma management.

Methods

Physicians seeing ≥4 adult patients with asthma per month in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, and Japan were surveyed (N=1809; ≈300 per country). A standardised questionnaire was developed for this study and administered by telephone, online or face-to-face. Statistics were weighted to account for the sampling scheme.

Results

Physicians estimated that 71% of their adult patients received maintenance medication, with adherence monitored by 76–97% of physicians. Perceived major barriers to patient adherence included: patients taking treatment as needed; acceptance of symptoms; and patients not perceiving treatment benefits. Written action plans (37%) and technology (15%) were seldom employed by physicians to aid patients’ asthma management. Physicians rarely (10%) used validated patient-reported questionnaires to monitor asthma control, instead monitoring selected symptoms, exacerbations, and/or lung function measurements. Awareness of single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART/MART) varied among countries (56–100%); although most physicians (72%) had prescribed SMART/MART, the majority (91%) co-prescribed a short-acting bronchodilator at least some of the time.

Conclusions

These results show that physicians generally do not employ standardised tools to monitor asthma control or to manage its treatment and that despite high awareness of SMART/MART, the strategy appears to be commonly misapplied. Better education for patients and physicians is required to improve asthma management and resulting patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-017-0492-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Routine Use of Budesonide/Formoterol Fixed Dose Combination in Elderly Asthmatic Patients: Practical Considerations

Asthma has been demonstrated to be as common in the elderly as in younger age groups. Although no specific recommendations exist to manage the disease differently in older individuals, functional features and clinical presentations may be affected by age per se, and by age-related conditions, such as comorbidities and polypharmacy. In this review article, we aimed to explore the efficacy and safety in elderly asthmatic patients of one of the most currently used inhaled treatments for asthma, that is, the fixed-dose combination of budesonide/formoterol. We attempted to address some practical questions that are relevant to the daily practice of clinicians. We focused on the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-adrenergic bronchodilators (ICS/LABA) as treatment in the elderly population, since data are extrapolated from younger populations. We investigated whether a maintenance and reliever therapy approach is more effective in the elderly as opposed to maintenance regimens, from both the general practitioner's and the pulmonologist's perspective. To address these questions, we scanned electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar) from the date of inception up to October 2016 with a cross-search using the following keywords: 'asthma', 'elderly', 'SMART therapy', 'MART therapy', 'Turbuhaler', and 'budesonide/formoterol'. The available literature on the topic confirms that when the age-associated changes are properly managed in clinical practice, asthma in older populations can be optimally controlled with inhaled treatment including ICS/LABA. This also applies for the budesonide/formoterol fixed combination, thus allowing for the maintenance and reliever therapy approach.

Effect of azithromycin on asthma exacerbations and quality of life in adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma (AMAZES): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Exacerbations of asthma cause a substantial global illness burden. Adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma despite maintenance treatment require additional therapy. Since macrolide antibiotics can be used to treat persistent asthma, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral azithromycin as add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma on medium-to-high dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting bronchodilator.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled parallel group trial to determine whether oral azithromycin decreases the frequency of asthma exacerbations in adults (≥18 years) with symptomatic asthma despite current use of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting bronchodilator, and who had no hearing impairment or abnormal prolongation of the corrected QT interval. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive azithromycin 500 mg or placebo three times per week for 48 weeks. Patients were centrally allocated using concealed random allocation from a computer-generated random numbers table with permuted blocks of 4 or 6 and stratification for centre and past smoking. Primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of total (severe and moderate) asthma exacerbations over 48 weeks and asthma quality of life. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), number 12609000197235.

FINDINGS

Between June 12, 2009, and Jan 31, 2015, 420 patients were randomly assigned (213 in the azithromycin group and 207 in the placebo group). Azithromycin reduced asthma exacerbations (1·07 per patient-year [95% CI 0·85-1·29]) compared with placebo (1·86 per patient-year [1·54-2·18]; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·59 [95% CI 0·47-0·74]; p<0·0001). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one asthma exacerbation was reduced by azithromycin treatment (127 [61%] patients in the placebo group vs 94 [44%] patients in the azithromycin group, p<0·0001). Azithromycin significantly improved asthma-related quality of life (adjusted mean difference, 0·36 [95% CI 0·21-0·52]; p=0·001). Diarrhoea was more common in azithromycin-treated patients (72 [34%] vs 39 [19%]; p=0·001).

INTERPRETATION

Adults with persistent symptomatic asthma experience fewer asthma exacerbations and improved quality of life when treated with oral azithromycin for 48 weeks. Azithromycin might be a useful add-on therapy in persistent asthma.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, John Hunter Hospital Charitable Trust.

Severe Asthma in Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study is to characterize, diagnose, evaluate, and treat severe childhood asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Understanding the occurrence of the physiologic and clinical presentations of childhood severe asthma, the treatment and response may be predicted by biomarkers, but the patient's response is highly variable. The onset of severe asthma occurs early and is primarily predicted by severity of viral infection and coexistence of the atopic state.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Step 4: stick or twist? A review of asthma therapy

Many people with asthma do not achieve disease control, despite bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroid therapy. People with uncontrolled asthma are at higher risk of an asthma attack and death, with mortality rates estimated at 1000 deaths/year in England and Wales. The recent National Review of Asthma Deaths (NRAD) report, ‘Why asthma still kills’, recommended that patients at step 4 or 5 of the British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN) guidance must be referred to a specialist asthma service. This article reviews the 2014 evidence base for therapy of asthma patients at BTS/SIGN step 4 of the treatment cascade, in response to key findings of the NRAD report and lack of preferred treatment option at this step.

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.

Budesonide + formoterol fumarate dihydrate for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

One of the most widely used fixed combinations in asthma management is dry powder budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate which is commercially available as Symbicort Turbuhaler(®) (and generic products), Easyhaler Bufomix(®) and DuoRespSpiromax(®) inhaler. The aim of this paper was to review the fixed dry powder combination of inhaled budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate for asthma treatment in adolescents and adults.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search using relevant search terms, reference lists for reviews and meta-analyses was performed.

EXPERT OPINION

In symptomatic adolescent and adult patients with asthma maintenance and reliever therapy with a single-inhaler fixed combination of dry powder budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate is an evidenced option. The combination treatment is convenient to patients. It reduces the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids. In some patients the strategy may also reduce the total intake of inhaled corticosteroids over time. Whether important outcome measures of asthma treatment, such as hospital admission and emergency room visit rates, may be reduced is less well documented since the published studies may have been influenced by publication bias. Non-pharmaceutical company-sponsored research evaluating such measures is needed. There is no evidence for the use of single inhaler fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids+long-acting β(2)-agonists in children (<12 years of age), and budesonide+formoterol fumarate dihydrate should not be prescribed to the age group.

[Inhaled therapy in asthma]

Because of its advantages, inhaled administration of aerosolized drugs is the administration route of choice for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Numerous technological advances in the devices used in inhaled therapy in recent decades have boosted the appearance of multiple inhalers and aerosolized drugs. However, this variety also requires that the prescribing physician is aware of their characteristics. The main objective of the present review is to summarize the current state of knowledge on inhalers and inhaled drugs commonly used in the treatment of asthma. The review ranges from theoretical aspects (fundamentals and available devices and drugs) to practical and relevant aspects for asthma care in the clinical setting (therapeutic strategies, education, and adherence to inhalers).

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus addition of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but have important safety concerns in asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have confirmed efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now being considered as an alternative add-on therapy for people with uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LAMA to ICS compared with adding a LABA for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. We searched additional resources to pick up unpublished studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization trials portal, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel and cross-over RCTs in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled with ICS alone were randomised to receive LAMA add-on or LABA add-on for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the electronic and additional searches and extracted data from study reports. We used Covidence for duplicate screening, extraction of study characteristics and numerical data, and risk of bias ratings.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS.Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses.People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies).There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant.More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.

Potential therapeutic effect of Allium cepa L. and quercetin in a murine model of Blomia tropicalis induced asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is an inflammatory condition characterized by airway hyperresponsiveness and chronic inflammation. The resolution of inflammation is an essential process to treat this condition. In this study we investigated the effect of Allium cepa L. extract (AcE) and quercetin (Qt) on cytokine and on smooth muscle contraction in vitro and its therapeutic potential in a murine model of asthma.

METHODS

AcE was obtained by maceration of Allium cepa L. and it was standardized in terms of quercetin concentration using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). In vitro, using AcE 10, 100 or 1000 μg/ml or Qt 3.5, 7.5, 15 μg/ml, we measured the concentration of cytokines in spleen cell culture supernatants, and the ability to relax tracheal smooth muscle from A/J mice. In vivo, Blomia tropicalis (BT)-sensitized A/J mice were treated with AcE 100, 1000 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg Qt. We measured cell influx in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), eosinophil peroxidase (EPO) in lungs, serum levels of Bt-specific IgE, cytokines levels in BAL, and lung histology.

RESULTS

We observed a reduction in the production of inflammatory cytokines, a relaxation of tracheal rings, and a reduction in total number of cells in BAL and EPO in lungs by treatment with AcE or Qt.

CONCLUSION

AcE and Qt have potential as antiasthmatic drugs, as they possess both immunomodulatory and bronchodilatory properties.

Regular versus as-needed budesonide and formoterol combination treatment for moderate asthma: a non-inferiority, randomised, double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for patients with moderate persistent asthma recommend regular therapy with a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a longacting β2 agonist plus as-needed rapid-acting bronchodilators. We investigated whether symptom-driven budesonide and formoterol combination therapy administered as needed would be as effective as regular treatment with this combination plus as-needed symptom-driven terbutaline for patients with moderate asthma.

METHODS

In this non-inferiority randomised clinical trial, we recruited adult patients (18-65 years of age) with stable moderate persistent asthma, according to 2006 Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Patients were recruited from outpatient clinics of secondary and tertiary referral hospitals and university centres. After a 6-week run-in period of inhaled regular budesonide and formoterol plus as-needed terbutaline, the patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive placebo twice daily plus as-needed treatment with inhaled 160 μg budesonide and 4·5 μg formoterol (as-needed budesonide and formoterol therapy) or twice-daily 160 μg budesonide and 4·5 μg formoterol combination plus symptom-driven 500 μg terbutaline (regular budesonide/formoterol therapy) for 1 year. Randomisation was done according to a list prepared with the use of a random number generator and a balanced-block design stratified by centre. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was time to first treatment failure measured after 1 year of treatment using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and the power of the study was calculated based on the rate of treatment failure. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00849095.

FINDINGS

Between April 20, 2009, and March 31, 2012, we screened 1010 patients with moderate asthma and randomly assigned 866 eligible patients to the two treatment groups (424 to as-needed budesonide and formoterol therapy and 442 to regular budenoside and formoterol therapy). Compared with regular budesonide and formoterol therapy, as-needed budesonide and formoterol treatment was associated with a lower probability of patients having no treatment failure at 1 year (Kaplan-Meier estimates 53·6% for as-needed treatment vs 64·0% for regular treatment; difference 10·3% [95% CI 3·2-17·4], at a predefined non-inferiority limit of 9%). Patients in the as-needed budesonide and formoterol group had shorter time to first treatment failure than those in the regular therapy group (11·86 weeks vs 28·00 weeks for the first quartile [ie, the time until the first 25% of patients experienced treatment failure]). The difference in treatment failures was largely attributable to nocturnal awakenings (82 patients in the as-needed treatment group vs 44 in the regular treatment group). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with moderate stable asthma, as-needed budesonide and formoterol therapy is less effective than is the guideline-recommended regular budesonide and formoterol treatment, even though the differences are small.

FUNDING

Italian Medicines Agency.

Distinguishing adult-onset asthma from COPD: a review and a new approach

Adult-onset asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are major public health burdens. This review presents a comprehensive synopsis of their epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical presentations; describes how they can be distinguished; and considers both established and proposed new approaches to their management. Both adult-onset asthma and COPD are complex diseases arising from gene-environment interactions. Early life exposures such as childhood infections, smoke, obesity, and allergy influence adult-onset asthma. While the established environmental risk factors for COPD are adult tobacco and biomass smoke, there is emerging evidence that some childhood exposures such as maternal smoking and infections may cause COPD. Asthma has been characterized predominantly by Type 2 helper T cell (Th2) cytokine-mediated eosinophilic airway inflammation associated with airway hyperresponsiveness. In established COPD, the inflammatory cell infiltrate in small airways comprises predominantly neutrophils and cytotoxic T cells (CD8 positive lymphocytes). Parenchymal destruction (emphysema) in COPD is associated with loss of lung tissue elasticity, and small airways collapse during exhalation. The precise definition of chronic airflow limitation is affected by age; a fixed cut-off of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity leads to overdiagnosis of COPD in the elderly. Traditional approaches to distinguishing between asthma and COPD have highlighted age of onset, variability of symptoms, reversibility of airflow limitation, and atopy. Each of these is associated with error due to overlap and convergence of clinical characteristics. The management of chronic stable asthma and COPD is similarly convergent. New approaches to the management of obstructive airway diseases in adults have been proposed based on inflammometry and also multidimensional assessment, which focuses on the four domains of the airways, comorbidity, self-management, and risk factors. Short-acting beta-agonists provide effective symptom relief in airway diseases. Inhalers combining a long-acting beta-agonist and corticosteroid are now widely used for both asthma and COPD. Written action plans are a cornerstone of asthma management although evidence for self-management in COPD is less compelling. The current management of chronic asthma in adults is based on achieving and maintaining control through step-up and step-down approaches, but further trials of back-titration in COPD are required before a similar approach can be endorsed. Long-acting inhaled anticholinergic medications are particularly useful in COPD. Other distinctive features of management include pulmonary rehabilitation, home oxygen, and end of life care.