Inhaled corticosteroids or montelukast as the preferred primary long-term treatment for pediatric asthma?

Management of Preschool Wheezing: Guideline from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Preschool wheezing should be considered an umbrella term for distinctive diseases with different observable and measurable phenotypes. Despite many efforts, there is a large gap in knowledge regarding management of preschool wheezing. In order to fill this lack of knowledge, the aim of these guidelines was to define management of wheezing disorders in preschool children (aged up to 5 years). A multidisciplinary panel of experts of the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy, addressed twelve different key questions regarding the management of preschool wheezing. Clinical questions have been formulated by the expert panel using the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) and systematic reviews have been conducted on PubMed to answer these specific questions, with the aim of formulating recommendations. The GRADE approach has been used for each selected paper, to assess the quality of the evidence and the degree of recommendations. These guidelines represent, in our opinion, the most complete and up-to-date collection of recommendations on preschool wheezing to guide pediatricians in the management of their patients, standardizing approaches. Undoubtedly, more research is needed to find objective biomarkers and understand underlying mechanisms to assess phenotype and endotype and to personalize targeted treatment.

Pharmacotherapy of critical asthma syndrome: current and emerging therapies

The critical asthma syndrome (CAS) encompasses the most severe, persistent, refractory asthma patients for the clinician to manage. Personalized pharmacotherapy is necessary to prevent the next acute severe asthma exacerbation, not just the control of symptoms. The 2007 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel 3 provides guidelines for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma. The patient's response to recommended pharmacotherapy is highly variable which risks poor asthma control leading to frequent exacerbations that can deteriorate into CAS. Controlling asthma symptoms and preventing acute exacerbations may be two separate clinical activities with their own unique demands. Clinicians must be prepared to use the entire spectrum of asthma medications available but must concurrently be aware of potential drug toxicities some of which can paradoxically worsen asthma control. Medications normally prescribed for COPD can potentially be useful in the CAS patient, particularly those with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome. Immunomodulation with drugs like omalizumab in IgE-mediated asthma syndromes is one important approach. New and emerging drugs address unique aspects of airway inflammation and biology but at a significant financial cost. The pharmacology and toxicities of the agents that may be used in the treatment of CAS to control asthma symptoms and prevent severe exacerbations are reviewed.

Fluticasone or montelukast in preschool wheeze: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 30% of children younger than 3 years experience at least 1 episode of wheezing. Antiasthmatic medication is routinely prescribed, but its effectiveness remains unclear. Our study was aimed to evaluate the effect of anti-inflammatory treatment on frequency and severity of preschool wheeze episodes (PWEs).

METHODS

Children aged 6 to 36 months with the first up to the third PWE were randomly assigned to receive montelukast, fluticasone, or no treatment for 12 weeks. The outcome measures were the number of PWEs, the number of hospitalizations due to PWE, and the severity of respiratory symptoms. results: There were no significant differences in outcome measures between the groups. However, tobacco-exposed children treated with fluticasone had significantly fewer PWEs (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Neither montelukast nor fluticasone has proven effective in the prevention of PWE recurrence. Children of smoking parents may benefit from fluticasone treatment after PWE. This observation requires confirmation in larger studies.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of montelukast in asthma. What are the conclusions from clinical trials and meta-analyses?

Asthma is a common childhood atopic disease associated with chronicity and impaired quality of life. As there is no cure for this disease, treatment relies on avoidance of triggers such as food and aeroallergens, the use of inhaled bronchodilators/corticosteroids and antiallergic or immunomodulating therapies. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and bronchodilators have been the mainstay. However, in Asia, myths and fallacies regarding Western medicine and corticosteroids are prevalent and lead to nonadherence to treatment. Also, use of traditional and proprietary herbal medicines is popular. In the past decades, a novel class of nonsteroidal immunomodulating montelukasts has become available. This article reviews the evidence for the effectiveness and clinical efficacy of these medications. A number of randomized and controlled trials have been performed over the years. The majority of studies confirm the usefulness of montelukast as monotherapy and add-on therapy to ICS in mild to moderate childhood asthma across all age groups. ICSs are generally superior to montelukasts for asthma management. However, montelukast has a place in the treatment of young children with viral-triggered wheezing diseases, exercise-induced asthma, and in children whose parents are steroid-phobic and find ICS unacceptable.

Effectiveness of montelukast administered as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid in pediatric patients with uncontrolled asthma: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic disease of childhood and a leading cause of childhood morbidity. The aim of the current study was to assess the effectiveness of montelukast administered as monotherapy or in combination with current inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in pediatric patients with uncontrolled asthma as per the Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines.

METHODS

Twelve-week, multicentre, open-label, observational study. Primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of patients achieving asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score ≤0.75) at weeks 4 and 12.

RESULTS

A total of 328 patients with uncontrolled asthma (ACQ > 0.75) were enrolled with mean ± SD age of 6.9 ± 3.4 years. Among these, 76 (23.2%) were treated with montelukast monotherapy and 252 (76.8%) with montelukast combined with ICS. By 4 weeks of treatment 61.3% and 52.9% of the patients in the monotherapy and combination group, respectively, achieved asthma control. These proportions increased to 75.0% and 70.9%, respectively, at 12 weeks. Within the monotherapy group, clinically significant improvements in the ACQ score (mean ± SD of 1.67 ± 0.69, 0.71 ± 0.70 and 0.50 ± 0.52 at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks, respectively; p < 0.001) and the PACQLQ score (mean ± SD of 5.34 ± 1.14, 6.32 ± 0.89 and 6.51 ± 0.85 at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks, respectively; p < 0.001) were observed. In the combination group, the mean ± SD ACQ score significantly improved from 2.02 ± 0.83 at baseline to 0.90 ± 0.86 at 4 weeks and 0.64 ± 0.86 at 12 weeks (p < 0.001), while the PACQLQ score improved from 4.42 ± 1.35 at baseline to 5.76 ± 1.30 at 4 weeks and 6.21 ± 1.03 at 12 weeks (p < 0.001). After a 12-week montelukast add-on therapy, 22.6% of patients reduced their ICS dosage. Similar results were observed among preschool- and school-aged patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Montelukast as monotherapy or in combination with ICS represents an effective treatment strategy for achieving asthma control in pediatric patients and improving caregivers' quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00832455.

Antileukotriene reverts the early effects of inflammatory response of distal parenchyma in experimental chronic allergic inflammation

Aims. Compare the effects of montelukast or dexamethasone in distal lung parenchyma and airway walls of guinea pigs (GP) with chronic allergic inflammation. Methods. GP have inhaled ovalbumin (OVA group-2x/week/4weeks). After the 4th inhalation, GP were treated with montelukast or dexamethasone. After 72 hours of the 7th inhalation, GP were anesthetised, and lungs were removed and submitted to histopathological evaluation. Results. Montelukast and dexamethasone treatments reduced the number of eosinophils in airway wall and distal lung parenchyma compared to OVA group (P < 0.05). On distal parenchyma, both treatments were effective in reducing RANTES, NF-κB, and fibronectin positive cells compared to OVA group (P < 0.001). Montelukast was more effective in reducing eotaxin positive cells on distal parenchyma compared to dexamethasone treatment (P < 0.001), while there was a more expressive reduction of IGF-I positive cells in OVA-D group (P < 0.001). On airway walls, montelukast and dexamethasone were effective in reducing IGF-I, RANTES, and fibronectin positive cells compared to OVA group (P < 0.05). Dexamethasone was more effective in reducing the number of eotaxin and NF-κB positive cells than Montelukast (P < 0.05). Conclusions. In this animal model, both treatments were effective in modulating allergic inflammation and remodeling distal lung parenchyma and airway wall, contributing to a better control of the inflammatory response.

Role of leukotriene receptor antagonists in the management of pediatric asthma: an update

At present, the main indications for leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) in pediatric asthma are as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and as initial controller therapy in children with mild asthma, especially those who cannot or will not use ICS. LTRA are also useful for patients who have concomitant rhinitis, and patients with viral-induced wheeze and exercise-induced asthma. It should be noted that the benefits of LTRA therapy have been demonstrated in children as young as 6 months of age and recent clinical trials have further proven the benefits of LTRA in acute asthma exacerbations. However, considering the important pro-inflammatory effects that leukotrienes (LT) have in experimental models of asthma, it may seem surprising that LTRA treatment outcomes are not better and that in some clinical trials only a minority of patients could be classified as full responders. This could be explained by potential additional LT receptors that are not affected by LTRA. Such receptors could represent new therapeutic targets in asthma. Furthermore, progress in differentiating between asthma phenotypes that result from different pathogenic mechanisms, some of which may involve LT to a lesser degree, should lead to an improved, personalized use of LTRA for treating asthma.

Montelukast versus inhaled corticosteroids in the management of pediatric mild persistent asthma

International guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) as the preferred therapy, with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as an alternative, for the management of persistent asthma in children. Montelukast (MLK) is the first LTRA approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the use in young asthmatic children.Therefore, we performed an analysis of studies that compared the efficacy of MLK versus ICSs. We considered eligible for the inclusion randomized, controlled trials on pediatric populations with Jadad score > 3, with at least 4 weeks of treatment with MLK compared with ICS.Although it is important to recognize that ICSs use is currently the recommended first-line treatment for asthmatic children, MLK can have consistent benefits in controlling asthmatic symptoms and may be an alternative in children unable to use ICSs or suffering from poor growth. On the contrary, low pulmonary function and/or high allergic inflammatory markers require the corticosteroid use.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with low-dose fluticasone propionate versus montelukast in children with asthma aged 4 to 11 years

OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are preferred first-line controller agents for adults and adolescents with asthma. There is limited effectiveness data comparing ICS to leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) in children with asthma aged 4 to 11 years.

METHODS

A retrospective, matched cohort study was conducted using medical and pharmacy claims data. Asthma patients (ICD-9, 493.xx) naïve to any asthma controller therapy, and having ≥1 dispensing of fluticasone propionate 44 mcg (FP44), an ICS, or montelukast any dose (MON), an LTRA, were identified. Drug cohorts were matched (1:2) using propensity scores. Outcomes during follow-up included asthma-related ED visits, composite measure of asthma-related ED/hospital visit, asthma-related costs per month, and monthly rescue medication use. Statistical differences between cohorts were evaluated using multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

The final matched sample included 6,636 patients (FP44=2,212; MON=4,424). During follow-up, the FP44 cohort had a 29% significantly lower risk of an asthma-related ED visit (Hazard ratio (95% CI) =0.71 (0.52, 0.96)) compared to the MON cohort. Monthly asthma-related costs were significantly reduced on average by 36% in the FP44 compared to the MON cohort ($48 vs $75, p<0.05). Use of short-acting beta-agonists per month were similar between cohorts but monthly adjusted number of oral corticosteroid prescriptions were significantly lower in the FP44 compared to the MON cohort (0.03 vs 0.04, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Initiation of FP44 versus MON in children with asthma aged 4 to 11 years is associated with a significant reduction in asthma-related ED visits, costs, and oral corticosteroid use.

Asthma control in adolescents: role of leukotriene inhibitors

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways and is a big burden worldwide. It affects both children and adults, but it is insufficiently studied in adolescents, although this age group has important peculiarities and is challenging to treat, due to, but not exclusively because of, lack of adherence to treatment instructions. Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of asthma targeting specifically adolescents are lacking, due to the fact that most studies are conducted either on children or in adults. Exercise-induced asthma occurs commonly in adolescents, leading to impaired physical activity. This review describes current treatment options for asthma in adolescents, focusing on leukotriene receptor antagonists, both as a monotherapy and as an add-on therapy for optimal asthma control.

Predicting short term response to anti-inflammatory therapy in young children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Currently available anti-inflammatory treatment for young children with asthma includes inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and the leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) montelukast.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate potential biomarkers of predicting short-term (6-week) response to ICS and LTRAs in children with asthma.

METHODS

A total of 102 children aged 4 to 7 years with episodic asthma were enrolled in an open labelled single-centre study. Biomarkers and asthma characteristics were evaluated as predictors of treatment. Of 102 patients 45 became symptomatic during observation and were randomised to treatment either to montelukast or fluticasone for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) increased with both treatments: FEV1 at randomisation was 90.2% and after therapy 106.8% with fluticasone vs. 90.8% and 103.7% for montelukast, respectively, showing that montelukast and fluticasone were equally effective in this age group (p = 0.44). Strong correlations to a favourable treatment response were pre-bronchodilatory FEV1 (p < 0.001) and airway reversibility (p = 0.04) at time of randomisation. None of the other biomarkers (methacholine testing, exhaled nitric oxide [eNO], presence of allergy, total Immunoglobulin E [IgE], cumulative specific IgE, eosinophils and parental smoking) were predictive.

CONCLUSION

Despite the small sample size and the open-label design, the study suggests that the use of pre-bronchodilatory FEV1 and airway reversibility appears to be a good indicator of short-term anti-inflammatory therapy in young children with asthma.

Montelukast in guidelines and beyond

In all asthma guidelines, preventive anti-inflammatory treatment is essential in all patients with persistent asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment in the control of asthma, but other treatments may be used as a monotherapy in patients with mild asthma or as an add-on treatment in those with moderate-to-severe asthma. Leukotriene modifiers are the only validated preventive treatment for all age groups. This review discusses the place of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, using guidelines and consensus reports on asthma and rhinitis: the US National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP); the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma; the Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA); and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). This review includes new studies that have not yet been considered in guidelines.

Fluticasone or montelukast for preschool children with asthma-like symptoms: Randomized controlled trial

RATIONALE

Beneficial effects of anti-inflammatory therapy such as fluticasone propionate (FP) and montelukast (Mk) have been demonstrated in preschool children with asthma. However, comparative studies are lacking in this age group. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate and compare the effect of FP and Mk in preschool children with asthma-like symptoms.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy trial, children aged 2-6 years with asthma-like symptoms were included. In total, 63 children were randomly allocated to receive FP (25), Mk (18) or placebo (20) for 3 months. The primary outcome was the daily symptom score (wheeze, cough, shortness of breath) as recorded by caregivers in a symptom diary card. Secondary endpoints were rescue medication free days, blood eosinophils and lung function (interrupter technique and forced oscillation technique (FOT)).

RESULTS

During the 3 months study period, symptoms improved in all 3 groups, with a statistically significant difference between FP and placebo in favor of the FP group (p=0.021). A significant reduction in circulating eosinophils after 3 months of treatment was found in the Mk group only (p=0.008), which was significantly different from the change found in the placebo group (p=0.045). With the exception of frequency dependence (measured by FOT), which showed a difference between FP and Mk after 3 months of treatment in favor of the FP group (p=0.048), no differences in lung function within or between groups were found.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of a lack of power, our results suggest that FP has a beneficial effect on symptoms and Mk on blood eosinophil level as compared to placebo. Except for a difference in one lung function parameter after 3 months between FP and Mk in favor of the FP group, this study revealed no differences between FP and Mk.