Montelukast - evaluation in 6 to 14 years old children with persistent asthma - pediatric montelukast study group

Adverse drug reactions of leukotriene receptor antagonists in children with asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic condition of childhood. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) are included in international guidelines for children and young people (CYP), but there have been highly publicised concerns about potential adverse effects. The aim was to identify and understand the reported frequency of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) attributed to LTRAs in CYP with asthma.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to October 2020. Reference lists of eligible papers were manually screened. Eligible studies identified adverse events attributed to an LTRA in individuals aged between 0 and 18 years diagnosed with asthma. Four different tools were used to assess risk of bias or quality of data to accommodate the papers assessed.

RESULTS

The search identified 427 papers after deduplication; 15 were included (7 case reports, 7 case-controlled or cohort studies and 1 randomised control trial (RCT)). 7012 patients were recorded, of which 6853 received an LTRA. 13 papers examined the ADRs attributed to montelukast, one to pranlukast and one to unspecified LTRAs. After language standardisation, 48 ADRs were found, 20 of which were psychiatric disorders. Across all studies, the most commonly reported ADRs were 'anxiety', 'sleep disorders' and 'mood disorders'. The frequency of ADRs could be calculated in seven of the eight studies. Applying standardised frequency terms to the prospective studies and RCT, there were 14 'common' and 'uncommon' ADRs. 'Common' ADRs included 'agitation/hyperactivity/irritability/nervousness', 'aggression' and 'headache'. The case reports showed a similar pattern, describing 46 different ADRs experienced by a total of eight patients.

CONCLUSIONS

LTRAs have a wide range of suspected ADRs in CYP, predominantly gastrointestinal and neuropsychiatric disorders. Careful monitoring of CYP with asthma is required, both to assess and manage ADRs and to step treatment down when clinically stable.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020209627.

Montelukast versus budesonide as a first line preventive therapy in mild persistent asthma in 2 to 18 y

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of oral Montelukast and inhaled Budesonide as a first line preventive therapy in mild persistent asthma in age group 2-18 y.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled clinical study was conducted for 12 wk. Sixty patients of mild persistent asthma aged 2 to 18 y were randomly allocated to either oral Montelukast (n = 60) or inhaled Budesonide (n = 60) group. Outcomes measured were improvement in peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), forced expiratory volume 1 s/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC), day time and night time symptoms and frequency of exacerbations and need to change medications.

RESULTS

There was significant improvement in PEFR, FEV1/FVC, day time and night time symptoms and frequency of exacerbations in both groups. However, more significant improvement in FEV1/FVC (CI 95 %, p = 0.029) and day time symptoms (CI 95 %, p = 0.002) was seen in Budesonide group compared to Montelukast group.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that oral Montelukast is not inferior to Budesonide in treatment of mild persistent asthma in 2 to 18 y children in terms of control of symptoms and improvement in pulmonary function tests over a 12 wk period. However, there was more significant improvement in day time symptoms, more significant increase in FEV1/FVC ratio and less exacerbation in patients receiving Budesonide compared to those receiving Montelukast. However, side effects due to long term use of steroids such as growth stunting and bone osteopenia should also be considered before recommending. Trial registered at CTRI no. REF/2012/09/004035.

Montelukast administered in the morning or evening to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children

Montelukast is recommended to be taken in the evening. The effectiveness of this drug to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children was already evaluated. However, there is no information to determine if this effectiveness could vary depending on dosage time. Children (n = 24) with a documented history of EIB performed an exercise challenge test before starting montelukast treatment. Twelve children were randomly allocated to receive the drug in the morning for 2 weeks, and another 12 to receive it in the evening. After this treatment period and after a week of washout, the children were crossed over. An exercise test was repeated after the first and second periods of treatment. Values obtained after morning or evening dosage were compared with pretreatment values for the whole group of children. There was a significant effect of montelukast for protecting against EIB, measured both as percent of maximum fall in forced expired volume in 1 sec (FEV1) (18.9 +/- 9.7, morning, 18.7 +/- 11.3, evening, vs. 27.5 +/- 9.8, pretreatment; P < 0.05) or as area under the curve (156.4 +/- 102.0, morning, 145.4 +/- 130.6, evening, vs. 294.3 +/- 156.5, pretreatment; P < 0.005). There were no statistical differences between taking the drug in the morning or evening. In conclusion, montelukast, taken for 2 weeks, is equally effective in exercise-induced bronchoconstriction when dosing either in the morning or in the evening.