A Pragmatic Trial of Symptom-Based Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in African-American Children with Mild Asthma

Critical reappraisal of short-acting bronchodilators for pediatric respiratory diseases

Short-acting bronchodilators are a class of medications commonly used to treat asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other respiratory conditions. The use of these medications has evolved over time as we have gained a better understanding of their effectiveness and safety in the pediatric population. This comprehensive review synthesizes the current understanding of short-acting β2-agonists and short-acting anticholinergics in children. It addresses indications, contraindications, safety considerations, and highlights areas where further research is needed to guide the most effective use of short-acting bronchodilators.

START CARE: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever-based treatment in children

Background

Asthma is the most common chronic childhood respiratory condition globally. Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever-based regimens reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations compared with conventional short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever-based regimens in adults and adolescents. The current limited evidence for anti-inflammatory reliever therapy in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also applicable to children. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed.

Objective

The study aim is to determine the efficacy and safety of budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) compared with standard therapy: budesonide or budesonide-formoterol maintenance, both with terbutaline reliever, in children aged 5 to 11 years with mild, moderate and severe asthma.

Methods

A 52-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel group, phase III, two-sided superiority RCT will recruit 400 children aged 5 to 11 years with asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol 100/6 µg Turbuhaler reliever alone or MART; or budesonide or budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler maintenance, with terbutaline Turbuhaler reliever. The primary outcome is moderate and severe asthma exacerbations as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes are asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. Assessment of Turbuhaler technique and cost-effectiveness analysis are also planned.

Conclusion

This will be the first RCT to compare the efficacy and safety of a step-wise budesonide-formoterol reliever alone or MART regimen with conventional inhaled ICS or ICS-long-acting β-agonist maintenance plus SABA reliever in children. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of asthma in children.

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.

European Respiratory Society short guidelines for the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma

Recent clinical trials of as-needed fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol have provided new evidence that may warrant a reconsideration of current practice. A Task Force was set up by the European Respiratory Society to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol as treatment for mild asthma. The Task Force defined two questions that were assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The Task Force utilised the outcomes to develop recommendations for a pragmatic guideline for everyday clinical practice. The Task Force suggests that adults with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of regular ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed short-acting β2-antagonist (SABA) and that adolescents with mild asthma use either as-needed ICS/formoterol or ICS maintenance treatment plus as-needed SABA (conditional recommendation; low certainty of evidence). The recommendation for adults places a relatively higher value on the reduction of systemic corticosteroid use and the outcomes related to exacerbations, and a relatively lower value on the small differences in asthma control. Either treatment option is suggested for adolescent patients as the balance is very close and data more limited. The Task Force recommends that adult and adolescent patients with mild asthma use as-needed ICS/formoterol instead of as-needed SABA (strong recommendation; low certainty of evidence). This recommendation is based on the benefit of as-needed ICS/formoterol in mild asthma on several outcomes and the risks related to as-needed SABA in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. The implementation of this recommendation is hampered in countries (including European Union countries) where as-needed ICS/formoterol is not approved for mild asthma.

American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred steps 1 to 3 asthma maintenance and reliever therapy and incomplete insurance coverage indicated as main practice hurdle

BACKGROUND

New asthma guidelines (GINA, 2022; NAEPP EPR-4, 2020) include considerable changes in treatment recommendations, specifically regarding anti-inflammatory rescue and Single MAintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART).

OBJECTIVE

To explore American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred treatment and perceived hurdles.

METHODS

A survey (SurveyMonkey) regarding steps 1 to 3 asthma therapy was e-mailed to American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members.

RESULTS

The allergists completed 147 surveys (46% with >20 years of experience; 98% from United States; 29% academic, 75% [also] private practice). In addition, 69% follow the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program and 81% the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Of 147 allergists, 117 (80%) indicated correctly what SMART strategy is; 21%/36%/50%/39% would use SMART in step 3 treatment of a below 5-year-old/5- to 11-year-old/12- to 65-year-old/above 65-year-old patient, respectively. In this group, 11% to 14% incorrectly chose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus salmeterol and 9% ICS plus vilanterol for SMART. In a 4-year-old needing step 1 therapy (N = 129), 55% of the respondents would add anti-inflammatory therapy; for step 2 treatment, most would prescribe ICS 100 to 200 µg budesonide equivalent daily; in step 3, 49% would prescribe ICS plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA). In a 7-year-old needing step 1 treatment (N = 134), 40% would prescribe only short-acting beta-agonist; in step 3, 45% would institute SMART strategy, but only 8 of 135 (6%) chose very-low dose ICS plus formoterol (as recommended in Global Initiative for Asthma); most (39%) use low-dose ICS plus formoterol. As for rescue therapy, 59% is now instituting some form of anti-inflammatory rescue. Finally, in a 25-year-old patient (N = 144): in step 1, 39% would prescribe exclusively short-acting beta-agonist; in step 2, 4% only anti-inflammatory rescue and the rest prescribes ICS maintenance; one-third begins SMART strategy at step 2 and 50% in step 3. Major hurdles for prescribing one's preferred strategy included incomplete insurance coverage, insurance not approving more than one canister of ICS-formoterol per month, and cost.

CONCLUSION

Asthma therapy varies among physicians, with respondents suggesting underutilization of the recommended anti-inflammatory rescue and SMART therapy. A major hurdle is lack of insurance coverage of medication in line with the guidelines.

Regular (up to 10 puffs 4-hourly) inhaled salbutamol should be prescribed at discharge after an asthma attack: myth or maxim?

Over the past 20 years, the concept of asthma weaning plans on discharge after an attack has crept into common practice, although the precise origin of these plans is unclear. High use of short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) may result in tolerance to their bronchodilator effects, thus diminishing their efficacy, particularly when they are most needed at the time of an acute attack. Furthermore, key warning signs of a deterioration in asthma control may be masked and the weaning plan may encourage the over-use and over-reliance on SABAs. Side-effects from over-use may also occur, including lactic acidosis, downregulation of the β2-adrenoreceptor, increased allergen response and pro-inflammatory effects. The need for asthma education at discharge, a personal asthma action plan and vigilance about prescribing and ensuring adherence to maintenance therapy are definitely important. However, the current authors conclude that the benefit of prescribing regular salbutamol (up to 10 puffs every 4 h) at discharge after an acute asthma attack is a myth, and a very dangerous one.

New approaches in childhood asthma treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize the most recent advances in asthma management, focusing on novel approaches to pediatric asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, the therapeutic tools for pediatric asthma have expanded significantly for both the nonsevere and severe forms. The use of anti-inflammatory treatment, even for the mildest cases, and the withdrawal of symptomatic bronchodilation as monotherapy have been included in the most recent guidelines. Also, different biological therapies have revolutionized the therapeutical approach for severe uncontrolled asthma in children and adolescents.

SUMMARY

With the expanding landscape of novel therapeutic approaches for pediatric asthma, further evidence is needed to help clinicians choose the best option for patients, particularly those with severe asthma. The identification of novel predictive biomarkers may also help pediatricians in selecting children and adolescents for innovative therapies.

Evaluating as-needed inhaled corticosteroid strategies in asthma: expanding the benefits to mild asthma

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to regular anti-inflammatory treatment is commonly low, and short-acting β2 agonist (SABA) overuse is common in patients with asthma, leading to an increased risk of asthma-related adverse events.

AREAS COVERED

Given the pivotal role of inflammation in asthma, multiple as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies have been developed, leading to a reduction in asthma exacerbations and improvement in symptom control. Currently, as-needed ICS/formoterol is one of the most commonly available formulations; however, other combinations such as ICS/SABA have been shown to be superior to as-needed SABA alone. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature to enhance the advantages and disadvantages of each combination in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

The future direction we foresee in asthma management consists in abandoning as-needed short-acting bronchodilators in favor of as-needed ICS-containing therapies. Each patient is unique and differs from others; consequently, a single option will not fit everyone. Patients' and physicians' awareness of this perspective can be reached through the development of multiple therapeutic options suitable for each condition that can be found in 'real life'.

Applying the new guidelines to asthma management in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide paediatricians with novel concepts from scientific evidence applicable to treating children with asthma. The latest guideline updates on paediatric asthma are discussed here, with a focus on the 2022 update of the GINA document.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mild asthma remains to be an important challenge for the paediatrician, and the introduction of new evidence-based treatment strategies, particularly those symptom-driven, could have a significant impact on the paediatric population. The identification of predictive biomarkers, the definition of biological treatment response, the possible duration of these therapies in this age group, as well as their potential action on airway remodelling are desirable in the short term. As the number of available biological treatment options expands, paediatricians should be supported by further evidence in decision-making.

SUMMARY

There is an urgent need to implement at multiple levels the latest therapeutic strategies proposed for asthma at all severities.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

Prevention of severe asthma exacerbations is a primary management goal for asthma across the severity spectrum. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) decrease the risk of asthma exacerbations, but patient adherence to ICS-containing medications as a daily maintenance therapy is poor, and many patients overuse short-acting beta2-agonist relievers; both are associated with increased risk of severe exacerbations and death. Airway inflammation also varies over time, influenced by exposures such as viral infections and allergen. As-needed ICS strategies, in which patients receive ICSs (or additional ICSs, if already taking controller therapy) whenever they take their reliever inhaler, empower patients to adjust their ICS intake in response to symptom fluctuation. These strategies can improve asthma morbidity outcomes, particularly by reducing severe exacerbations and reducing the risk of adverse effects of oral corticosteroids. In this review, the evidence for combination ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler, ICS and short-acting beta2-agonists in separate inhalers, and combination ICS-albuterol in a single inhaler is presented, along with practical considerations, evidence gaps, and implications for clinical practice for each strategy, presented by level of asthma severity and age group. Improving access to such strategies on a global scale is imperative to improve asthma outcomes and achieve equity across populations.

The ICS/Formoterol Reliever Therapy Regimen in Asthma: A Review

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends that low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol be preferred to short-acting beta₂-agonists as reliever therapy in adolescents and adults with asthma, across the range of asthma severity. This recommendation represents the most fundamental change in asthma management for many decades. In this commentary, we review the rationale for combination ICS/formoterol therapy, the evidence on which this recommendation has been made, the limitations in the evidence, the practical issues relevant to the implementation of ICS/formoterol reliever-based regimens in clinical practice, and the emerging evidence for the efficacy and safety of combination ICS/salbutamol reliever therapy regimens.

Stakeholder engagement in eight comparative effectiveness trials in African Americans and Latinos with asthma

BACKGROUND

The effects of stakeholder engagement, particularly in comparative effectiveness trials, have not been widely reported. In 2014, eight comparative effectiveness studies targeting African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with uncontrolled asthma were funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as part of its Addressing Disparities Program. Awardees were required to meaningfully involve patients and other stakeholders. Using specific examples, we describe how these stakeholders substantially changed the research protocols and in other ways participated meaningfully as full partners in the development and conduct of the eight studies.

METHODS

Using the method content analysis of cases, we identified themes regarding the types of stakeholders, methods of engagement, input from the stakeholders, changes made to the research protocols and processes, and perceived benefits and challenges of the engagement process. We used summaries from meetings of the eight teams, results from an engagement survey, and the final research reports as our data source to obtain detailed information. The descriptive data were assessed by multiple reviewers using inductive and deductive qualitative methods and discussed in the context of engagement literature.

RESULTS

Stakeholders participated in the planning, conduct, and dissemination phases of all eight asthma studies. All the studies included clinicians and community representatives as stakeholders. Other stakeholders included patients with asthma, their caregivers, advocacy organizations, and health-system representatives. Engagement was primarily by participation in advisory boards, although six of the eight studies (75%) also utilized focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Difficulty finding a time and location to meet was the most reported challenge to engagement, noted by four of the eight teams (50%). Other reported challenges and barriers to engagement included recruitment of stakeholders, varying levels of enthusiasm among stakeholders, controlling power dynamics, and ensuring that stakeholder involvement was reflected and had true influence on the project.

CONCLUSION

Engagement-driven modifications led to specific changes in study design and conduct that were felt to have increased enrollment and the general level of trust and support of the targeted communities. The level of interaction described, between investigators and stakeholders in each study and between investigator-stakeholder groups, is-we believe-unprecedented and may provide useful guidance for other studies seeking to improve the effectiveness of community-driven research.

Use of inhaled corticosteroids on an intermittent or as-needed basis in pediatric asthma: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the principal findings of all available studies that have evaluated the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on an intermittent or as-needed basis as an add-on therapy to short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) or fast-acting β2-agonists (FABAs) in pediatric asthmatic patients. Studies could either include or omit the use of ICS during stable periods of the disease.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to February 2021.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant articles in the literature published by February 2021.

RESULTS

Of 294 references identified, 14 studies were included. The use of ICS on an intermittent or as-needed basis (as an add-on therapy to SABAs) has been shown to be more effective than treatment with SABA alone and to be similarly or less effective compared to regular daily ICS administration. Furthermore, strategies involving increasing the dose of ICS only when needed (as an add-on therapy to formoterol, a FABA) and keeping it low during stable stages of the disease (i.e. single maintenance and reliever therapy, SMART) have been shown to be similarly or more effective than comparators.

CONCLUSION

The use of ICS on an intermittent or as-needed basis as an add-on therapy to SABAs or FABAs, with or without ICS use during stable periods of the disease in pediatric asthmatic patients, encompasses several effective treatment strategies.

Asthma management in low and middle income countries: case for change

Asthma is the most common noncommunicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low and middle income countries (LMICs), which have disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality. Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times per week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS are prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting β2-agonists (SABA) alone, owing to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries. The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death, despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches, is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable and effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

As-Needed Use of Short-Acting β2-Agonists Alone Versus As-Needed Use of Short-Acting β2-Agonists Plus Inhaled Corticosteroids in Pediatric Patients With Mild Intermittent (Step 1) Asthma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of the as-needed use of short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs) plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for treating children with mild intermittent asthma has been demonstrated, evidence of its cost-effectiveness is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of the as-needed use of SABAs alone versus the as-needed use of SABAs plus ICS in children 5 to 11 years old with mild intermittent (step 1) asthma but suffering from an exacerbation of asthma symptoms.

METHODS

A decision-analysis model was adapted. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a randomized clinical trial. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national health care system in Colombia. The main outcome of the model was a first course of prednisone for an asthma exacerbation (AE).

RESULTS

Compared with the use of SABAs alone, the as-needed use of SABAs plus ICS was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US$17.99 vs US$27.94 mean cost per patient) and a higher probability of a lack of a requirement for a first course of prednisone (0.6500 vs 0.5100), thus showing dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, compared with the use of albuterol alone, the use of beclomethasone dipropionate added to albuterol as needed for symptom relief is cost-effective in children 5 to 11 years old with mild intermittent (step 1) asthma, because it involves a higher probability of a lack of a requirement for prednisone for AE at lower total treatment costs.

Comparative efficacy of inhalers in mild-to-moderate asthma: systematic review and network meta-analysis

The comparative effectiveness of different inhaler therapies in mild-to-moderate asthma remains unclear. To assess this, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the use of inhalers for mild-to-moderate asthma by searching PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. A total of 29 trials including 43,515 patients and 12 types of inhaler therapies were included. For the prevention of severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) as maintenance and reliever (SMART) showed the highest rank for effectiveness. As-needed ICS/LABA or short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) was similar to low-dose ICS and superior to as-needed SABA or LABA for the prevention of severe and moderate-severe exacerbations. As for lung function (FEV1), low-dose ICS/LABA had the highest rank; as-needed ICS/LABA was inferior to regular low-dose ICS but superior to placebo. Higher-dose ICS had a superior effect on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores, and as-needed ICS/LABA and as-needed SABA or LABA had lower ranks in p-rankogram than did the regular use of low-dose ICS. As-needed ICS with LABA or SABA was more effective than a similar dose of regular ICS for preventing exacerbation in mild-to-moderate asthma. As-needed ICS showed some weakness in improving lung function and controlling asthma symptoms.

Recent Advances in Long-Term Management of Asthma

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood with significant morbidity. Management of asthma has evolved from inhaled corticosteroids to personalized therapy in recent years. This article summarizes the recent advances in the management of asthma. The severity of asthma is assessed retrospectively by the level of treatment required to control asthma symptoms.Recently, there has been an emphasis on not to use short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) alone, even for intermittent or mild asthma. Single maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) is increasingly being recommended. Asthma therapy should be personalized based on phenotype (clinical presentations) and endotypes (distinct mechanistic pathways) of asthma and by a continuous cycle of assessment of asthma control and risk assessment, treatment, and reviewing the response in children on treatment. Various add-on therapy like tiotropium and biological monoclonal antibodies have been approved for use in a subset of children with severe asthma. Before considering biologicals, it is vital to have a proper diagnosis, good compliance and inhaler technique, and treatment of comorbidities.

An independent in-depth analysis proposing adjusted Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) Step 1-2 treatment suggestions

The Global initiative on asthma (GINA) strategy included major changes for the treatment of mild asthma in the 2020 version, that are even taken to a next level in 2021, leaving a preferred track with only rescue therapy with inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol (ICS-FORM) for step 1-2 in 12+ years-old. It has been questioned how solid the evidence behind these recommendations is. We decided to independently conduct an in-depth analysis of published evidence based on a comprehensive evaluation of original articles and related appendices and publications, including quality of evidence and risk-of-bias per article. We first defined the major asthma treatment goals and proceeded to review how these were met in publications referenced in the main asthma guidelines. For patients with GINA 2021 Step 1 characteristics the analysis supports GINA's decision to avoid SABA monotherapy and to prefer ICS-FORM rescue with as alternative ICS rescue every time a SABA is used for ≥12 years, even though evidence is extrapolated from step 2 patients. For 6-11 year-olds we propose to consider ICS-FORM rescue as an alternative, as its use has been approved in this age-group, be it not as rescue-medication. For patients with GINA 2021 Step 2 characteristics our proposal slightly differs from GINA 2021. We propose to continue avoiding the separate use of SABA, using ICS rescue whenever a fast-acting bronchodilator is taken (even with ICS maintenance). Also, the superiority of ICS-FORM rescue over classical step 2 treatment is not uniform and year-long experience is lacking. Consequently for now, both treatment options seem equal: ICS-FORM rescue or ICS maintenance with SABA (+ICS) rescue. For 6-11 year-olds ICS rescue every time a SABA is used has the advantage of lower total ICS dose; as alternative we suggest ICS-FORM rescue. The best treatment option depends on patient characteristics and treatment goals. Recommendations should be reviewed as soon as new evidence becomes available.

The Children's Anti-inflammatory Reliever (CARE) study: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of budesonide-formoterol as sole reliever therapy in children with mild asthma

Background

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children, many of whom are managed solely with a short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA). In adults, the evidence that budesonide-formoterol as sole reliever therapy markedly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations compared with SABA alone has contributed to the Global Initiative for Asthma recommending against SABA monotherapy in this population. The current lack of evidence in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also relevant to this demographic. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed.

Objective

The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide-formoterol therapy compared with as-needed salbutamol in children aged 5 to 15 years with mild asthma, who only use a SABA.

Methods

A 52-week, open-label, parallel group, phase III RCT will recruit 380 children aged 5 to 15 years with mild asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort Rapihaler^®) 50/3 µg, two actuations as needed, or salbutamol (Ventolin^®) 100  µg, two actuations as needed. The primary outcome is asthma attacks as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes assess asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. A cost-effectiveness analysis is also planned.

Conclusion

This is the first RCT to assess the safety and efficacy of as-needed budesonide-formoterol in children with mild asthma. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of mild asthma in children.

This protocol describes the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol as sole reliever therapy for children with mild asthma, providing urgently needed evidence in this populationhttps://bit.ly/35v0R3Z

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive summary and rationale for key changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes.GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as- needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by >60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA.Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11  years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4.Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy 2021 - Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ≥60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults/adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as-needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, MART) in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age-groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Revisiting Mild Asthma: Current Knowledge and Future Needs

Asthma is a common chronic airways disease with significant impact on patients, caregivers, and the health-care system. Although most research and novel interventions mainly have focused on patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, most patients with asthma have mild disease. Epidemiologic studies suggest that many patients with mild asthma report frequent exacerbations of the disease and uncontrolled symptoms. However, despite its impact, mild asthma does not have either a uniformly agreed on definition for or a consensus on its clinical and pathophysiologic progression. More recently, the approach to treatment of patients with mild asthma has undergone significant changes primarily based on emerging evidence that airway inflammation in this population is important. This led to clinical research studies that explored the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids along with the rescue medications that traditionally have been the mainstay of treatment. Despite some advancement in the field in recent years, many controversies and unmet needs remain. In this review, we examine the current understanding of the pathophysiologic features and management of mild asthma. In addition, we outline unmet needs for future research. We conclude that mild asthma contributes significantly to the morbidity and mortality of asthma and should be the focus of future research.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the prevention of asthma exacerbations

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the risk factors and mechanisms underlying asthma exacerbations and the role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in preventing exacerbations.

DATA SOURCES

Queries for asthma exacerbations and ICSs were conducted using PubMed, searching for primary articles and reviews.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies written in English, with a focus on well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials.

RESULTS

Asthma exacerbations remain a major source of morbidity, with future exacerbations most likely among patients with previous exacerbations and among those with peripheral blood eosinophilia. Exacerbations are often triggered by viral respiratory tract infections, but recent evidence supports nonviral triggers as well. In terms of exacerbation prevention, several approaches to ICS therapy have been found to be effective, including intermittent high-dose ICS without use of background controller in preschool children with recurrent episodic wheezing, intermittent high-dose ICS without use of background controller in adults with mild asthma, and as-needed ICS dosing whenever rescue treatment is needed among children, adolescents, and adults with mild asthma not receiving daily controller therapy.

CONCLUSION

ICSs are highly effective in preventing exacerbations of asthma. Multiple dosing strategies have been found to reduce exacerbation risk, allowing for a personalization of approaches based on individual patient phenotypes and preferences.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Adolescents with Mild Asthma

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence is challenging for adolescents. In mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol (BUD-FORM) reduces severe exacerbations compared with as-needed short-acting beta₂-agonists, similar to the reduction with maintenance budesonide.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc pooled analysis of Symbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) 1 and 2 assessed the efficacy and safety of as-needed BUD-FORM in adolescents.

METHODS

SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind studies (NCT022149199; NCT02224157) in patients 12 years or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomized to twice-daily placebo + as-needed BUD-FORM 200/6 μg, twice-daily BUD 200 μg + as-needed terbutaline (BUD maintenance), or twice-daily placebo + as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Annualized severe exacerbation rates, maintenance treatment adherence, and safety (including change in height) were compared between treatment groups in adolescents (aged ≥12 to <18 years).

RESULTS

Severe exacerbation rate was similar with as-needed BUD-FORM and BUD maintenance (pooled analysis: 0.08 vs 0.07/y; P = .634), and was significantly lower with as-needed BUD-FORM versus as-needed terbutaline (SYGMA 1: 0.04 vs 0.17/y; P = .005). Median adherence was 73% in SYGMA 1 and 51% in SYGMA 2. Change in height from baseline in adolescents aged ≥12 years to <14 years was significantly greater with as-needed BUD-FORM (4.8 cm) versus BUD maintenance (3.9 cm) (pooled: P < .046), and was similar between as-needed BUD-FORM (4.5 cm) and as-needed terbutaline (4.1 cm) (SYGMA 1: P = .500). No new or unexpected safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents with mild asthma, as-needed BUD-FORM was superior to as-needed terbutaline for severe exacerbation reduction, with similar efficacy to BUD maintenance. As-needed BUD-FORM provides an alternative treatment option for adolescents with mild asthma, without needing daily treatment.

The management of mild asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been recommended as a maintenance treatment, either alone or together with long-acting inhaled β₂-agonists, for all asthma patients. Short-acting β₂-agonists (SABAs) are rapid-onset bronchodilators, which provide symptom relief, but have no anti-inflammatory properties, yet are the most widely used as-needed reliever treatment for asthma and often the only treatment prescribed. Asthma patients can find adhering to daily preventative medication with ICS difficult and will often revert to using as-needed SABA as their only treatment, increasing their risk of exacerbations. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of reliever medications that contain ICS compared with SABA as reliever, or with maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, in mild asthma patients.Nine studies were identified that have evaluated the use of ICS as a component of an as-needed reliever in patients with mild asthma. Four of the most recent studies compared the combination of ICS/formoterol to SABA as reliever.ICS-containing reliever medication was superior to SABA as reliever alone, and was equivalent to maintenance ICS and SABA as reliever, particularly in reducing risks of severe asthma exacerbations, in studies which compared these reliever options.SABAs should not be used as a reliever without ICS. The concern about patients with mild asthma not being adherent to maintenance ICS supports a recommendation that ICS/formoterol should be considered as a treatment option instead of maintenance ICS, to avoid the risk of patients reverting to SABA alone.

New Perspectives in the Management of Mild to Moderate Asthma in Children

Mild to moderate asthma makes up the greatest proportion of all asthma severities in childhood. Children who are treated with steps 1–2 are defined as having mild asthma and step 3 as having moderate asthma, according to the guidelines. Although many studies focused on the management of severe asthma over the last decade, there have also been important changes and improvements in the management of mild to moderate asthma. In this article, new perspectives in the management of children with mild to moderate asthma will be reviewed and compared according to the two major guidelines.

ICS-formoterol reliever versus ICS and short-acting β2-agonist reliever in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS plus short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) reliever at step 2 of its stepwise treatment algorithm. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of these two treatment regimens, with a focus on prevention of severe exacerbation.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing as-needed ICS-formoterol with maintenance ICS plus SABA. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from database inception to 12 December 2019. The primary outcome was time to first severe exacerbation. RCTs were excluded if they used as-needed budesonide-formoterol as part of a maintenance and reliever regimen, or did not report on severe exacerbations. The review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier number CRD42020154680).

Results

Four RCTs (n=8065 participants) were included in the analysis. As-needed ICS-formoterol was associated with a prolonged time to first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.73–1.00; p=0.048) and reduced daily ICS dose (mean difference −177.3 μg, 95% CI −182.2–−172.4 μg). Asthma symptom control was worse in the as-needed group (Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 mean difference 0.12, 95% CI 0.09–0.14), although this did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 0.50 units. There was no significant difference in serious adverse events (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84–1.36).

Conclusion

As-needed ICS-formoterol offers a therapeutic alternative to maintenance low-dose ICS plus SABA in asthma and may be the preferred option when prevention of severe exacerbation is the primary aim of treatment.

As-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol prolongs time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared to maintenance ICS/SABA reliever and represents an alternative for patients, particularly when severe exacerbation prevention is the primary treatment aimhttps://bit.ly/3mpHVKc

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2021 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2021 (SINA-2021) is the fifth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children, which is 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 less than 5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting 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. 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.

Treatment strategies for asthma: reshaping the concept of asthma management

Asthma is a common chronic disease characterized by episodic or persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Asthma treatment is based on a stepwise and control-based approach that involves an iterative cycle of assessment, adjustment of the treatment and review of the response aimed to minimize symptom burden and risk of exacerbations. Anti-inflammatory treatment is the mainstay of asthma management. In this review we will discuss the rationale and barriers to the treatment of asthma that may result in poor outcomes. The benefits of currently available treatments and the possible strategies to overcome the barriers that limit the achievement of asthma control in real-life conditions and how these led to the GINA 2019 guidelines for asthma treatment and prevention will also be discussed.

[Are inhaled corticosteroids effective in asthma exacerbations? Evidentia praxis]

A clinical scenario is presented, from which a structured clinical question arises: In asthmatic children or adolescents with exacerbation symptoms, does the use of inhaled corticosteroids (newly instituted or base dose increased) reduce the risk of exacerbations that require systemic steroids and/or hospitalization? To answer it, we carried out a bibliographic search, with selection, evaluation and graduation of the evidence, following GRADE criteria. We did not find sufficient evidence to consider intermittent inhaled steroids as an alternative to maintenance inhaled steroids to avoid exacerbations that require the use of systemic steroids. The use of a combination of inhaled steroids with formoterol, as a rescue treatment at the onset of symptoms, is only effective when used by patients with this maintenance treatment, compared to those who only have inhaled steroids and rescue with beta2-agonists of short action; when patients already take maintenance combined therapy, combined rescue does not reduce the risk. In patients with asthma attacks attended in the emergency department, inhaled steroids compared to placebo reduce the risk of admission, but not when compared to systemic corticosteroids.