Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

National expert consensus on short-acting beta2-agonist overreliance in asthma care in Malaysia

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate use of short-acting beta2-agonists (SABA) in asthma has been associated with undesired outcomes. This national expert consensus was developed to increase awareness of SABA overuse and provide recommendations on the ways to eliminate SABA overprescription and overreliance in Malaysia.

DATA SOURCES

This expert consensus was developed by searching the PubMed database, using index terms to identify SABA overuse-related burden and recommendations made in asthma guidelines. Consensus recommendations were made via the Delphi method, involving a Malaysian expert committee comprising 13 healthcare professionals (five pulmonologists, four family medicine specialists, two emergency medicine physicians and two pharmacists).

STUDY SELECTIONS

The articles reviewed include randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, observational studies, guidelines, and surveys, with abstracts in English and published up until June 2023. Relevant recommendations were also sourced from verified websites of medical organizations and societies.

RESULTS

Eleven consensus statements were developed, each statement achieving a priori agreement level of at least 70%. The statements reflect SABA overreliance in asthma care, as well as recommendations to eliminate SABA overprescription and overreliance in Malaysia. Supporting evidence in the literature as well as expert committee discussions leading to the development of the finalized statements were elaborated.

CONCLUSION

This national expert consensus discussed the burden of SABA overreliance and made specific recommendations to eliminate SABA overprescription and overreliance in the Malaysian context. This consensus document is anticipated to impart better awareness among Malaysian healthcare providers and contribute to the continuous improvement of asthma care in the country.

Analysis of the potential molecular mechanisms of asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease

OBJECTIVE

Asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) often occur simultaneously, with GERD being a comorbidity of asthma. This study aimed to explore the biological markers related to asthma and GERD by bioinformatics analysis.

METHODS

Initially, gene expression datasets for asthma and GERD were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus database, and subsequent differential expression analysis yielded 620 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for asthma and 2367 DEGs for GERD. The intersection of these two gene sets yielded a total of 84 DEGs. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses revealed that these genes may be involved in steroid hormone secretion and cellular stress response. Five hub genes (PTGDR2, CPA3, FCER1A, TPSAB1, and IL1RL1) were identified by a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis and topological algorithm.

RESULTS

Enrichment analysis results indicated that hub genes may be involved in hormone secretion and disease development, particularly in regulating the renin-angiotensin system and systemic arterial blood pressure. PTGDR2, CPA3, TPSAB1, and IL1RL1 were upregulated in both asthma and GERD patient groups, while FCER1A was upregulated in asthma patients but downregulated in GERD patients. Through drug prediction, 22 drugs targeting hub genes PTGDR2, FCER1A, and TPSAB1 were identified. By constructing a transcription factor (TF)-target gene network, we found that eight TFs may regulate the expression of PTGDR2, FCER1A, and IL1RL1.

CONCLUSION

Hence, Asthma and GERD were related to steroid hormone secretion and the renin-angiotensin system.

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

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

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

Comparison of three alternatives for the management of moderate asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent asthma guidelines for children 6-11 years with persistent asthma advocate three alternatives: SMART (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 mcg qd plus additional doses as needed), fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol, and fixed-dose budesonide. Concerns have arisen as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy were calculated over a time horizon of 6 years. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The mean QALY per patient was 0.57 and 0.56 QALYs per patient per year of SMART and fixed combination and 0,52 with fixed-dose budesonide. The total mean of discounted costs per patient per cycle were US$111 for SMART, US$133 for fixed combination, and US$67 for fixed-dose budesonide. The net monetary benefit of SMART was US$12,549, US$12278 for fixed combination, and US$11,380 for fixed-dose budesonide.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that SMART was more cost-effective than fixed combination and fixed-dose budesonide. These findings complement and support the GINA 2021 and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program asthma guideline recommendations for use of inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

Audit of Asthma Exacerbation Management in a Swiss General Hospital

BACKGROUND

Adequate management is crucial to reduce symptoms, hospitalization, and relapses in patients with asthma. Hospitals often struggle to meet treatment guidelines, and no recent data for Switzerland are available.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to audit the asthma exacerbation management in the Cantonal Hospital of Baselland in order to evaluate the level of compliance with guidelines in a narrative discussion.

METHOD

The study design is a retrospective observational cohort study. We evaluated all adult patients presenting to the hospital with a physician-diagnosed asthma exacerbation in 2018 and 2019. The asthma management patients received was compared to the Swiss guidelines and the international GINA guidelines.

RESULTS

160 patients were included (mean age: 50 years old, 57.5% female). SpO2 and heart rate were assessed at presentation in nearly all patients. Peak expiratory flow (PEF) was measured in only 14%. Adequate management of asthma exacerbation with inhaled bronchodilator medication in a combination of short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting anticholinergics was administered to 96% of the patients. Patients with severe symptoms received systemic glucocorticosteroids within 6 h in 55%. At discharge, a reliever medication was prescribed for 64% of the patients and 55% received a new or increased controller therapy with inhaled glucocorticosteroid (ICS). 49% of the patients had no follow-up organized.

CONCLUSION

To increase the guideline conformity and quality of asthma exacerbation management, the severity should be better assessed, especially by routinely performing PEF measurements. Treatment needs to be intensified; in particular, the ICS dose should be increased significantly and systemic glucocorticosteroids should be given with a lower threshold.

It is time to end our love affair with short-acting β2-agonists in asthma

In this issue of ERJOR, Noorduynet al. add data to the growing literature showing that SABA overuse in asthma is both common and associated with severe exacerbations. It is time to take note and act to tackle this global issue. https://bit.ly/3BfwhfS.

Cost-utility of as-needed ICS-formoterol versus to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma

Background

Recent asthma guidelines, such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), recommend in adult patients as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The introduction of these recommendations concerns whether using as-needed budesonide-formoterol would be more cost-effective than to maintenance ICS. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in patients with mild asthma.

Methods

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

Results

The model suggests a potential gain of 0.37 QALYs and per patient per year on as-needed ICS-formoterol and a reduction in the discounted cost per person-year, of as-needed ICS-formoterol to maintenance ICS, of US$40. This position of dominance of as-needed ICS-formoterol negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, our base‐case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

Conclusion

Low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients with mild asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.