Add-on salmeterol compared to double dose fluticasone in pediatric asthma: a double-blind, randomized trial (VIAPAED)

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and fluticasone propionate monotherapy in step-up treatment of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects millions of children worldwide and can impair their quality of life and development. Inhaled glucocorticoids are the mainstay of asthma treatment, but some children require step-up therapy with additional drugs to achieve symptom control. Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FSC) has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in adults. However, the evidence for its efficacy and safety in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide a comprehensive basis for treatment selection by summarizing existing clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of FSC compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy in children with asthma who require step-up treatment.

METHODS

Five online databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were systematically searched. The effect size and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the heterogeneity among the included studies.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified and a total of 9, 859 patients were involved. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of FSC was associated with a greater reduction in the incidence of asthma exacerbations than FP alone when the dose of FP was the same or when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. In addition, FSC resulted in a greater proportion of time with asthma-free and without the use of albuterol compared to FP alone when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. No significant differences were observed between FSC and FP alone in the incidence of drug-related adverse events and other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Both FSC and FP alone are viable options for the initial selection of step-up treatment in asthmatic children. While, FSC treatment demonstrates a greater likelihood of reducing asthma exacerbations which is particularly important for reducing the personnel, social and economic burden in children requiring step-up asthma treatment.

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

Comparison of the effect of fluticasone combined with salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma: review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of fluticasone + salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

METHODS

Studies meeting specific selection criteria were selected from online databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were used to evaluate the effect size of continuous variables, while rate ratio (RR) and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, including 8,272 pediatric asthma patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among these, 4,133 patients were in the salmeterol + fluticasone group. The changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children with asthma in the salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, WMD = 3.26, 95% CI: 1.52-5.00, P = 0.0002). Asthma exacerbation between two groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, Z = 2.18, P = 0.03). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma (P > 0.05). When the control group was treated with double dose fluticasone, the difference of changes in FEV1 and asthma exacerbation in children with asthma between the two groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is better than fluticasone alone, and the efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is equal to doubling the dose of fluticasone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

Efficacy and safety of the combination fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol in asthmatic preschoolers: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma management in pediatric patients. However, in some cases, asthma is not adequately controlled on ICS alone. Long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) are one of the available additional therapies but their use has rarely been studied among children younger than 5 years.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SA) in asthmatic children younger than 5 years of age.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 796 children under the age of 5 years (2.87 ± 1.22 years, 64.2% males), who were treated with FP/SA was conducted. Hospitalization rates, frequency of wheezing, exercise induced asthma, nocturnal wheeze and drug-related side-effects were recorded through children's medical records.

RESULTS

The children had previously received short-acting β₂-agonists (73%), ICS (17%), montelukast (1%), and ICS with montelukast (2%). Mean duration of therapy with FP/SA was 12.45 ± 9.14 months. After adjusting for age, gender, and duration of treatment, a 89% reduction was recorded in annual hospitalization rates (from 27.13% before treatment to 3.01% after FP/SA therapy, p < 0.001), a 71% reduction in incidence of exercise-induced asthma (36.8% vs. after 10.6%, p < 0.001), a 81% reduction in nocturnal asthma (33.7% vs. after: 6.4%, p < 0.001), as well as in frequency of wheezing (p < 0.01),. No previous treatment carry-on effect was observed. No major drug-related side-effects occurred in the study group.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy (FP/SA) is well-tolerated and highly effective in asthmatic children under the age of 5 years.

Pediatric asthma treatment: What to do when international guideline recommendations do not agree

BACKGROUND

There was a need for a solid asthma guideline in Mexico to update and unify asthma management. Because high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, in which the latest evidence on asthma management is summarized, the ADAPTE approach allows for the development of a national asthma guideline based on evidence from already existing guidelines, adapted to national needs.

OBJECTIVE

To fuse evidence from the best asthma guidelines and adapt it to local needs with the ADAPTE approach.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II asthma guidelines were evaluated by a core group to select 3 primary guidelines. For each step of asthma management, clinical questions were formulated and replied according to (1) evidence in the primary guidelines, (2) safety, (3) Cost, and (4) patient preference. The Guidelines Development Group, composed of a broad range of experts from medical specialties, primary care physicians, and methodologists, adjusted the draft questions and replies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings, taking into account the reality of the situation in Mexico. We present the results of the pediatric asthma treatment part.

RESULTS

Selected primary guidelines are from the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA) 2015, with 2016 updates. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico. In this article, the detailed analysis of the evidence present in the BTS/SIGN, GINA, and GEMA sections on the (non) pharmacologic treatment of pediatric asthma, education, and devices are presented for 2 age groups: children 5 years or younger and children 6 to 11 years old with asthma.

CONCLUSION

For the pediatric treatment and patient education sections, applying the AGREE II and Delphi methods is useful to develop a scientifically sustained document, adjusted to the Mexican situation, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

Comparative Effectiveness of Step-up Therapies in Children with Asthma Prescribed Inhaled Corticosteroids: A Historical Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In children with uncontrolled asthma prescribed low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), various step-up options are available: fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (FDC), increasing ICS dose, or adding leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA). However, evidence of their relative effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of step-up treatment to FDC in children with asthma versus increased ICS dose, or LTRA.

METHODS

This matched cohort study used UK primary-care databases to study children prescribed their first step-up treatment to FDC, increased ICS dose, or LTRA. A year of baseline data was used for matching and identifying confounders. Outcomes over the following year were examined. The primary outcome was severe exacerbation rate; secondary outcomes included overall asthma control, derived from databases (no asthma-related admissions/hospital attendances/oral corticosteroids or antibiotics prescribed with a respiratory review, and average prescribed salbutamol ≤200 μg/day).

RESULTS

There were 971 matched pairs in the FDC and increased ICS dose cohorts (59% males; mean age, 9.4 years) and 785 in the FDC and LTRA cohorts (60% males; mean age, 9.0 years). Exacerbation rates in the outcome year were similar between FDC and increased ICS (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.09 [0.75-1.59]) and FDC and LTRA (incidence rate ratio, 1.36 [0.93-2.01]). Increased ICS and LTRA significantly reduced the odds of achieving overall asthma control, compared with FDC (odds ratios [95% CI], 0.52 [0.42-0.64] and 0.53 [0.42-0.66], respectively)-this was driven by reduced short-acting beta-agonist use.

CONCLUSIONS

FDC is as effective as increased ICS or LTRA in reducing severe exacerbation rate, but more effective in achieving asthma control.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness of drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations and increase symptom-free days in asthmatic children: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and safety of current maintenance therapies that include inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β-agonists (LABA) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in preventing exacerbations and improving symptoms in pediatric asthma.

METHODS

A systematic review with network meta-analysis was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials databases, up to July 2014. Randomized clinical trials were selected comparing treatment strategies of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The full-text randomized clinical trials compared maintenance treatments for asthma in children (≤18 years) of ≥4 weeks duration, reporting exacerbations or symptom-free days. The primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were the rates of moderate/severe exacerbations and symptom-free days from baseline, respectively. Withdrawal rates were taken as the safety outcome.

RESULTS

Included in the network meta-analysis was 35 trials, comprising 12,010 patients. For both primary and secondary outcomes, combined ICS and LABA was ranked first in effectiveness (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.94-1.61, respectively, compared with low-dose ICS), but the result of secondary outcomes was statistically insignificant. Low-dose ICS, medium- or high-dose ICS and combined ICS and LTRA strategies were comparable in effectiveness. ICS monotherapies, and ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA strategies were similarly safe. High-dose ICS had the highest rate of total withdrawals, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ICS and LABA treatments were most effective in preventing exacerbations among pediatric asthma patients. Medium- or high-dose ICS, combined ICS and LTRAs, and low-dose ICS treatments seem to be equally effective.

Initial step-up treatment changes in asthmatic children already prescribed inhaled corticosteroids: a historical cohort study

Background:

When standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) fail to control symptoms in children aged >4 years, guidelines recommend the addition of a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), with other treatment options being available if symptoms persist.

Aims:

To determine the proportion of initial ‘step-up’ episodes where LABAs were prescribed and to describe characteristics of individuals not stepped up with LABA.

Methods:

Between 1999 and 2011, initial step-up episodes from ICS monotherapy were identified in children aged 5–12 years with asthma and in receipt of ICS. Data sources were the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Optimum Patient Care Research Database.

Results:

Initial step-up episodes were identified in 10,793 children. ICS dose was increased in 6,252 children (58%), LABA was introduced in 3,436 (32%; including 1,107 where fixed dose combination inhaler (FDC) replaced the ICS inhaler), and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) was added in 1,105 (10%). Compared with children stepped up to any LABA, others were younger and prescribed lower doses of ICS and reliever medication. ICS dose increase was more likely in obese children and LTRA prescribing was more likely in children with rhinitis and in receipt of antibiotics. Compared with FDC, step-up to separate LABA inhaler was more likely in younger, obese children who were using less oral steroids.

Conclusions:

One-third of initial step-up episodes in children with asthma treated with ICS are to add LABA. Different characteristics of children prescribed therapies other than LABA suggest that prescribers tailor treatment in some clinical settings.

Emerging issues in pediatric asthma: gaps in EPR-3 guidelines for infants and children

There are many complexities to the treatment of infants and children with recurrent wheezing and asthma. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's (NHLBI's) Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3), published in 2007, provides guidance to clinicians who care for infants and children with asthma. Since that time, many important clinical trials have further informed the evidence base available to clinicians. In this manuscript, new approaches to long-term therapy, intermittent fixed-dose and dynamic dose therapies, and emerging therapies for asthma are reviewed. Further, additional gaps in guideline-based care and areas for future research are discussed.

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model.

CONCLUSION

In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Dispensation of long-acting β agonists with or without inhaled corticosteroids, and risk of asthma-related hospitalisation: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The role of long-acting β-agonists (LABA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the management of asthma is extensively debated. We thought to assess the risk of asthma-related hospitalisation in individuals who regularly filled prescriptions for ICS+LABA compared to those who regularly filled prescriptions for ICS alone or LABA alone, and compared to those who did not regularly fill such medications.

METHODS

Using administrative health databases of the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, from 1997 to 2012, we conducted a nested case-control analysis of a cohort of asthma patients. Cases were defined as those who experienced asthma-related hospitalisation after the first year of their entry into the cohort. For each case, up to 20 controls were matched based on age, sex, date of cohort entry, and several measures of asthma severity. We categorised individuals as regularly exposed, irregularly exposed, or non-exposed to ICS alone, LABA alone, or ICS+LABA based on dispensation records in the past 12 months. The primary outcome measures were the rate ratio (RR) of the asthma-related hospitalisation among categories of regular exposure.

RESULTS

3319 cases were matched to 43 023 controls. The RR for regular dispensation of ICS+LABA was 1.14 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.41) compared with regular dispensation of ICS alone and 0.45 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.70) compared with regular dispensation of LABA alone. Those who regularly dispensed LABA had to dispense an ICS for at least three quarters of a year to reduce their risk to that of those who did not dispense LABA.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular dispensation of ICS+LABA was not associated with an increased risk of asthma-related hospitalisation compared with regular dispensation of ICS alone. Adherence to ICS in patients who regularly receive ICS+LABA seems to be an important factor in the prevention of adverse asthma-related outcomes.

Management of Asthma in School age Children On Therapy (MASCOT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects one in eight children in the UK. National management guidelines have been available for many years but, unlike in adults, studies in children have been few, with their methodologies often based on inappropriate adult models. Sound medical evidence in support of the national guidelines for asthma management in children is lacking. The MASCOT study has been developed to address this need.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether adding salmeterol or montelukast to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) can reduce the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids in children with uncontrolled asthma.

DESIGN

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 4-week run-in period on a fluticasone propionate inhaler (100 µg twice daily) with inhaler technique correction. Patients who met the post run-in period eligibility criteria were randomised in the ratio of 1 : 1 : 1 and were followed for 48 weeks.

SETTING

Secondary care hospitals based in England and Scotland with recruitment from primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged 6-14 years with asthma requiring frequent short-acting beta-2 agonist relief, with symptoms of asthma resulting in nocturnal wakening and/or asthma that has interfered with usual activities.

INTERVENTIONS

Three groups were compared: (1) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg twice daily plus placebo tablet once daily; (2) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg and salmeterol 50 µg twice daily (combination inhaler) plus placebo tablet once daily; and (3) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg twice daily plus montelukast 5-mg tablet once daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids over 48 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life as measured by the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities [PAQLQ(S)] and the Paediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ); time from randomisation to first exacerbation requiring treatment with a short course of oral corticosteroids; school attendance; hospital admissions; amount of rescue beta-2 agonist therapy prescribed; time from randomisation to treatment withdrawal (because of lack of efficacy or side effects); lung function at 48 weeks (as assessed by spirometry); cost-effectiveness; adverse events.

RESULTS

The study was closed prematurely because of poor recruitment and the target sample size of 450 was not achieved. In total, 898 children were screened to enter the trial, 166 were registered for the 4-week run-in period and 63 were randomised (group 1: 19, group 2: 23, group 3: 21), with 38 contributing data for the primary outcome analysis. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the outcomes. Adverse events were similar between the groups except for nervous system disorders, which were more frequently reported on fluticasone plus montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the MASCOT study it is not possible to conclude whether adding salmeterol or montelukast to ICSs can reduce the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids in children with uncontrolled asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03556343.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

The expert network and electronic portal for children with respiratory and allergic symptoms: rationale and design

Data on baseline characteristics of children with asthma to predict individual treatment responses are lacking. We aimed to set up a data-collection system which can easily fill this gap in clinical practice.A web-based application was developed, named 'Portal for children with respiratory and allergic symptoms', hereafter called Electronic Portal (EP). It contains health- and disease-related questionnaires on respiratory- and allergic diseases. All patients, 1-18 years of age, with respiratory- and/or allergic complaints are invited to enter the EP before their first visit. By using the EP large amounts of data, gathered during routine patient care can be used for research purposes. This may help to further investigate the different treatment related asthma phenotypes and will be helpful to monitor risk factors for other atopic diseases and respiratory infections.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform®), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 μg b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 μg b.i.d.), formoterol (10 μg b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV(1) compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV(1) versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. EudraCT number: 2007-002866-36; US NCT number: NCT00393991.

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

Background

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

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

A systematic review of long-acting β2-agonists versus higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) versus higher doses of ICS in children/adolescents with uncontrolled persistent asthma.

METHODS

Randomized, prospective, controlled trials published January 1996 to January 2012 with a minimum of 4 weeks of LABA+ICS versus higher doses of ICS were retrieved through Medline, Embase, Central, and manufacturer's databases. The primary outcome was asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids; secondary outcomes were the pulmonary function test (PEF), withdrawals during the treatment period, days without symptoms, use of rescue medication, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Nine studies (n = 1641 patients) met criteria for inclusion (7 compared LABA+ICS versus double ICS doses and 2 LABA+ICS versus higher than double ICS doses). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids between children receiving LABA+ICS and those receiving higher doses of ICS (odds ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.48-1.22, P = .25, I(2) = 16%). In the subgroup analysis, patients receiving LABA+ICS showed a decreased risk of asthma exacerbations compared with higher than twice ICS doses (odds ratio = 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.82, P = .007, I(2)= 0). Children treated with LABA+ICS had significantly higher PEF, less use of rescue medication, and higher short-term growth than those on higher ICS doses. There were no other significant differences in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant group differences between ICS+LABA and double doses of ICS in reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations but it did decrease the risk comparing to higher than double doses of ICS.

Assessment of controversial pediatric asthma management options using GRADE

OBJECTIVES

To develop explicit and transparent recommendations on controversial asthma management issues in children and to illustrate the usefulness of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach in rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

METHODS

Health care questions were formulated for 3 controversies in clinical practice: what is the most effective treatment in asthma not under control with standard-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; step 3), the use of leukotriene receptor antagonist for viral wheeze, and the role of extra fine particle aerosols. GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations after performing systematic literature searches. We provide evidence profiles and considerations about benefit and harm, preferences and values, and resource use, all of which played a role in formulating final recommendations.

RESULTS

By applying GRADE and focusing on outcomes that are important to patients and explicit other considerations, our recommendations differ from those in other international guidelines. We prefer to double the dose of ICS instead of adding a long-acting β-agonist in step 3; ICS instead of leukotriene receptor antagonist are the first choice in preschool wheeze, and extra fine particle ICS formulations are not first-line treatment in children with asthma. Recommendations are weak and based on low-quality evidence for critical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide systematically and transparently developed recommendations about controversial asthma management options. Using GRADE for guideline development may change recommendations, enhance guideline implementation, and define remaining research gaps.

Cost considerations of therapeutic options for children with asthma

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Anti-asthma medication prescribing to children in the Lombardy Region of Italy: chronic versus new users

Background

Although anti-asthma medications are amongst those most frequently under or over prescribed it is generally accepted that prescriptions for such agents can be used as a proxy for disease prevalence. The aims of this study were to estimate prevalence and incidence of childhood asthma in a representative Italian area by analysing three years of anti-asthmatic prescriptions and hospitalizations of subjects with chronic or first time treatment, and to underline appropriateness of therapeutic choices.

Methods

The analysis involved prescriptions given to 6-17 year olds between 2003 and 2005 in Italy's Lombardy Region. The youths were classified as potential asthmatics, based on the different degree of drug utilization: occasional, low or high users, and grouped as 'new onset' or 'chronic' cases based on the duration of therapy dispensed. The analysis of prescriptions and hospitalization rate of these groups provided an estimate of the 2005 asthma prevalence and incidence and allowed an estimation of the level of appropriateness of treatments.

Results

During 2005, the estimated incidence of potential asthmatics was 0.8% and the estimated prevalence was 3.5%. When viewed retrospectively for two years, records showed that 47% of potential asthmatics received prescriptions also during 2004 and 30% also during 2003. During the three years considered, 7.5%, 2.8%, and 1.5% of high, low, and occasional users, respectively, were hospitalized for asthma. The most important inappropriateness found was the prescription of long acting beta adrenergics as first time treatment.

Conclusions

This study allowed a proxy of asthma incidence, prevalence, and severity. The analyses highlighted a low compliance with the guidelines, suggesting that educational interventions are needed to obtain a more rational management of childhood asthma, especially in subjects starting therapy.

Inhaled corticosteroid dosing: double for nothing?

Two recent trials from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's asthma clinical trials networks raise a concern about using double the dose of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as a positive control arm in clinical trials of add-on therapy. The literature evaluating the response to doubling the dose of an ICS is briefly reviewed. The vast majority of studies do not demonstrate a significant positive benefit from doubling the dose of an ICS but do show improvement with 4-fold increases that is equal to or greater than that of add-on long-acting bronchodilators. It is recommended that doubling the dose of an ICS no longer be considered a positive comparator arm in clinical trials, although it might be beneficial in individual patients.

Combination therapy salmeterol/fluticasone versus doubling dose of fluticasone in children with asthma

RATIONALE

For children with symptomatic asthma despite low to moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids, evidence is still lacking whether to add a long-acting bronchodilator or to increase the dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFP), 50/100 μg twice a day, is noninferior regarding symptom control compared with fluticasone propionate (FP), 200 μg twice a day Diskus in children with symptomatic asthma.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study was performed comparing SFP and FP treatment during 26 weeks on asthma control and lung function.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 158 children, 6-16 years old, still symptomatic on FP, 100 μg twice a day, during a 4-week run-in period, were included. Percentage of symptom-free days during the last 10 weeks of the treatment period did not differ between treatment groups (per protocol analysis: adjusted mean difference [FP minus SFP] 2.6%; 95% confidence interval, -8.1 to 13.4). Both groups showed substantial improvements of about 25 percent points in symptom-free days (both P < 0.001 from baseline). Lung function measurements (FEV(1), FVC, PEF rate, and maximal expiratory flow) did not differ between groups except for a slight advantage in maximal expiratory flow in the SFP group at 1 week. No differences were found between FP and SFP regarding exacerbation rates, adverse events, or growth.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study the efficacy on symptom control and lung function of the combination of a long-acting bronchodilator with inhaled corticosteroid is equal to doubling the dose of the inhaled corticosteroid in children still symptomatic on a moderate dose of inhaled corticosteroid.

Use and safety of long-acting β2-agonists for pediatric asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend the use of long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) as the preferred add-on therapy for adults and children over 5 years of age when asthma is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids alone. It has been suggested that LABA use may be associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality; however, this view is controversial since study findings have been inconsistent. While the safety profile of LABA monotherapy has been questioned, the value of concomitant inhaled corticosteroids to eliminate possible risks remains unproven. There is a paucity of efficacy and safety data for LABA use in children, and existing evidence is not sufficiently convincing to demonstrate a clear position for LABAs in the management of childhood asthma. The main aims of this article are to place LABAs in context in the management of childhood asthma and evaluate the current evidence for safety and efficacy.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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