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

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

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.

Frequency of Tiotropium Bromide Use and Clinical Features of Patients with Severe Asthma in a Real-Life Setting: Data from the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) Registry

Purpose

Patients with uncontrolled asthma despite high doses of inhaled corticosteroid therapy plus another controller are defined as severe asthmatics. Tiotropium bromide respimat (TBR) is the only long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) approved for severe asthma. The aim of this study was to explore the frequency of severe asthmatics treated with TBR and characterize their clinical features in a real-life, registry-based setting.

Materials and Methods

Baseline data from the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) registry have been analyzed to determine the use of TBR and other LAMA, and to compare clinical, functional and inflammatory features associated with the use of LAMA.

Results

Among a total of 698 enrolled patients, 35.9% were treated with LAMA (23.3% TBR, 4.5% tiotropium bromide handihaler, 4.5% aclidinium, 3.4% glycopyrronium bromide 0.3% umeclidinium bromide). Age of asthma onset was higher in patients taking LAMA, whom, compared to others were more frequently former smokers. They also had a higher annual exacerbation rate, experienced worst asthma control, worst disease-related quality of life and poorer lung function. Bronchiectasis was more frequently found in LAMA users (25.9% vs 13.1%).

Conclusion

TBR is still underused in severe asthma in a real-life setting, while a relevant proportion of patients are treated with other LAMA that are not approved for severe asthma treatment. Patients taking LAMA have features characteristic of even more severe asthma.

Salvage therapy for progressive, treatment-refractory or recurrent pediatric medulloblastoma: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Central nervous system tumors remain the leading cause of cancer-related mortality amongst children with solid tumors, with medulloblastoma (MB) representing the most common pediatric brain malignancy. Despite best current therapies, patients with recurrent MB experience have an alarmingly high mortality rate and often have limited therapeutic options beyond inadequate chemotherapy or experimental clinical trials. Therefore, a systematic review of the literature regarding treatment strategies employed in recurrent pediatric MB will evaluate previous salvage therapies in order to guide future clinical trials. The aim of this systematic review will be to investigate the efficacy and safety of salvage therapies for the management of children with progressive, treatment-refractory, or recurrent MB.

METHODS

We will conduct literature searches (from 1995 onwards) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies examining the survival and toxicity of therapies administered to treatment-refractory pediatric MB patients will be included. Two reviewers will independently assess the search results based on predefined selection criteria, complete data abstraction, and quality assessment. The primary outcomes of this review will be overall and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes will include safety and toxicity of each therapy administered. The study methodological quality (or bias) will be appraised using an appropriate tool. Due to the nature of the research question and published literature, we expect large inter-study heterogeneity and therefore will use random effects regression analysis to extract the combined effect. In additional analyses, we will investigate the role of re-irradiation and mono- vs. poly-therapy in recurrent disease, and whether molecular subgrouping of MB influences salvage therapy.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will provide an overview of the current literature regarding salvage therapies for relapsed MB patients. Investigation of clinically tested therapies for children with recurrent MB has significant implications for clinical practice. By reviewing the efficacy and toxicity of MB salvage therapies, this study will identify effective therapeutic strategies administered to recurrent MB patients and can inform future clinical trials aimed to improve patient survivorship and quality of life.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020167421.

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

Rinsing of oropharynx and storage place of respiratory medicine inhaler: A cross-sectional audit

BACKGROUND

In patients with bronchial asthma and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhalation therapy and rinsing of the mouth and the oropharynx by gargling ("RMOG") after inhalation are recommended. We performed a cross-sectional audit aimed at investigating (a) the proportion of patients performing "RMOG" after inhalation and (b) storage place of patients' inhaler.

METHODS

Patients with bronchial asthma and those with COPD were asked by medical aids at outpatient visits whether they did "RMOG every time," "RMOG sometimes," or "no RMOG" after inhalation, and where they stored their inhaler.

RESULTS

During a six month study period up to September 2017, 330 consecutive patients with asthma and those with COPD were included in the study. Two hundred and thirty-two (70.3%) of the 330 patients answered "RMOG every time" and 98 (29.7%) of them did "RMOG sometimes" and did "no RMOG." There was a difference in the proportion of patients performing RMOG after inhalation with patient age. With regard to the storage location of inhaler, we found the proportion of patients performing RMOG was higher in those who stored inhalers in a room with running water than in those who stored inhalers at other places. This difference was found in patients with both bronchial asthma and those with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Further implementation of "patient education" on performing RMOG after inhalation for patients receiving inhaled medication is still necessary. Our results suggest that it is better to store inhalers in places where there is easy access to tap water used for RMOG.

Future perspectives of anticholinergics for the treatment of asthma in adults and children

Despite major advances in therapeutic interventions and the availability of detailed treatment guidelines, a high proportion of patients with symptomatic asthma remain uncontrolled. Asthma management is largely guided by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy and is based on a backbone of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy with the use of additional therapies to achieve disease control. Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators alone and in combination are the preferred add-on treatment options. Although long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a relatively recent addition to disease management recommendations for asthma, tiotropium has been extensively studied in a large clinical trial program. In Europe and the United States, tiotropium is approved for patients aged ≥6 years and uncontrolled on medium- to high-dose ICS/long-acting β2-agonists at GINA Steps 4 and 5 with a history of exacerbations. Evidence supports the efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® in adults in terms of lung function and asthma control, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo across a range of asthma severities. Similarly, clinical trials in patients aged 1-17 years have shown improvements in lung function and trends toward improved asthma control. Furthermore, its efficacy makes tiotropium relatively easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice, irrespective of allergic status and without the need for patient phenotyping. Tiotropium is a cost-effective treatment that may offer an important alternative to other, more expensive add-on therapies. This review discusses the potential future position of LAMAs in clinical practice by considering the continuously evolving evidence. Prominence is given to tiotropium, the only LAMA supported by a structured clinical trial program in asthma to date, while also considering other recommended treatment options for patients with uncontrolled asthma. The importance of effective patient/caregiver-clinician communication and shared decision-making in enhancing treatment adherence is also highlighted.

Tiotropium for the Treatment of Asthma: Patient Selection and Perspectives

Asthma is a chronic disease of airway inflammation with a large global burden. Despite established, guideline-based stepwise therapy, a significant proportion of patients remain symptomatic and poorly controlled. As such, there is a need for additional safe, effective, convenient, and cost-effective therapies that can be broadly applied across a range of asthma phenotypes. Tiotropium is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that leads to bronchodilation by blocking endogenous acetylcholine receptors in the airways. Tiotropium has long been approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and it has recently been recognized for its safety and efficacy in improving lung function and controlling asthma. Evidence from several Phase III trials in the adult and paediatric population has shown that tiotropium is well tolerated and significantly improves a range of endpoints as an add-on treatment to ICS therapy, regardless of baseline characteristics and clinical phenotypes. Consequently, regulatory authorities worldwide have recently licensed tiotropium as the only LAMA approved for the treatment of asthma. This review provides an overview of safety and efficacy data and discusses the use of tiotropium in patients across the range of asthma severities, ages, and phenotypes.

New Drugs for Pediatric Asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. As suggested by international guidelines, the main goals of asthma treatment are symptoms control and lung function preservation, through a stepwise and control-based approach. The first line therapy based on inhaled corticosteroids may fail to reach control in more than one third of patients, especially adolescents, and in these lung function and quality of life may progressively worsen. Treatment with omalizumab, the first anti-immunoglobulin E recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, has been definitely approved in pediatric uncontrolled asthma. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms and potential roles of emerging therapies for pediatric severe asthma. Novel biologic drugs (i.e., dupilumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab) seem to be promising in reducing annual exacerbation rates and steroid-use in glucocorticoid-dependent cases, but available data are few and limited to adolescents and adults. Evidences on the use of the muscarinic antagonist tiotropium as controller medication in pediatric settings are progressively growing, sustaining an application as asthma maintenance treatment in children aged >6 years and in preschool children with persistent asthmatic symptoms, but well powered trials are needed to confirm its safety and efficacy. New inhaled corticosteroids (i.e., ciclesonide and mometasone) are effective as once-daily controller therapy, but long-term studies in the different pediatric ages are needed to compare effectiveness and safety to usual treatments. At present, the role of macrolides in pediatric severe asthma is controversial and their administration is not recommended routinely, but may be considered in children with neutrophilic asthma for reducing daily oral steroids administration and improving lung function. Despite the availability of several novel therapeutic strategies for uncontrolled asthma, future trials targeted at specific pediatric age subgroups are needed to support evidences of safety and efficacy also in children.

Tiotropium Bromide in Children and Adolescents with Asthma

Evidence is emerging on the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) in the management of asthma. Tiotropium bromide (Spiriva^® Respimat^®) is the only LAMA approved in children and adolescents. As the use of tiotropium becomes more common in clinical practice, it is necessary to review the existing data to identify patients who may benefit from the addition of this medication to their daily asthma regimen. This review discusses recent evidence on the safety and efficacy of tiotropium bromide in the management of asthma in children and adolescents. Current data support that tiotropium bromide has a bronchodilator effect, as evident by improvements in acute lung function compared with placebo; however, data are not yet available to present a stepwise approach or identify phenotypes that would benefit from the addition of tiotropium bromide. Well-designed studies are needed to compare the different step-up options to tiotropium bromide and provide an evidence-based stepwise approach for the management of asthma in children. Furthermore, study design should include identification of phenotypes that might experience a better clinical response to tiotropium bromide compared with other adjunct medications.

The evolving role of tiotropium in asthma

Tiotropium is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that exerts its bronchodilatory effect by blocking endogenous acetylcholine receptors in the airways. Its safety and efficacy are well established for the treatment of COPD, and it is now being recognized for its role in improving lung function and control in asthma. This review discusses the evolving role of tiotropium delivered by the Respimat® in patients across the range of asthma severities and ages, and provides an overview of safety and efficacy data. Tiotropium is the only LAMA currently approved for the treatment of asthma, and evidence from a large-scale clinical trial program, including several Phase III studies in adults, has demonstrated that tiotropium improves lung function and asthma control, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo. Clinical trials in adolescent patients (aged 12-17 years) have also shown improvements in lung function and trends toward improved asthma control. Of note, the efficacy and safety profiles are consistent regardless of baseline characteristics and phenotype. Given the large and growing body of evidence, it is likely that as clinical experience with tiotropium increases, this treatment may possibly emerge as the key choice for add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists, and in patients who do not tolerate long-acting bronchodilators or other medications, in the future.

New and developing non-adrenoreceptor small molecule drugs for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or in combination with an inhaled long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) are the preferred long-term treatment for adults and adolescents with symptomatic asthma. Additional drugs include leukotriene-receptor antagonists, slow-release theophylline and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (approved in 2015). There is a need for more effective therapies, as many patients continue to have poorly controlled asthma. Areas covered: New and developing long-acting non-adrenoreceptor synthetic drugs for the treatment of symptomatic chronic asthma despite treatment with an ICS alone or combined with a LABA. Data was reviewed from studies published up until November 2016. Expert opinion: Tiotropium improves lung function and has a modest effect in reducing exacerbations when added to ICS alone or ICS and LABA. The LAMAs umeclidinium and glycopyrronium are under development in fixed dose combination with ICS and LABA. Novel small molecule drugs, such as CRTH2 receptor antagonists, PDE₄ inhibitors, protein kinase inhibitors and nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonists and 'off-label' use of licensed drugs, such as macrolides and statins are under investigation for asthma, although their effectiveness in clinical practice is not established. To better achieve the goal of developing effective novel small molecule drugs for asthma will require greater understanding of mechanisms of disease and the different phenotypes and endotypes of asthma.

Therapeutic interventions in severe asthma

The present paper addresses severe asthma which is limited to 5-10% of the overall population of asthmatics. However, it accounts for 50% or more of socials costs of the disease, as it is responsible for hospitalizations and Emergency Department accesses as well as expensive treatments. The recent identification of different endotypes of asthma, based on the inflammatory pattern, has led to the development of tailored treatments that target different inflammatory mediators. These are major achievements in the perspective of Precision Medicine: a leading approach to the modern treatment strategy. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, has been the only biologic treatment available on the market for severe asthma during the last decade. It prevents the linkage of the IgE and the receptors, thereby inhibiting mast cell degranulation. In clinical practice omalizumab significantly reduced the asthma exacerbations as well as the concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids. In the "Th2-high asthma" phenotype, the hallmarks are increased levels of eosinophils and other markers (such as periostin). Because anti-IL-5 in this condition plays a crucial role in driving eosinophil inflammation, this cytokine or its receptors on the eosinophil surface has been studied as a potential target for therapy. Two different anti-IL-5 humanized monoclonal antibodies, mepolizumab and reslizumab, have been proven effective in this phenotype of asthma (recently they both came on the market in the United States), as well as an anti-IL-5 receptor alpha (IL5Rα), benralizumab. Other monoclonal antibodies, targeting different cytokines (IL-13, IL-4, IL-17 and TSLP) are still under evaluation, though the preliminary results are encouraging. Finally, AIT, Allergen Immunotherapy, a prototype of Precision Medicine, is considered, also in light of the recent evidences of Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet efficacy and safety in mite allergic asthma patients. Given the high costs of these therapies, however, there is an urgent need to identify biomarkers that can predict the clinical responders.

Advances in the treatment of virus-induced asthma

Viral exacerbations continue to represent the major burden in terms of morbidity, mortality and health care costs associated with asthma. Those at greatest risk for acute asthma are those with more severe airways disease and poor asthma control. It is this group with established asthma in whom acute exacerbations triggered by virus infections remain a serious cause of increased morbidity. A range of novel therapies are emerging to treat asthma and in particular target this group with poor disease control, and in most cases their efficacy is now being judged by their ability to reduce the frequency of acute exacerbations. Critical for the development of new treatment approaches is an improved understanding of virus-host interaction in the context of the asthmatic airway. This requires research into the virology of the disease in physiological models in conjunction with detailed phenotypic characterisation of asthma patients to identify targets amenable to therapeutic intervention.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus the same dose of ICS alone for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of several evidence-based therapies and non-pharmacological strategies to improve control of symptoms and prevent exacerbations of asthma, patients with asthma continue to be at risk for mortality and morbidity.Previous trials have demonstrated the potentially beneficial effects of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium on lung function in patients with asthma; however, a definitive conclusion on the benefit of LAMA in asthma is lacking, as is information on where in the current step-wise management strategy they would be most beneficial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of a LAMA added to any dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) compared with the same dose of ICS alone for adults whose asthma is not well controlled.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and drug company registries to identify unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled by ICS alone were randomly assigned to receive LAMA add-on or placebo (both combined with ICS) for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the 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. Pre-specified primary outcomes included exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids, quality of life and all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria. All studies applied a double-blind, double-dummy design, and the population of all studies totalled 2563 adult participants. Study duration ranged from 12 weeks to 52 weeks, and risk of bias across domains in all studies was low. Trials included more women than men (33% to 47% male), and mean age of participants ranged from 41 to 48 years. Participants generally had a long history of asthma, and mean baseline predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was between 72% and 75% in three studies reporting pre-bronchodilator values.The rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS) was lower in patients prescribed an LAMA add-on than in those receiving the same dose of ICS alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.93; 2277 participants; four studies; I(2) = 0%; high-quality evidence), meaning that 27 fewer people per 1000 would have an exacerbation over 21 weeks requiring OCS with LAMA compared with ICS alone (95% CI 42 fewer to 6 fewer).All-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) and exacerbations requiring hospital admission were rare and the effects too imprecise to permit firm conclusions, but effects suggested that LAMA add-on may be associated with fewer of both compared with ICS alone (SAEs: OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.57; 2532 participants; four studies; low-quality evidence; exacerbations requiring hospital admission: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.47; 2562 participants; five studies; moderate-quality evidence). Additional therapy with a LAMA showed no clear benefit in terms of quality of life compared with ICS given alone; high-quality evidence showed only a small mean improvement in quality of life as measured on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which was not statistically significant. The same was true for asthma control as measured on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), which was based on moderate-quality evidence. LAMA combined with ICS showed consistent benefit in a range of lung function measures compared with the same dose of ICS alone, and LAMA was not associated with significantly higher rates of adverse events than were reported with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults taking ICS for asthma without a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA), LAMA given as add-on treatment reduces the likelihood of exacerbations requiring treatment with OCS and improves lung function. The benefits of LAMA combined with ICS for hospital admissions, all-cause serious adverse events, quality of life and asthma control remain unknown.Results of this review, along with findings of related reviews conducted to assess the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios involving asthma, can help to define the role of LAMA in the management of asthma. Trials of longer duration (up to 52 weeks) would provide a better opportunity to observe rare events such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus higher dose ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), a class of drugs with proven effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are being considered as an add-on option for adults with asthma whose condition is uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is important to assess the safety and efficacy of LAMA add-on as an alternative to the prolonged use of higher doses of ICS, which are known to cause undesirable side effects in some people.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of adding a LAMA to any dose of ICS versus increasing the dose of ICS, for uncontrolled asthma in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) from its inception in 1995 to April 2015, imposing no restriction on language of publication. We also handsearched trial registries, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, as well as manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel or cross-over randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 weeks, in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled on ICS alone were randomised to treatment with LAMA add-on to ICS or with an increased dose of ICS. Trials were excluded if patients were taking long-acting beta2-agonists during the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the searches and extracted data from studies meeting all the inclusion criteria. We used Covidence to manage duplicate screening, data extraction and risk of bias judgements, and to form a consensus where discrepancies arose. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), effects on quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

One cross-over randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. The trial was performed in 210 patients with moderate to severe asthma and compared the use of the LAMA tiotropium bromide with double dose beclomethasone (an ICS) using a cross-over design and 14-week treatment periods.Compared with people taking a double dose of ICS, fewer people taking a LAMA add-on had an exacerbation requiring treatment with OCS (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.43) or an exacerbation resulting in emergency department admission (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77), but the confidence intervals for both outcomes did not exclude the possibility that double dose ICS was more effective. Serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation occurred in similarly low numbers of people taking each treatment, but confidence intervals were too wide to suggest that the two treatment options were equivalent.Asthma-related quality of life was similar in both treatment groups (mean difference (MD) in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI - 0.07 to 0.27). Those taking LAMA add-on scored slightly better on a scale measuring asthma control than those increasing their ICS dose (MD in change from baseline - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.02), although the difference was clinically small. Evidence was deemed low quality for both quality of life and asthma control.There was moderate-quality evidence that participants' trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 100 mL better when taking LAMA add-on than with increased ICS dose (MD in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one randomised trial was found, comparing tiotropium add-on to increased dose beclomethasone. Differences between the treatments were too small or imprecise to understand whether adding a LAMA to ICS is safer or more effective than increasing the dose of ICS, and there is a possibility of carry-over effects due to the study's cross-over design. LAMA add-on may lead to more improvement in lung function (FEV1) than an increased dose of ICS.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA against other treatments, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma management, and this review should be updated as results from future trials emerge. Studies assessing the role of LAMA add-on should be longer and include a double-ICS treatment arm so that the results can be interpreted in the context of the guideline-recommended treatment options that are available to physicians.

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.