Oral steroid-sparing effect of two doses of nebulized fluticasone propionate and placebo in patients with severe chronic asthma

Indian Guidelines on Nebulization Therapy

Inhalational therapy, today, happens to be the mainstay of treatment in obstructive airway diseases (OADs), such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is also in the present, used in a variety of other pulmonary and even non-pulmonary disorders. Hand-held inhalation devices may often be difficult to use, particularly for children, elderly, debilitated or distressed patients. Nebulization therapy emerges as a good option in these cases besides being useful in the home care, emergency room and critical care settings. With so many advancements taking place in nebulizer technology; availability of a plethora of drug formulations for its use, and the widening scope of this therapy; medical practitioners, respiratory therapists, and other health care personnel face the challenge of choosing appropriate inhalation devices and drug formulations, besides their rational application and use in different clinical situations. Adequate maintenance of nebulizer equipment including their disinfection and storage are the other relevant issues requiring guidance. Injudicious and improper use of nebulizers and their poor maintenance can sometimes lead to serious health hazards, nosocomial infections, transmission of infection, and other adverse outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to have a proper national guideline on nebulization practices to bridge the knowledge gaps amongst various health care personnel involved in this practice. It will also serve as an educational and scientific resource for healthcare professionals, as well as promote future research by identifying neglected and ignored areas in this field. Such comprehensive guidelines on this subject have not been available in the country and the only available proper international guidelines were released in 1997 which have not been updated for a noticeably long period of over two decades, though many changes and advancements have taken place in this technology in the recent past. Much of nebulization practices in the present may not be evidence-based and even some of these, the way they are currently used, may be ineffective or even harmful. Recognizing the knowledge deficit and paucity of guidelines on the usage of nebulizers in various settings such as inpatient, out-patient, emergency room, critical care, and domiciliary use in India in a wide variety of indications to standardize nebulization practices and to address many other related issues; National College of Chest Physicians (India), commissioned a National task force consisting of eminent experts in the field of Pulmonary Medicine from different backgrounds and different parts of the country to review the available evidence from the medical literature on the scientific principles and clinical practices of nebulization therapy and to formulate evidence-based guidelines on it. The guideline is based on all possible literature that could be explored with the best available evidence and incorporating expert opinions. To support the guideline with high-quality evidence, a systematic search of the electronic databases was performed to identify the relevant studies, position papers, consensus reports, and recommendations published. Rating of the level of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation was done using the GRADE system. Six topics were identified, each given to one group of experts comprising of advisors, chairpersons, convenor and members, and such six groups (A-F) were formed and the consensus recommendations of each group was included as a section in the guidelines (Sections I to VI). The topics included were: A. Introduction, basic principles and technical aspects of nebulization, types of equipment, their choice, use, and maintenance B. Nebulization therapy in obstructive airway diseases C. Nebulization therapy in the intensive care unit D. Use of various drugs (other than bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) by nebulized route and miscellaneous uses of nebulization therapy E. Domiciliary/Home/Maintenance nebulization therapy; public & health care workers education, and F. Nebulization therapy in COVID-19 pandemic and in patients of other contagious viral respiratory infections (included later considering the crisis created due to COVID-19 pandemic). Various issues in different sections have been discussed in the form of questions, followed by point-wise evidence statements based on the existing knowledge, and recommendations have been formulated.

Superiority of nebulized corticosteroids over dry powder inhalers in certain patients with cough variant asthma or cough-predominant asthma

BACKGROUND

The particle distribution might differ between nebulizer therapy and metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or dry powder inhaler (DPI) therapy because the particles repeatedly enter/re-enter the airways with the nebulizer. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) were administered with a nebulizer to assess the benefit of changes in the distribution of particles in patients with cough variant asthma (CVA) and cough-predominant asthma (CPA).

METHODS

Patients whose symptoms were not controlled by their current therapy were enrolled. In patients receiving high-dose ICS by MDI or DPI (ICS-MDI/DPI), steroid therapy was switched to 1,320μg/day of nebulized dexamethasone (1,600μg as dexamethasone sodium phosphate) (chronic steroid-independent group). In patients receiving systemic steroids regardless of their ICS-MDI/DPI therapy, nebulized dexamethasone was added and any concurrent ICS-MDI/DPI therapy was halted to detect a steroid-sparing effect (chronic steroid-dependent group). In patients with acute exacerbation of CVA or CPA and persistent symptoms despite systemic corticosteroids, nebulized dexamethasone was added to assess its effect (acute group).

RESULTS

Superior symptom control was achieved in 10 out of 12 steroid-independent patients, 3 out of 6 steroid-dependent patients, and all 7 acute patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of ICS via a nebulizer has advantages over ICS-MDI/DPI in some patients with CVA or CPA.

Relative oral corticosteroid-sparing effect of 7 inhaled corticosteroids in chronic asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of various inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for oral corticosteroid (OCS)-sparing effect in asthma is not known. To our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial directly comparing 2 ICSs has been reported, but several randomized controlled trials have reported comparison of various ICSs with placebo.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an adjusted indirect comparison of 7 ICSs for their OCS-sparing effect.

METHODS

PubMed and bibliographies of relevant articles. Eighteen placebo-controlled randomized trials of 7 ICSs were analyzed using a random-effect model. Pooled benefit ratios (BRs) (ICS/placebo) for elimination of OCS and weighted mean differences (ICS - placebo) for OCS dose change by each ICS vs placebo were determined. Pairwise adjusted indirect comparisons of various ICSs were then made.

RESULTS

For OCS elimination, all ICSs were more effective than placebo (BR: mometasone, 17.2; budesonide, 8.2; beclomethasone and fluticasone, 5.4; triamcinolone, 4.6; ciclesonide, 2.8; and flunisolide, 2.2). On pairwise adjusted indirect comparison, the BR of mometasone was significantly higher than that of triamcinolone (P = .02), ciclesonide (P = .01), and flunisolide (P = .01) and that of budesonide was significantly higher than that of ciclesonide (P = .02) and flunisolide (P = .03). For OCS dose change, beclomethasone achieved a significantly lower final mean OCS dose than fluticasone or flunisolide (P < .001). In all other comparisons, the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

All ICSs studied were significantly more effective than placebo for OCS sparing, but mometasone seemed to be more effective than others. However, because of very few trials for some ICSs, more placebo-controlled trials for adjusted indirect comparison or randomized trials for direct comparison of these ICSs are needed for definitive conclusions.

Oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma: a 30-year review

OBJECTIVE

To identify novel aspects of the pathogenesis, therapeutic options, and prophylaxis measures of corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searches were undertaken of studies published between 1966 and 2006 on the pathogenesis of and corticosteroid-sparing therapies for corticosteroid-dependent asthma. Identified review articles were surveyed for additional and earlier citations. Recent American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology meeting abstracts were also searched to identify other recently published and unpublished studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion of studies in the review was decided by simple agreement of both reviewers, who independently read the "Methods" and "Discussion" sections of articles identified using the search strategy. Quality assessment was performed by the 2 reviewers.

RESULTS

High-dose inhaled corticosteroids are the first-line option for corticosteroid-dependent asthmatic patients with clear efficacy. Omalizumab is effective in reducing oral corticosteroid requirements in allergic asthma. Methotrexate, gold, and cyclosporine have corticosteroid-sparing effects clinically that must be weighed against a serious adverse effect profile. Nebulized diuretics and lidocaine, with a low adverse effect profile, offer promising results but require further study. Clarithromycin and telithromycin seem to have an independent mechanism of inflammatory modulation, but their effect on corticosteroid-dependent asthma remains to be seen. Etanercept offers only early clinical evidence of a role in corticosteroid-dependent asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

With no clear consensus on corticosteroid-sparing treatment in corticosteroid-dependent asthmatic patients, systemic glucocorticoids remain the foremost therapy, with adverse effects that require monitoring and prophylaxis.

The role of nebulized inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Conventional metered-dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers are used by most adult patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who receive inhaled corticosteroid therapy. There are circumstances, however, in which nebulized inhaled corticosteroid delivery may provide greater clinical benefit to these patients. This review discusses the efficacy and safety of nebulized inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for whom nebulized therapy may be preferable.

Oral corticosteroid-sparing effects of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of persistent and acute asthma

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) when used to reduce daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) requirements in patients with severe persistent asthma and periodic requirements in patients with acute asthma exacerbations.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical studies of the OCS-sparing effects of ICSs were located by searching MEDLINE databases from 1966 onward using the terms oral, steroid, and asthma in combination with the generic names for each marketed ICS.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting on the use of ICSs to reduce OCS requirements in patients with persistent and acute asthma are included.

RESULTS

Clinical study results consistently show that ICSs significantly improve asthma control and reduce OCS requirements among adults, children, and infants with persistent asthma. A dose reduction or complete discontinuation of use of OCSs is possible in most patients without loss of asthma control. ICSs also can control asthma during acute asthma exacerbations and reduce the need for short courses of OCSs. With many ICSs, the reductions in OCS use are accompanied by recovery of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function, indicating that the safety of asthma therapy is improved when OCS requirements are decreased with ICSs. Of the available ICSs that may reduce OCS needs, budesonide appears to be the most intensively studied.

CONCLUSIONS

ICSs can reduce OCS requirements in adults and children with persistent asthma and during acute asthma exacerbations. The reduced systemic corticosteroid activity associated with ICS treatment improves the overall safety of asthma therapy.

The use of inhaled corticosteroids for persistent asthma in infants and young children

OBJECTIVE

To review pediatric trials of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy and summarize data on the pediatric use of devices to facilitate delivery of ICSs.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant articles regarding ICS treatment of persistent asthma in children younger than 5 years were identified from MEDLINE and reference lists of review articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Key articles were selected by the authors.

RESULTS

Clinical trials from the United States and Europe consistently demonstrated that ICS therapy is the most favorable treatment option with regard to safety and efficacy for infants and young children with persistent asthma. This contention is supported by numerous trials of budesonide inhalation suspension in children ranging from 6 months through 8 years of age and data from older children treated with fluticasone propionate.

CONCLUSIONS

As the only corticosteroid available in the United States as a nebulized formulation and the only ICS product extensively studied in young children and infants, budesonideinhalation suspension is an appropriate first-line therapy for treatment of persistent asthma in this population.

HPA-axis effects of nebulised fluticasone propionate compared with oral prednisolone in childhood asthma

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of 7 days nebulised fluticasone propionate (FP) with oral prednisolone on 24-h urinary-free cortisol excretion, systemic exposure and safety. This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover study. Thirty-one children (19 male, 12 female, mean age 8 years) with stable asthma were randomly assigned to 7 days treatment with either FP Nebules (2 x 0.5 mg/2 ml bd) or prednisolone tablets once daily (2 mg/kg/day for 4 days [maximum 40 mg] followed by 1 mg/kg/day or half the original dose for 3 days [maximum 20 mg]). After a 2-4 week washout period, patients received the second treatment for 7 days, followed by a 2-week follow-up visit. The primary outcome measure was 24-h urinary-free cortisol concentrations corrected for creatinine. Nebulised FP (1 mg bd) had significantly less effect on 24-h urinary-free cortisol excretion than oral prednisolone (8.9 ng/ml for FP and 5.0 ng/ml for prednisolone, P = 0.001). Systemic exposure to FP was also low. In conclusion, FP Nebules had significantly less effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function than oral prednisolone in asthmatic children when used at doses recommended for the treatment of an acute exacerbation of asthma.

A meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Although inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly used in the treatment of persistent asthma, the relationship between dose and clinical response remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether ICS exhibit a dose-response relationship in the treatment of mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

This was a meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials concerning the relationship between ICS dose and response in asthma. Relevant studies were identified through a search of PubMed and MEDLINE for articles on asthma and ICS published between January 1996 and January 2001. The search was limited to publications classified as clinical trials that included the text words asthma and corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, beclomethasone, budesonide, fluticasone, flunisolide, mometasone, or triamcinolone acetonide. Five clinical measures were considered: morning peak expiratory flow rate (AM PEFR), evening PEFR (PM PEFR), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), beta-agonist use, and asthma symptom score (severity of symptoms on a given day, as evaluated by patients).

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were identified, of which 16 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. These studies involved 4 agents: fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, budesonide, and mometasone furoate. A statistically significant dose response in AM PEFR was observed with fluticasone propionate, triamcinolone acetonide, and budesonide (respective 95% CIs, 4.9 to 11.5, 4.7 to 18.0, and 5.8 to 24.9). A statistically significant dose response to fluticasone propionate and triamcinolone acetonide was also observed in PM PEFR (95% CIs, 2.0 to 8.7 and 2.4 to 13.7) and asthma symptom score (95% CI, -0.069 to -0.002 and -0.60 to -0.10). In terms of FEV(1), the dose response was statistically significant only with budesonide (95% CI, 0.025 to 0.17). Dose-response relationships were not disproportionately driven by the highest doses, and the greatest effects on response were seen at doses below or at the low end of the recommended range, suggesting that use of high doses of ICS may contribute only marginally to efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-response relationships were not uniformly observed with all drugs or for all measures of response. Use of higher doses of ICS in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma does not appear to increase the efficacy of these drugs.

Children with difficult asthma: a practical approach

Many open studies investigating the effects of innovative treatments for steroid-dependent asthma demonstrate some benefit. This is also true of the majority of placebo arms in placebo-controlled trials. This suggests that children with difficult asthma benefit from the high level of input that is typically provided in clinical trials, with or without additional medication. Such intensive management of patients, with the emphasis on establishing the diagnosis, improving adherence, and identifying provoking factors, is the key to optimizing asthma control for these children. For patients with genuinely severe asthma, despite high doses of conventional treatment, a greater understanding of the pathological basis of persistent symptoms is needed. Identification of different pathological subtypes of severe asthma should allow for more rational prescribing of asthma therapy, as well as the design of further trials of potential steroid-sparing treatments.

Efficacy of nebulized fluticasone propionate compared with oral prednisolone in children with an acute exacerbation of asthma

The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of nebulized fluticasone propionate (FP Nebules) compared with oral soluble prednisolone in children with an acute exacerbation of asthma. The study used an international, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, parallel group design. Three hundred and twenty-one patients, aged 4-16 years old, who presented with an acute exacerbation of asthma, were randomly allocated to either nebulized FP (1 mg b.d.) or oral prednisolone (2 mg kg(-1) day(-1) for 4 days then 1 mg kg(-1) day(-1) for 3 days) for 7 days. Patients in the FP group showed a significantly greater increase in diary card morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over 7 days compared with patients in the prednisolone group (difference = 9.51 min(-1), CI = 2.1, 16.8, P = 0.034). Similar increases for both treatments were shown for evening PEF. Clinic PEF improved with both treatments, but was significantly greater in patients taking FP after 7 days (difference = 11.41 min(-1), CI = 2.8, 20.0, P = 0.029). Both treatments reduced symptom scores to a similar extent. The two treatments were well tolerated, and there was no difference in the incidence of adverse events. The present study demonstrated that nebulized FP is at least as effective as oral prednisolone in the treatment of children presenting with an acute exacerbation of asthma.