Maintaining asthma control in persistent asthma: Comparison of three strategies in a 6-month double-blind randomised study

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial for Stepping Down Asthma Controller Treatment in Patients Controlled with Low-Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting β2-Agonist: Step-Down of Intervention and Grade in Moderate Asthma Study

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines recommend stepping down controller treatment when the condition is well-controlled for a certain time. However, the optimal step-down strategy for well-controlled patients receiving a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study was a randomized, open-label, three-arm, parallel pragmatic trial comparing two kinds of step-down approaches for maintaining treatment.

METHODS

Adults with asthma who were aged 18 years or older, and who had been stable with low-dose ICS/LABA for at least 3 months, were enrolled. Subjects (n = 225) were randomly allocated into one of three groups (maintaining low-dose ICS/LABA [G1], discontinuing LABA [G2], and reducing ICS/LABA to once daily [G3]), and were observed for 6 months. The primary end point was a change in Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores between randomization and the final 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The change in ACT was analyzed in the per-protocol population; noninferiority was not demonstrated in either step-down group compared with the maintenance group (95% confidence interval of the difference, G2 vs G1 = -1.40-0.55; G3 vs G1 = -1.19-0.77). Although over 90% of patients were fine, higher rates of treatment failure were observed in step-down groups (G1: 0%; G2: 9.46%; and G3: 9.09%; P = .027). There were no significant differences between step-down approaches in terms of ACT change or treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both step-down methods were not noninferior to maintenance of treatment. Step-down therapy can be attempted when patients are stable, but appropriate monitoring and supervision are necessary with precautions regarding loss of disease control.

Serious Asthma Outcomes and Asthma Exacerbations with Maintenance on Inhaled Corticosteroid (Mometasone Furoate)/Long-Acting Beta Agonist (Formoterol) Combination Compared to Step Down to Mometasone Monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Because of historical safety concerns with the use of long-acting β-agonists (LABA) in asthma, step-down from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA combination therapy to ICS monotherapy is recommended once asthma control is achieved.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefit/risk question about whether patients with asthma who achieve disease control on fixed-dose ICS/LABA combination therapy, such as mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F), should continue with this therapy or be stepped down to ICS monotherapy, such as MF.

METHODS

Using data from 8447 clinically stable patients with persistent asthma in the Safety Pharma Investigation of Respiratory Outcomes trial who had been receiving a stable dose of ICS/LABA for ≥4 weeks, this post hoc analysis evaluated the risk of serious asthma outcomes (SAOs) (adjudicated hospitalization, intubation, or death) and asthma exacerbation (AEX) (composite of hospitalizations ≥24 hours, emergency visits <24 hours requiring systemic corticosteroid, or systemic corticosteroid for ≥3 consecutive days) in participants randomized to remain on ICS/LABA (MF/F) or step down to ICS (MF) for 26 weeks.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in SAO risk among patients maintained on ICS/LABA with MF/F compared with those who stepped down from ICS/LABA to MF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 1.75], P = .913). The risk of AEX was significantly lower in patients maintained on ICS/LABA with MF/F compared with those who stepped down from ICS/LABA to MF (HR, 0.87 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.98], P = .020).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of a large clinical trial dataset, maintenance on ICS/LABA with MF/F is not associated with an increased risk of SAOs and also significantly reduces the risk of AEX compared with step-down from ICS/LABA to MF.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is the fourth version of the updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (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 now more aligned for different age groups. The guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting better understanding of disease heterogeneity with integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and 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 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.

The Asthma Controller Step-down Yardstick

Asthma guidelines recommend a control-based approach to disease management in which the assessment of impairment and risk is linked to step-based therapy. Using this model, controller treatment is adjusted-upward or downward-according to a patient's level of asthma control over time. Strategies for stepping up controller therapy are well described, and the adult and pediatric Asthma Yardsticks provide operational recommendations based on patient profiles. Strategies for stepping down controller treatment are less clear, although stepping down to the minimum effective therapy is important and should be considered when a patient's asthma has been well controlled for an adequate period as defined by risk and impairment. This Yardstick presents recommendations for when and how to step down asthma controller therapy according to guideline-defined control levels. The objective is to provide clinicians who treat patients with asthma with a practical and clinically relevant framework for implementing a step-down in controller therapy.

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

A Simple Score for Future Risk Prediction in Patients with Controlled Asthma Who Undergo a Guidelines-Based Step-Down Strategy

BACKGROUND

The minimum controlling dose of treatment must be established in patients with asthma, but the outcome of step-down is unpredictable.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with risk of control loss when stepping down asthma treatment and to develop a score to predict this risk.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study including adults with well-controlled asthma was performed. Treatment was stepped up or stepped down over a 12-month period to maintain asthma control. We determined associations between clinical and functional variables and step-down failure. Finally, we derived a score to predict loss of control in 1 cohort and validated it in an independent cohort.

RESULTS

The derivation cohort consisted of 228 patients; 218 completed at least 1 step-down episode and a total of 495 step-down episodes were evaluated. A medical-record documented postbronchodilator spirometry result of <70% forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-3.43), current FEV₁ < 80% (OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.03-3.14), ≥1 severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.48-4.01), and Asthma Control Test score < 25 (OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.35-3.92) were independently associated with failure. The score showed an area under the curve of 0.690 (95% CI: 0.633-0.747; P < .05) in the derivation cohort and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.643-0.882; P < .001) in a validation cohort of 114 patients. A score <4.5 implies a low risk of failure (<20%), whereas a score >8 implies a high risk (>40%).

CONCLUSION

This score can facilitate the prediction of step-down failure before medication taper in patients with well-controlled asthma.

Step-Down Therapy for Asthma Well Controlled on Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting Beta-Agonist: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Stepping down therapy when asthma is well controlled on combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) is recommended, but it is not known whether lowering the ICS dose or stopping LABA is superior.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether step-down therapy with LABA is superior to one without; and, secondarily, to evaluate whether reducing the ICS dose while maintaining LABA is noninferior to remaining on stable-ICS/LABA.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, double-masked 3-arm parallel group trial in participants aged 12 years or older. Following an 8-week run-in, 459 participants were randomly assigned to continue medium-dose ICS/LABA, reduced-dose ICS/LABA, or ICS alone (LABA-step-off) and followed for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a composite of health care utilization, systemic corticosteroid use, increase in rescue therapy, decline in lung function, or participant or physician decision.

RESULTS

Time to treatment failure did not differ significantly between reduced- ICS/LABA and LABA-step-off (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95.3% CI, 0.69-1.65, P = .76). Nor was there a difference between stable-ICS/LABA and reduced-ICS/LABA (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.76; P = .67), but the 10% noninferiority margin was exceeded. Lung function declines and hospitalization rates were significantly greater in the LABA-step-off group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 step-down regimens did not differ in terms of treatment failure, although stopping LABA was associated with a decline in lung function and more hospitalizations. There was no evidence to support the noninferiority of reduced-ICS/LABA as compared with stable-ICS/LABA.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Efficacy and safety comparison: Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate, after step down from fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Japanese patients with well-controlled asthma, a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with well-controlled asthma, 'step down' of therapy is recommended. We evaluated Japanese patients switching from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA; equivalent to fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol [SAL] 250/50 μg twice daily [BD]) to fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 μg, then stepping down to ICS alone.

METHODS

This phase III trial had two treatment periods (P): P1, patients with well-controlled asthma on FP/SAL 250/50 μg BD equivalent stepped across to once daily (OD) FF/VI 100/25 μg (open-label, eight weeks); P2, patients remaining 'well controlled' after P1 stepped down to FF 100 μg OD/FP 100 μg BD/FP 250 μg BD (randomized 1:1:1, double-blind, 12 weeks). Co-primary P2 endpoints: percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma; time to withdrawal due to poorly controlled asthma requiring step-up therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored.

RESULTS

At the end of P1 (n = 430), 373 (90.5%; 95% confidence interval 87.29-93.18) patients' asthma remained well controlled with FF/VI; in P2 (n = 371), control was maintained in 89.5% (FF 100 μg)/79.5% (FP 100 μg)/83.8% (FP 250 μg) of patients. In P2, 4.9-7.3% of patients were withdrawn due to worsening asthma (time-to-withdrawal cumulative incidence curves were comparable). AEs were reported by 37% of patients during P1; and by 36% (FF 100 μg)/48% (FP 100 μg)/49% (FP 250 μg) of patients in P2.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with well-controlled asthma on mid dose ICS/LABA (equivalent to FP/SAL 250/50 μg BD), control can be maintained when they are stepped across to FF/VI 100/25 μg OD. FF 100 μg OD is an effective step-down therapy from FF/VI 100/25 μg OD with similar efficacy to FP 100 μg BD and FP 250 μg BD.

Step-down treatment from medium-dosage of budesonide/formoterol in controlled asthma

BACKGROUND

The stepping down of asthma treatment can be considered when asthma symptoms have been well controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs)/long-acting β2 adrenergic agonists (LABAs). However, few data are available comparing the efficacy between two step-down strategies, to reduce ICS/LABA dose or to withdraw LABA continuing ICS, in well-controlled asthmatics.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicentre randomized, two-arm, controlled study. Ninety-one asthmatic patients controlled by budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) 320/9 μg twice daily were assigned to 2 stepping-down treatments as follows: the BFC group; BUD/FM 160/4.5 μg twice daily, and the ICS group; ICS (budesonide 400 μg twice daily or equivalent dose of ICS) without LABA, and followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthma exacerbations. Asthma control, pulmonary function tests, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were evaluated at the beginning and end of the period.

RESULTS

The incidence of exacerbations was 16.3% in the BFC groups and 12.5% in the ICS group, which were not different between the groups (p = 0.766). No significant differences were found in QOL score and FeNO between 0 week and 12 week in the both group. FEV1 and FEV1 percentage of the predicted value were lower at week 12 than at week 0 in the ICS group, but not in the BFC group.

CONCLUSIONS

The two step-down strategies for 12 weeks have equal acceptability in well-controlled asthmatics treated with medium-dose of BFC, however, withdrawal of LABA may have potential risk to deteriorate FEV1.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered to UMIN-CTR (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/), UMIN000010333.

Stepping down from combination asthma therapy: The predictors of outcome

BACKGROUND

Stepping down from combination asthma therapy (inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) + long-acting β2 agonists (LABA)) is often avoided due to fear of exacerbations, which may lead to overmedication in well-controlled asthma. A better knowledge about the predictors of outcome might encourage clinicians to start stepping down more often than previously.

METHODS

In 55 subjects with well controlled asthma and combination therapy, LABAs were discontinued first, followed by ICS dose halving, and then cessation, in six weeks' intervals. The ability of Juniper's asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), ambulatory peak flow monitoring, spirometry, and hypertonic saline challenge to predict the outcomes of medication reductions were assessed.

RESULTS

The proportions of subjects experiencing an exacerbation at each step were: 4 out of 55 subjects (7%) after LABA cessation, 4 out of 25 subjects (16%) after ICS dose halving, and 21 out of 46 subjects (46%) after ICS cessation. All exacerbations could be managed on an outpatient basis. There were 126 step-downs altogether. ACQ score < 0.29 (likelihood ratio 2.30 (1.05-5.05)), ACQ without spirometry < 0.15 (2.17 (0.96-4.90)) and FEV1 > 96% of predicted (2.18 (1.03-4.61)) predicted a successful outcome after step-down. Cough responsiveness to saline, bronchoconstrictive responsiveness to saline, and peak flow variation were not associated with the outcome.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy can often be reduced in controlled asthma but total cessation of ICSs must be carefully considered. Simple investigations, namely asthma control assessment by validated questionnaire and spirometry, help to predict the outcome of stepping down.

TRIAL REGISTRY

The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov database (https://clinicaltrials.gov, KUH5801124).

Impact of the Arg 16 allele of the B2AR gene on the effect of withdrawal of LABA in patients with moderate to severe asthma

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting beta agonists (LABAs) are effective for controlling asthma, however questions about their safety have led to concerns over use. Genetic polymorphisms at the 16 amino acid position of the beta-2 adrenergic receptor gene (B2AR) may be associated with increased risk.

METHODS

A randomized, double blind study was conducted in patients with moderate to severe asthma being treated with combined inhaled corticosteroids/LABA (ICS/LABA), comparing the effect of LABA continuation versus withdrawal on asthma outcomes among patients stratified by B2AR genotype (Arg/Arg vs. Gly/Gly at the 16th amino acid position).

RESULTS

67 participants (31 Arg/Arg, 36 Gly/Gly) were randomized to receive fluticasone alone (F) or continue combined fluticasone/salmeterol (F/S) after a run-in period on F/S. Among Gly/Gly subjects, those in the F/S treatment group showed improvement in AM PEFR (+ 8.4 L/s) whereas those receiving F alone experienced a reduction in AM PEFR over the study period (-14.4 L/s), (p = 0.06). There was no significant difference in morning peak expiratory flow rate (AM PEFR) in Arg/Arg participants randomized to receive F/S (-15.7L) vs F alone (-5.6 L/s) (p = 0.61). There was no significant difference in exacerbations in the Arg/Arg subjects treated with F/S compared with those treated with F (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal of LABA therapy in asthmatics with the Arg/Arg genotype at the 16th amino acid position of B2AR did not lead to significant improvement in AM PEFR. LABA withdrawal in the Gly/Gly genotype however led to a borderline significant decline in AM PEFR.

Step-down therapy in well-controlled asthmatic patients using salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate combination therapy

PURPOSE

A combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β agonist (LABA) is the standard treatment for asthmatic patients, and step-down treatment is recommended once control has been achieved. However, little data exist that evaluate the long-term outcomes after step-down treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes of step-down therapy with ICS/LABA or ICS alone for asthmatic patients who have achieved well-controlled asthma by the ICS (250 µg fluticasone)/LABA (50 µg salmeterol) combination (SFC, two puffs per day).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomized 40 well-controlled patients with asthma receiving SFC (250 µg) to two groups; one group of patients received step-down therapy with low-dose SFC (100 µg, two puffs daily) and another group of patients received step-down therapy with high-dose fluticasone propionate (FP) alone (500 µg, daily). The two groups were monitored over 12 months for changes in asthma control test scores, respiratory function (percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second, maximal expiratory flow rate at 50% of the vital capacity [%FEF50], and maximal expiratory flow rate at 25% of the vital capacity [%FEF25]), and the concentration of fractional exhaled nitric oxide.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the dropout rate between the SFC and FP groups. Low-dose SFC maintained the stability of all parameters over 12 months, whereas the FP group exhibited a rapid 5% decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second within 2 months after discontinuation of salmeterol; furthermore, after 10 months, there was a gradual decrease in %FEF50 and %FEF25.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that a balanced step-down protocol, including both ICS and LABA, is essential in providing long-term stability to patients with mild-to-moderate well-controlled asthma.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus twice daily combination therapies in asthma-mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

Background

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) combination. FF/VI, 92/22mcg and 184/22mcg, are approved in Europe as maintenance therapy in persistent asthma. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes.

Methods

Data from 31 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABA, of ≥8 weeks’ duration in patients aged ≥12 years with asthma, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for four efficacy outcomes (primary analysis). Lung function, assessed by change from baseline morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (n = 18 studies) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) (n = 28), was the outcome of primary interest. Secondary objectives were assessment of relative efficacy in terms of exacerbation rates (n = 6) and health status (n = 7). Overall, 24 different treatment arms were included in the MTC; we report findings comparing FF/VI (92/22mcg and 184/22mcg) with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) (250/50mcg and 500/50mcg) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) (320/9mcg and 640/18mcg).

Results

For PEF (margin = 12 l/min), FF/VI 92/22mcg demonstrated ≥94 % probability and FF/VI 184/22mcg >99 % probability of non-inferiority to corresponding doses of both FP/SAL and BUD/FORM. For FEV₁ (margin = 100 ml), FF/VI demonstrated ≥98 % (92/22mcg) and >99 % (184/22mcg) probability of non-inferiority to both FP/SAL and BUD/FORM. Findings for exacerbations were inconclusive due to lack of data: FF/VI 92/22mcg demonstrated 74 % and 82 % probability of non-inferiority (margin = 10 %) to FP/SAL 250/50mcg and BUD/FORM 320/9mcg, respectively. For Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score, FF/VI 92/22mcg demonstrated >99 % and 90 % probability of non-inferiority (margin = 0.25) to FP/SAL 250/50mcg and BUD/FORM 320/9mcg. Data were unavailable to assess non-inferiority of FF/VI 184/22mcg on exacerbations or AQLQ.

Conclusions

Both strengths of once-daily FF/VI in asthma were comparable with corresponding doses of twice-daily FP/SAL and BUD/FORM in terms of lung function in this MTC analysis. FF/VI 92/22mcg was comparable with FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on AQLQ, but exacerbation results were inconclusive. Model limitations include disconnected treatment networks and variability across studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of once-daily FF/VI in improving lung function and health status in asthma is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40733-015-0016-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have guidelines that are up to date, simple to understand and easy to use by nonasthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. SINA approach is mainly based on symptom control and assessment of risk as it is the ultimate goal of treatment. The new SINA guidelines include updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of asthma control in the management of asthma in adults and children, inclusion of a new medication appendix, and keeping consistency on the management at different age groups. The section on asthma in children is rewritten and expanded where the approach is stratified based on the age. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Evaluation of switching low-dose inhaled corticosteroid to pranlukast for step-down therapy in well-controlled patients with mild persistent asthma

OBJECTIVE

Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend step-down therapy for well-controlled asthma patients. However, the precise strategy for step-down therapy has not been well defined. We investigated whether well-controlled patients with mild persistent asthma can tolerate a step-down therapy of either a reduced dose of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or a switch to a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA), pranlukast hydrate.

METHODS

We recruited 40 adult patients with mild persistent asthma who were well-controlled for at least 3 months with a low-dose ICS therapy. The patients were randomly assigned to either an ICS dose reduction or a switch to pranlukast for 6 months.

RESULTS

FeNO levels in the pranlukast group were significantly increased over that in the ICS group. There were no significant differences between the two groups for lung function, FOT, at the endpoint. The percentage of patients with controlled asthma was 72.2% in the pranlukast group and 90% in the ICS group. No statistically significant difference between the two groups in the percentages of patients with treatment failure was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mild persistent asthma that is well-controlled by a low dose of ICS can be switched to pranlukast safely for at least 6 months. However, 27.8% of the pranlukast group failed to maintain well-control, and FeNO levels increased with the switch to pranlukast at 6 months. This study was been limited by the small sample size and should therefore be considered preliminary. Further studies are needed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of LTRA monotherapy as a step-down therapy.

Small-airway disease in asthma: pharmacological considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pharmacological considerations and rationale for treating small-airway disease in asthma via the inhaled and systemic route, and to also directly address the comparison between small vs. large aerosol particles in the management of asthmatic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Airway inflammation in patients with asthma is predominantly present within the small airways and this region is the main contributor to airflow limitation. Assessing small-airway dysfunction has advanced in the last decade, allowing us to compare this region in disease to health and also in response to treatment. Recent pharmaceutical developments have led to inhaler devices with smaller aerosols and systemic biologic treatments, enabling therapeutic drug delivery to the distal lung regions. The question therefore is does targeting the small airways directly translate into health benefits for asthmatic patients with respect to an improvement in their disease control and quality of life?

SUMMARY

Studies now show that treating the peripheral airways with smaller drug particle aerosols certainly achieve comparable efficacy (and some studies show superiority) compared with large particles, a reduction in the daily inhaled corticosteroid dose, and greater asthma control and quality of life in real-life studies. Hence, the small airways should not be neglected when choosing the optimal asthma therapy.

Assessing the risks and benefits of step-down asthma care: a case-based approach

Guidelines have called for pharmacologic stepped care to improve asthma treatment. Therapeutic options which have been approved provide physicians and their patients alternatives for stepping up asthma treatment to achieve control. However, few studies have been performed to identify and characterize procedures for optimal stepping-down treatment in patients with asthma. The resulting uncertainty as well as a lack of prioritization for asthma reassessment once control has been maintained has led to a lack of well-defined procedures for stepping down asthma treatment. However, recent studies provide guidance regarding the risks of stepping down asthma medications. This review uses case-based examples to demonstrate how health care providers may engage patients in discussions regarding guideline recommendations to promote individualized asthma care.

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma well controlled by LABA and inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".

OBJECTIVES

To compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.Prespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.Stopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).People who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.Too few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided.

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for children with asthma well controlled on LABA and inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition among children and is one of the most common causes of hospitalisation and medical visits. Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, hospital stays, or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for children with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The US Food and Drug Administration has issued a 'black box' warning for LABA in asthma, and now recommends that they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect on asthma control and adverse effects of stepping down to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-only therapy versus continuing ICS plus LABA in children whose asthma is well controlled on combined ICS and LABA therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, and also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to the present, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. The most recent search was done in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials of at least eight weeks' duration, available as published full text, abstract only, or unpublished data. We excluded studies including participants with other chronic respiratory comorbidities (for example bronchiectasis).We looked for studies in which children (18 years or younger) whose asthma was well controlled on any dose of ICS and LABA combination therapy were randomised to: a) step-down therapy to ICS alone or b) continued use of ICS and LABA.We included any dose of LABA (formoterol, salmeterol, vilanterol) and any dose of ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, triamcinolone) delivered in a combination inhaler or in separate inhalers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified in the searches. We used a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel to manage searches and document reasons for inclusion and exclusion, and to extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting the inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral steroids, asthma control, and all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Despite conducting extensive searches of electronic databases, trial registries and manufacturers' websites we identified no trials matching the inclusion criteria.After removing duplicates, we screened 1031 abstracts, and assessed 43 full-text articles for inclusion. We identified several adult studies, which will be summarised in a separate review (Ahmad 2014). The most common reasons for exclusion after viewing full texts were 'wrong comparison' (n = 22) and 'adult population' (n = 18).Some adult studies recruited adolescents from age 15, but none reported data separately for those under 18.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from randomised trials to inform the discontinuation of LABAs in children once asthma control is achieved with ICS plus LABA. It is disappointing that such an important issue has not been studied, and a randomised double-blind trial recruiting children who are controlled on ICS plus LABA is warranted. The study should be large enough to assess children of different ages, and to measure the important safety and efficacy outcomes suggested in this review over at least six months.The only randomised evidence for stopping LABA has been conducted in adults; it will be summarised in a separate review.

Asthma Control Can Be Maintained after Fixed-Dose, Budesonide/Formoterol Combination Inhaler Therapy is Stepped Down from Medium to Low Dose

BACKGROUND

In cases using a budesonide/formoterol combination inhaler, many patients are started on fixed-dose treatment at 640/18 μg (4 puffs) daily, but there are no guidelines yet regarding the step-down method when control has been maintained.

METHODS

Patients with moderate asthma treated with either budesonide 400 μg and salmeterol 100 μg (GINA step3 group) or salmeterol/fluticasone 250 at 2 puffs (GINA step4 group) were enrolled and started on therapy of budesonide/formoterol 4 puffs. Thereafter, step-down to 2 puffs was performed if either of the following criteria was met at 8-week intervals: fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO)≤28 ppb plus asthma control test (ACT) score≥22, or ACT score≥24 at 3 consecutive visits regardless of FeNO level. Thereafter, changes in ACT score, the number of acute exacerbations and reliever use, and FeNO level were monitored through 48^th week.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients, 27 in step3 group and 24 in step4 group, underwent step-down. ACT scores and the number of reliever use remained stable in both groups even after step-down. In contrast, FeNO levels increased gradually in step4 group, whereas in the step3 group they increased immediately after step-down. Step-down was considered to be safely performed because the numbers of reliever use and those of moderate or more severe exacerbations during the 48-week period has not changed significantly compared to before step-down.

CONCLUSIONS

If complete control of asthma, not only of clinical symptoms but also airway inflammation, is achieved by 3-6 months of fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol 4 puffs/day, it should be possible to safely perform step-down to 2 puffs/day.

Extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol combination via a dry powder inhaler (NEXThaler(®)) or pMDI and beclomethasone monotherapy for maintenance of asthma control in adult patients: A randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The fixed combination of extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate and formoterol fumarate (BDP/FF) pMDI (Foster(®)) is approved for treatment of adult asthmatic patients. In order to provide an alternative drug delivery system for BDP/FF to physicians and patients, a dry powder inhaler (NEXThaler(®)) has been developed, capable to deliver extrafine particles to the lungs and therefore improve the dosing of the drugs, especially in patients with poor hand-breath coordination.

OBJECTIVE

This trial was performed to compare efficacy and safety of extrafine BDP/FF NEXThaler(®) with extrafine BDP/FF pMDI or non-extrafine BDP DPI alone in adult patients with controlled asthma.

METHODS

In this 8-week randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, patients were randomized to receive either extrafine BDP/FF NEXThaler(®) 100/6 μg bid, extrafine BDP/FF 100/6 μg pMDI bid or non-extrafine BDP DPI 100 μg bid. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline to the entire 8-week randomised treatment period in average pre-dose morning PEF.

RESULTS

The ITT population comprised 754 patients. Extrafine BDP/FF NEXThaler(®) was non-inferior (pre-defined margin: -15 L/min) relative to extrafine BDP/FF pMDI (mean difference: -1.84; 95% CI: -6.73, 3.05) in terms of the primary efficacy variable, change from baseline in average pre-dose morning PEF. Statistical superiority of both extrafine BDP/FF formulations over non-extrafine BDP DPI was demonstrated for the primary efficacy variable (providing evidence of assays sensitivity of the trial), ACQ score and percentage of rescue medication use-free days. No significant safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSION

NEXThaler(®) is an effective and well-tolerated delivery device for treatment of patients with asthma who need a regular treatment.

Small airways dysfunction in asthma: evaluation and management to improve asthma control

The small airways have been neglected for many years, but interest in the topic has been rekindled with recent advances in measurement techniques to assess this region and also the ability to deliver therapeutics to the distal airways. Current levels of disease control in asthmatic patients remain poor and there are several contributory factors including; poor treatment compliance, heterogeneity of asthma phenotypes and associated comorbidities. However, the proposition that we may not be targeting all the inflammation that is present throughout the whole respiratory tree may also be an important factor. Indeed decades ago, pathologists and physiologists clearly identified the importance of small airways dysfunction in asthmatic patients. With improved inhaler technology to deliver drug to target the whole respiratory tree and more sensitive measures to assess the distal airways, we should certainly give greater consideration to treating the small airway region when seeing our asthmatic patients in clinic. The aim of this review is to address the relevance of small airways dysfunction in the daily clinical management of patients with asthma. In particular the role of small particle aerosols in the management of patients with asthma will be explored.

What is the best way to step down therapy in patients with well-controlled asthma?

Evidence suggests the best way to step down patients with well-controlled asthma on combination therapy is to lower the inhaled corticosteroid and eliminate the long-acting beta-agonist (LABA). However, this approach has been challenged due to concerns over the long-term safety of LABAs. Until this safety concern is resolved, it is imperative that practitioners recognize well-controlled asthma and attempt step-down treatment with the goal of maintaining optimal asthma control with the least amount of medication.

The risks, benefits, and uncertainties of stepping down asthma medications

Stepwise adjustments have been suggested as a framework to manage chronic asthma over time. In this framework, individuals with good asthma control and a low risk for future asthma exacerbations may be considered for a reduction or "step down" of their chronic asthma medications. In this article, we discuss how patients may benefit or be harmed by stepping down asthma medications. Based on the literature presented in this article, we recommend that clinicians discuss the option of stepping down with patients when symptoms are stable, lung function is near normal, and biomarkers (if measured) are near normal. Other factors that should be considered in the decision to step down include the length of asthma stability, age of the patient, time of year, and patient preferences. Reducing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid by 25% to 50% appears to be the safest method of stepping down. A clear plan of care and follow-up is needed when stepping down asthma medications because many patients are likely to have recurrent exacerbations.

The β-2 agonist debate: is there still a problem?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present an evidence-based review of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations for long-acting β agonist (LABA) use in asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FDA recommendation contraindicating the use of LABAs without a concomitant asthma-controller medication such as an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is supported, with the caveat that concomitant use of an asthma-controller medication applies only to ICS therapy and not other asthma controller medications (such as leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy or theophylline). The recommendation that LABA therapy be stopped once asthma control is achieved is restrictive. Although downtitration of therapy should be considered in patients with asthma, who are well controlled, other options such as reducing the dose of ICS may be preferable to stopping LABA therapy. In patients who are at risk of unstable asthma or severe exacerbations, maintaining the ICS/LABA therapy without downtitration may be required. The recommendation against LABA use in patients whose asthma is adequately controlled with a low or medium dose ICS is supported. The recommendation that fixed-dose combination ICS/LABA products should be the only form in which LABAs are prescribed in adolescents and paediatric patients should be extended to all asthma patients.

SUMMARY

The current β agonist debate focuses on the optimal management approaches for the use of LABA therapy to both minimize risk and maximize clinical efficacy.

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search is August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Outcomes of stepping down asthma medications in a guideline-based pediatric asthma management program

BACKGROUND

Little is known about outcomes after stepping down asthma medications within an asthma management program.

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes of stepping down asthma medications in a pediatric asthma management program.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 5- to 18-year-old children with asthma in an integrated primary care practice in the United States. Data were included on participants from March 1, 2009, until December 31, 2011. We first determined whether a child was eligible for step down and next recorded whether a step-down attempt was made and if the attempt was successful. In addition to descriptive statistics for the sample demographics and the outcomes of stepping down, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of successful asthma medication step-down attempts.

RESULTS

Of the 477 children sampled for this study, 264 (55.3%) had a guideline-eligible opportunity to step down asthma medications. An attempted step down occurred in only 89 (33.7%) of children who had guideline-eligible opportunities. A total of 166 children (34.8%) attempted a step down of asthma medication at least once (including those guideline ineligible to step down). Of children with follow-up, 96 (71.6%) of step-down attempts were successful. Time of year (any season except fall) when the step down was attempted predicted successful step down in univariate and multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 3.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-11.85; P = .02). Being guideline eligible for step down predicted successful step down in univariate analysis only (odds ratio = 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.43; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Our findings from this sample of children participating in an asthma management program suggest that stepping down asthma medication based on National Asthma Education and Prevention Program 3 guidelines is frequently successful.

The risk of asthma exacerbation after stopping low-dose inhaled corticosteroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines suggest that patients and their providers consider decreasing or stopping controller medications when asthma is stable.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate the risk of asthma exacerbation in patients who stop low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) compared with those who continue ICSs in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We identified relevant trials from a systematic review of English-language and non-English-language articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (inception to January 21, 2012). Articles were screened at the abstract and full-text level by 2 independent reviewers. We included randomized controlled trials with a stable asthma run-in period of 4 weeks or more, an intervention to stop or continue ICSs, and a follow-up period of at least 3 months. We pooled results using a random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1798 potential articles, of which 172 were reviewed at the full-text level and 7 met the criteria for inclusion. The relative risk for an asthma exacerbation in patients who stopped ICSs compared with those who continued use was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.88-2.92; P < .001; I(2) = 0%), as determined by using data pooled from trials with a mean follow-up of 27 weeks. The pooled absolute risk difference for an asthma exacerbation was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.16-0.30; P < .001; I(2) = 44%). Patients who discontinued ICSs also had a decreased FEV1 of 130 mL (95% CI, 40-210 mL; P = .003; I(2) = 53%), a decreased mean morning peak expiratory flow of 18 L/min (95% CI, 6-29 L/min; P = .004; I(2) = 82%), and an increased mean standardized asthma symptom score of 0.43 SDs (95% CI, 0.28-0.58 SDs; P < .001; I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with well-controlled asthma who stop regular use of low-dose ICSs have an increased risk of an asthma exacerbation compared with those who continue ICSs.

Treating the small airways

The final article in this series evaluates the approaches undertaken to treating the small-airway region of the lungs and the clinical implications of inhaled therapy targeting the periphery in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2012 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

This an updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma, developed by the Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of SINA is to have updated guidelines, which are simple to understand and easy to use by non-asthma specialists, including primary care and general practice physicians. This new version includes updates of acute and chronic asthma management, with more emphasis on the use of Asthma Control Test in the management of asthma, and a new section on "difficult-to-treat asthma." Further, the section on asthma in children was re-written to cover different aspects in this age group. The SINA panel is a group of Saudi experts with well-respected academic backgrounds and experience in the field of asthma. The guidelines are formatted based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation in Saudi Arabia. There was an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan. The approach adopted by the SINA group is mainly based on disease control as it is the ultimate goal of treatment.

Markers for step-down of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult asthmatics

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for all stages of persistent asthma. However, it is unknown whether ICS dose reduction in adult asthmatics is compatible with maintaining asthma control. Moreover, there are no predictors of efficacy in maintaining asthma control upon ICS reduction.

METHODS

We recruited 90 adult patients with moderate or severe asthma but no clinical symptoms of asthma for at least 6 months. All patients reduced their ICS doses by half but continued taking other asthma-related medications. As a primary outcome, we measured asthma exacerbations during the 12 months following ICS reduction. We also further monitored patients from the above study who had maintained total asthma control for 12 months after ICS reduction and who had continued on their reduced doses of ICS or had further reduced, or stopped, their ICS.

RESULTS

Forty of ninety patients (44.4%) experienced exacerbations after ICS reduction (time to first exacerbation: 6.4 ± 3.6 months). Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed a rank order of predictors of success in ICS reduction while retaining asthma control: acetylcholine (ACh) PC(20) (p < 0.01); length of time with no clinical symptoms before ICS reduction (p < 0.01); FeNO (p = 0.028); and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1); % predicted) (p = 0.03). Finally thirty-nine of 50 patients maintained total asthma control for at least 2 years after the initial ICS reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

In asthma patients with normalized AChPC(20) of 20mg/mL or 10mg/mL and no clinical symptoms for at least 12 or 24 months it may be possible to successfully reduce ICS without increasing exacerbations for long time.

Loss of asthma control in pediatric patients after discontinuation of long-acting Beta-agonists

Recent asthma recommendations advocate the use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) in uncontrolled asthma, but also stress the importance of stepping down this therapy once asthma control has been achieved. The objective of this study was to evaluate downtitration of LABA therapy in pediatric patients who are well-controlled on combination-inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapy. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were studied in children with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma after switching from combination (ICS/LABA) to monotherapy with ICS. Of the 54 patients, 34 (63%) were determined to have stable asthma after the switch, with a mean followup of 10.7 weeks. Twenty (37%) had loss of asthma control leading to addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists, increased ICS, or restarting LABA. There were 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic steroids. In patients with loss of control, there was a statistically significant decline in FEV(1) (-8% versus -1.9%, P = 0.03) and asthma control test (-3.2 versus -0.5, P = 0.03). This did not approach significance for FEF(25-75%), exhaled nitric oxide, lung volumes or airway reactivity. No demographic, asthma control measures, or lung function variables predicted loss of control. Pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma who discontinue LABA therapy have a 37% chance of losing asthma control resulting in augmented maintenance therapies. Recent recommendations of discontinuing LABA therapy as soon as control is achieved should be evaluated in a prospective long-term study.

Treating according to asthma control: does it work in real life?

Control-based asthma management has been incorporated in asthma guidelines for many years. This article reviews the evidence for its utility in adults, describes its strengths and limitations in real life, and proposes areas for further research, particularly about incorporation of future risk and identification of patients for whom phenotype-guided treatment would be effective and efficient. The strengths of control-based management include its simplicity and feasibility for primary care, and its limitations include the nonspecific nature of asthma symptoms, the complex role of β(2)-agonist use, barriers to stepping down treatment, and the underlying assumptions about asthma pathophysiology and treatment responses.

Step-down from high dose fixed combination therapy in asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines suggest that therapy can be reduced once asthma is controlled. Despite these recommendations, asthmatic patients are seldom stepped down in clinical practice, and questions remain about when and how to reduce asthma therapy. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate lung function and asthma control in patients who were stepped down from the highest recommended dose of inhaled corticosteroid/long acting β2 agonist combination therapy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, controlled, two-arm parallel group study. Asthmatic patients who were fully controlled with a high daily dose (1000/100 μg) of fluticasone/salmeterol were randomly assigned to 6 months of open-label treatment with either 500/100 μg fluticasone/salmeterol Diskus daily or 400/24 μg extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol pMDI daily. The primary outcome was the change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) values between baseline and the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes included asthma control and exacerbation frequency.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-two patients were included in the analysis. The PEF values remained above 95% of the predicted values throughout the study. The end-study morning PEF rates showed equivalence between the groups (difference between means, 2.49 L/min; 95% CI, -13.43 to 18.42). No changes from baseline were detected in PEF and forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured at the clinics, in the symptom scores or in the use of rescue medication. Asthma control was maintained in 95.2% of the patients at 6 months. No significant differences between the groups were detected in any other parameter, including exacerbation frequency and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Stepping down patients whose asthma is controlled with the highest recommended dose of fluticasone/salmeterol to either 500/100 μg fluticasone/salmeterol daily or 400/24 μg extra-fine beclomethasone/formoterol daily provides comparable maintenance of lung function and asthma control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT00497237.

Poor asthma control?--then look up the nose. The importance of co-morbid rhinitis in patients with asthma

Many factors can impair asthma control. One which is frequently overlooked is rhinitis. Asthma patients with significant rhinitis are over four times more likely to have poorly controlled asthma than those without. Over 80% of patients with asthma have rhinitis, which may be allergic or inflammatory/non-allergic. Both types of rhinitis share pathophysiological similarities with eosinophilic asthma, cause bronchial hyper-reactivity, and are predisposing factors for the subsequent development of asthma. Nasal allergen challenge in allergic rhinitis results in inflammation in the bronchi as well as the nose, and the reverse is also true. This article reviews briefly the evidence for the link between asthma and rhinitis, advocates looking for rhinitis when patients present with poorly controlled asthma, and provides guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of rhinitis.

Stepping down asthma treatment: how and when

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Guidelines suggest that asthma medication should be reduced once asthma control is sustained. Moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can typically be reduced, but questions remain about the lowest effective ICS dose and the role of non-ICS controllers in treatment reduction. Long-acting beta agonist (LABA) safety concerns have created controversy about how to step down patients on ICS/LABA therapy. This review will focus on the current status of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intermittent ICS treatment, often in fixed combination with short-acting beta agonist, is an emerging strategy for control of mild asthma. Addition of leukotriene modifiers, LABAs, and omalizumab to ICS can allow for reduced ICS dosing. Doses of ICS that control symptoms may be inadequate to control exacerbations. Reducing ICS dose before discontinuing LABAs may be the more effective approach for patients on combination therapy.

SUMMARY

Use of non-ICS controllers allows for ICS dose reduction with superior outcomes. Tapering of ICS prior to LABA discontinuation may be the favored approach for patients on ICS/LABA therapy, but an understanding of long-term outcomes and further safety data are required. The lowest ICS dose that adequately controls both asthma impairment and risk remains to be determined.

Tiotropium is noninferior to salmeterol in maintaining improved lung function in B16-Arg/Arg patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of inhaled long-acting β(2)-adrenergic agonists in asthmatic patients with the B16-Arg/Arg genotype has been questioned, and the use of antimuscarinics has been proposed as an alternative in patients whose symptoms are not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs).

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy and safety of the long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium with salmeterol and placebo added to an ICS in B16-Arg/Arg patients with asthma that was not controlled by ICSs alone.

METHODS

In a double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial, after a 4-week run-in period with 50 μg of twice-daily salmeterol administered through a metered-dose inhaler, 388 asthmatic patients were randomized 1:1:1 to 16 weeks of treatment with 5 μg of Respimat tiotropium administered daily in the evening, 50 μg of salmeterol administered twice daily through a metered-dose inhaler, or placebo. Patients aged 18 to 67 years demonstrated reversibility to bronchodilators, and their symptoms were uncontrolled by regular ICSs (400-1000 μg of budesonide/equivalent). ICS regimens were maintained throughout the trial. The mean weekly morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) before randomization was 358 ± 115.7 L/min (range, 80.3-733.0 L/min).

RESULTS

Changes in weekly PEF from the last week of the run-in period to the last week of treatment (primary end point: change in PEF) were -3.9 ± 4.87 L/min (n = 128) for tiotropium and -3.2 ± 4.64 L/min (n = 134) for salmeterol, and these were superior to placebo (-24.6 ± 4.84 L/min, n = 125, P < .05). Tiotropium was noninferior to salmeterol (estimated difference, -0.78 L/min [95% CI, -13.096 to 11.53]; P = .002; α = .025, 1-sided; noninferiority, 20 L/min). Tiotropium and salmeterol were numerically superior to placebo in some patient-reported secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across treatments.

CONCLUSION

Tiotropium was more effective than placebo and as effective as salmeterol in maintaining improved lung function in B16-Arg/Arg patients with moderate persistent asthma. Safety profiles were comparable.

Approaches to stepping up and stepping down care in asthmatic patients

The variability in symptom control is a challenging feature of asthma that necessitates careful monitoring and the need to step up and step down individualized therapeutic regimens over time. This stepwise concept in asthma therapy can be considered in at least 3 contexts. For lack of control that is persistent over long periods of time, an increase in the overall medication or a step-up long-term strategy is indicated. A second approach, the step-up short-term strategy, can be used during a temporary loss of acceptable control, such as at the onset of a viral respiratory tract illness. In these cases a step-up in therapy is usually terminated in 3 to 10 days once asthma control has been satisfactorily achieved. Finally, for treating symptoms related to the variability of asthma on a day-to-day basis, inhaled corticosteroids used concomitantly with a β-agonist have been evaluated, although this treatment is not currently approved in the United States. We will term this particular intervention a step-up intermittent strategy. Here we summarize the existing data regarding these 3 approaches to step up care and step down management, as well as to identify areas where more comparative studies are necessary to provide further guidance to clinicians regarding proper step-up and step-down strategies in the care of asthma.

Asthma diagnosis and treatment: filling in the information gaps

Current approaches to the diagnosis and management of asthma are based on guideline recommendations, which have provided a framework for the efforts. Asthma, however, is emerging as a heterogeneous disease, and these features need to be considered in both the diagnosis and management of this disease in individual patients. These diverse or phenotypic features add complexity to the diagnosis of asthma, as well as attempts to achieve control with treatment. Although the diagnosis of asthma is often based on clinical information, it is important to pursue objective criteria as well, including an evaluation for reversibility of airflow obstruction and bronchial hyperresponsiveness, an area with new diagnostic approaches. Furthermore, there exist a number of treatment gaps (ie, exacerbations, step-down care, use of antibiotics, and severe disease) in which new direction is needed to improve care. A major morbidity in asthmatic patients occurs with exacerbations and in patients with severe disease. Novel approaches to treatment for these conditions will be an important advance to reduce the morbidity associated with asthma.

Phospholipids particles inhalation in therapy of asthma: randomized placebo-controlled trial

The prospective single-blind randomized placebo-controlled study was performed. The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of phospholipids' particles inhalation in patients with bronchial asthma. The results obtained demonstrate the statistically significant improvements both in clinical status and lung function tests. No any clinically significant adverse events were registered.

The effect of stepping down combination therapy on airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol

RATIONALE

Controversy exists about the safety of long acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatment, in particular in children. Combination therapy with a LABA and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is prescribed to children with moderate asthma and can be stepped down by withdrawal of the LABA when asthma is well controlled.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of stepping down from LABA/ICS combination therapy to monotherapy with the same dose of ICS on the airway response to mannitol in asthmatic children.

METHODS

17 children, aged 12-17 years, with clinically stable asthma, receiving combination therapy, were analyzed in this observational prospective open-label study. Children performed a mannitol challenge at baseline and 30±4 days after their medication was stepped down to ICS monotherapy. The changes in the provoking dose of mannitol to cause a 15% fall in FEV(1) (PD(15)), response-dose ratio and recovery time following a short acting beta2-agonist to ≥95% of baseline FEV(1) were assessed.

RESULTS

Mannitol PD(15) and response-dose ratio did not significantly change after stepping down. The recovery time following a short acting beta2-agonist to ≥95% of baseline FEV(1) was significantly shorter (p=0.01) after the withdrawal of the LABA.

CONCLUSIONS

In short-term follow-up, stepping down clinically stable asthmatic children from combination therapy to monotherapy with an ICS does not change airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to mannitol but does shorten recovery time to baseline lung function following a rescue short acting beta2-agonist.

Pilot study: The effect of reducing treatment on exercise induced bronchoconstriction

SUMMARY RATIONALE: Asthma therapy should be stepped up or stepped down in response to changes in asthma control. However, there is little evidence available on the optimal timing, sequence, and degree of medication reductions. In this study we analyzed clinically stable asthmatic children who underwent a medication reduction from a combination preparation consisting of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long acting beta2-agonist (LABA) to monotherapy with the same dose of the ICS. We hypothesized that the extent of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) would not increase after the cessation of the LABA.

METHODS

Nineteen children, aged 8-16 years, with clinically stable asthma, receiving LABA/ICS combination therapy, were analyzed in this open-label pilot study. Children performed an exercise challenge at baseline and 3 weeks after the medication reduction. Best values of spirometric measurements of the forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)) were used for statistical calculations.

RESULTS

Maximum percent fall in FEV(1) was significantly lower after 3 weeks of ICS monotherapy (P = 0.03). Eight of 19 children had a >or=15% fall in FEV(1) after exercise at the initial exercise challenge. In this subgroup, maximum percent fall in FEV(1) after the medication reduction was significantly lower (P < 0.01), and in six children it decreased to <15%, indicating they no longer had EIB.

CONCLUSION

In clinically stable asthmatic children on LABA/ICS combination therapy, the cessation of the LABA can reduce and in most cases abolish EIB.

Down-titration from high-dose combination therapy in asthma: Removal of long-acting beta(2)-agonist

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines recommend reducing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to the minimum effective dose, but the timing of long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) withdrawal is unclear. Recent FDA guidelines recommend LABA withdrawal once asthma is well-controlled. This 13-month double-blind study of patients taking high-dose combination therapy investigated the effect of discontinuation of LABA before ICS down-titration.

METHODS

Adults using salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) 50/500 microg bd were randomized to SFC 50/500 microg bd or fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 microg bd, with subsequent ICS down-titration 8-weekly using a clinical algorithm. The primary outcome was mean daily FP dose, including ICS for exacerbations.

RESULTS

82 subjects were randomized. Asthma was well-controlled at baseline, with mean FEV(1) 84.8% predicted and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score 0.9. There was no significant difference in mean daily FP dose (SFC: 721 microg, FP:816 microg, p = 0.3), but final dose was lower with SFC (534 microg cf. 724 microg, p = 0.005). ICS dose was reduced by >or=80% in 41% SFC and 15% FP patients. Ambulatory lung function was significantly higher with SFC, but there were no differences between groups in rescue beta(2)-agonist use, clinic spirometry, airway responsiveness, ACQ, sputum eosinophils or FeNO. Baseline airway responsiveness, and pre-reduction blood eosinophils, were significant predictors of mean daily FP dose and dose reduction failure respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients prescribed high-dose combination therapy may be over-treated. Substantial reductions in dose can be achieved with a clinical algorithm, reaching lower FP doses with SFC than FP without losing asthma control or increasing disease activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was commenced before mandatory registration of clinical trials.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.