The safety of twice-daily treatment with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in pediatric patients with persistent asthma

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and fluticasone propionate monotherapy in step-up treatment of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects millions of children worldwide and can impair their quality of life and development. Inhaled glucocorticoids are the mainstay of asthma treatment, but some children require step-up therapy with additional drugs to achieve symptom control. Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FSC) has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in adults. However, the evidence for its efficacy and safety in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide a comprehensive basis for treatment selection by summarizing existing clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of FSC compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy in children with asthma who require step-up treatment.

METHODS

Five online databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were systematically searched. The effect size and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the heterogeneity among the included studies.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified and a total of 9, 859 patients were involved. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of FSC was associated with a greater reduction in the incidence of asthma exacerbations than FP alone when the dose of FP was the same or when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. In addition, FSC resulted in a greater proportion of time with asthma-free and without the use of albuterol compared to FP alone when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. No significant differences were observed between FSC and FP alone in the incidence of drug-related adverse events and other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Both FSC and FP alone are viable options for the initial selection of step-up treatment in asthmatic children. While, FSC treatment demonstrates a greater likelihood of reducing asthma exacerbations which is particularly important for reducing the personnel, social and economic burden in children requiring step-up asthma treatment.

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Managing moderate-to-severe paediatric asthma: a scoping review of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination, indicated for the regular treatment of children (aged >4 years) with asthma that is inadequately controlled with ICS monotherapy plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonists, or already adequately controlled with ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE

Compared with the adult population, fewer clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of FP/SAL in paediatric patients with moderate and moderate-to-severe asthma. In this review, we synthesise the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of FP/SAL in the paediatric population, compared with other available therapies indicated for asthma in children.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

A literature review identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of FP/SAL in the paediatric population with moderate-to-severe asthma.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The Medline database was searched using PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), with no publication date restrictions. Search strategies were developed and refined by authors.

CHARTING METHODS

Selected articles were screened for clinical outcome data (exacerbation reduction, nocturnal awakenings, lung function, symptom control, rescue medication use and safety) and a table of key parameters developed.

RESULTS

Improvements in asthma outcomes with FP/SAL include reduced risk of asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations, protection against exercise-induced asthma and improvements in measures of lung function. Compared with FP monotherapy, greater improvements in measures of lung function and asthma control are reported. In addition, reduced incidence of exacerbations, hospitalisations and rescue medication use is observed with FP/SAL compared with ICS and leukotriene receptor antagonist therapy. Furthermore, FP/SAL therapy can reduce exposure to both inhaled and oral corticosteroids.

CONCLUSIONS

FP/SAL is a reliable treatment option in patients not achieving control with ICS monotherapy or a different ICS/LABA combination. Evidence shows that FP/SAL is well tolerated and has a similar safety profile to FP monotherapy. Thus, FP/SAL provides an effective option for the management of moderate-to-severe asthma in the paediatric population.

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.

Comparison of the effect of fluticasone combined with salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma: review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of fluticasone + salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

METHODS

Studies meeting specific selection criteria were selected from online databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were used to evaluate the effect size of continuous variables, while rate ratio (RR) and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, including 8,272 pediatric asthma patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among these, 4,133 patients were in the salmeterol + fluticasone group. The changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children with asthma in the salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, WMD = 3.26, 95% CI: 1.52-5.00, P = 0.0002). Asthma exacerbation between two groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, Z = 2.18, P = 0.03). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma (P > 0.05). When the control group was treated with double dose fluticasone, the difference of changes in FEV1 and asthma exacerbation in children with asthma between the two groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is better than fluticasone alone, and the efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is equal to doubling the dose of fluticasone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in treating pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) in treating pediatric asthma during a 12-week treatment cycle.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL in treating pediatric asthma were searched systematically using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.

Results

Two articles including 546 patients were evaluated. The FP/SAL group showed obvious improvements in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) from day 0 to 84, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores compared with the FP/FORM group; however, the FP/FORM group had improved peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). In terms of 2-hour post-dose FEV₁ from day 0 to 84, 2-hour forced expiratory flow at 25%, 50%, and 75%, and 2-hour forced vital capacity, we observed no significant differences between the two groups. For safety, including patients with at least one adverse event, bronchitis, cough, or pharyngitis, both groups had similar incidences, differing only in incidence of nasopharyngitis.

Conclusion

Compared with FP/FORM, FP/SAL showed a clear improvement in pre-dose FEV₁, asthma symptom scores, and sleep disturbance scores. However, FP/FORM resulted in improved PEFR with a lower incidence of nasopharyngitis.

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 Pilot Study of the Normative Range of Overnight Urinary Free Cortisol Corrected for Creatinine in Children

BACKGROUND

For more than a decade, urinary free cortisol corrected for creatinine (OUFCC) has been used to assess the systemic bioactivity of inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma. Paediatric normative ranges, however, have not been established. The aim of the present study was to define a preliminary range for OUFCC in Tanner stage 1 children.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed of 26 Tanner stage one children (aged 5-11 years) with mild asthma only requiring prn (pro re nata) treatment with short-acting β₂-agonists, who participated in a 3-way cross-over knemometry study. The study comprised a run-in, two washout periods and three treatment periods (2 weeks each). Urine was collected at the end of each period. A normative range was derived using the 95% prediction interval for the geometric mean OUFCC, calculated from run-in and washout periods.

RESULTS

Twenty-six children contributed 41 OUFCC values. The geometric mean OUFCC was 9.0 nmol/mmol (95% PI: 3.6, 22.7 nmol/mmol).

CONCLUSIONS

The OUFCC preliminary normative range was 3.6 to 22.7 nmol/mmol in Tanner stage one children. A larger study in healthy children is warranted to confirm these findings and to assess potential differences in OUFCC across developmental stages and age groups, and by gender and race.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2013-004719-32, CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02063139.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).

METHODS

A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.

RESULTS

A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

A systematic review of adverse drug events associated with administration of common asthma medications in children

Objective

To systematically review the literature and determine frequencies of adverse drug events (ADE) associated with pediatric asthma medications.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched six bibliographic databases between January 1991 and January 2017. Study eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were independently completed and verified by two reviewers. We included randomized control trials (RCT), case-control, cohort, or quasi-experimental studies where the primary objective was identifying ADE in children 1 month– 18 years old exposed to commercial asthma medications. The primary outcome was ADE frequency.

Findings

Our search identified 14,540 citations. 46 studies were included: 24 RCT, 15 cohort, 4 RCT pooled analyses, 1 case-control, 1 open-label trial and 1 quasi-experimental study. Studies examined the following drug classes: inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (n = 24), short-acting beta-agonists (n = 10), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (n = 3), ICS + LABA (n = 3), Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists (n = 3) and others (n = 3). 29 studies occurred in North America, and 29 were industry funded. We report a detailed index of 406 ADE descriptions and frequencies organized by drug class. The majority of data focuses on ICS, with 174 ADE affecting 13 organ systems including adrenal and growth suppression. We observed serious ADE, although they were rare, with frequency ranging between 0.9–6% per drug. There were no confirmed deaths, except for 13 potential deaths in a LABA study including combined adult and pediatric participants. We identified substantial methodological concerns, particularly with identifying ADE and determining severity. No studies utilized available standardized causality, severity or preventability assessments.

Conclusion

The majority of studies focus on ICS, with adrenal and growth suppression described. Serious ADE are relatively uncommon, with no confirmed pediatric deaths. We identify substantial methodological concerns, highlighting need for standardization with future research examining pediatric asthma medication safety.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Effectiveness of drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations and increase symptom-free days in asthmatic children: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and safety of current maintenance therapies that include inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β-agonists (LABA) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in preventing exacerbations and improving symptoms in pediatric asthma.

METHODS

A systematic review with network meta-analysis was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials databases, up to July 2014. Randomized clinical trials were selected comparing treatment strategies of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The full-text randomized clinical trials compared maintenance treatments for asthma in children (≤18 years) of ≥4 weeks duration, reporting exacerbations or symptom-free days. The primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were the rates of moderate/severe exacerbations and symptom-free days from baseline, respectively. Withdrawal rates were taken as the safety outcome.

RESULTS

Included in the network meta-analysis was 35 trials, comprising 12,010 patients. For both primary and secondary outcomes, combined ICS and LABA was ranked first in effectiveness (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.94-1.61, respectively, compared with low-dose ICS), but the result of secondary outcomes was statistically insignificant. Low-dose ICS, medium- or high-dose ICS and combined ICS and LTRA strategies were comparable in effectiveness. ICS monotherapies, and ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA strategies were similarly safe. High-dose ICS had the highest rate of total withdrawals, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ICS and LABA treatments were most effective in preventing exacerbations among pediatric asthma patients. Medium- or high-dose ICS, combined ICS and LTRAs, and low-dose ICS treatments seem to be equally effective.

Effects of Transdermal Tulobuterol in Pediatric Asthma Patients on Long-Term Leukotriene Receptor Antagonist Therapy: Results of a Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Clinical Trial in Japanese Children Aged 4-12 Years

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the efficacy or safety of a transdermal β2 agonist as add-on medicationto long-term leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) therapy in pediatric asthma patients.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial, children aged 4-12 years on long-term LTRA therapy were treated with tulobuterol patches (1-2 mg daily) or oral sustained-release theophylline (usual dose, 4-5 mg_kg daily) for 4 weeks. LTRAs were continued throughout the trial. Outcomes included volume peak expiratory flow (% PEF), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), clinical symptoms and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-three and 31 patients were treated with tulobuterol patches and theophylline, respectively. % PEF measured in the morning and before bedtime was significantly higher at all times in the treatment period compared with baseline in the tulobuterol patch group (p < 0.001), and was significantly higher in the tulobuterol patch group compared with the theophylline group. FeNO was similar and unchanged from baseline in both groups. There were no drug-related adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that short-term use of a transdermal β2 agonist is an effective therapy for pediatric asthma without inducing airway inflammation in children on long-term LTRA therapy.

Management of asthma: the current US and European guidelines

Asthma management guidelines aim to improve the implementation of current knowledge into daily clinical practice by establishing a consensus of scientific practices for the management of asthma. Initial guidelines were based on consensus of expert opinion in order to employ a severity-based classification system as a guide to treatment. However, advances in asthma research led to the development of evidence-based guidelines and a major paradigm shift to control-based asthma management. Control-based management is central to the published guidelines developed by The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and The British Thoracic Society (BTS), each one using the same volume of evidence but emphasizing aspects particular to their specific patient populations and socioeconomic needs. This chapter summarizes the evolution of these guidelines and summarizes the key points and evidence used in the recommendations for the assessment, monitoring, and management of asthma in all ages, with particular emphasis on the NHLBI guidelines.

Safety of long-acting beta agonists and inhaled corticosteroids in children and adolescents with asthma

The introduction of long-acting beta agonists (LABAs) was considered a major advance in bronchodilator therapy for adult, as well as pediatric, patients with asthma. However, the use of LABAs has raised safety concerns, especially the potential for severe asthma exacerbations (SAEs) resulting in hospitalizations or even death. Meanwhile, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), a cornerstone in the treatment of mild-to-severe persistent asthma, has been associated with growth suppression in children. The purpose of this review was to identify and discuss the major published safety studies surrounding LABA, ICS, and combined LABA/ICS usage in children. By way of a critical search for influential published clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies, six studies relevant to the safety of LABA monotherapy, seven studies relevant to ICS monotherapy, and four studies on the subject of LABA/ICS combination usage were identified and reviewed. Based on the reviewed literature, the controversy surrounding these anti-asthma medications was clearly exposed. On the one hand, there is some evidence that LABA monotherapy may be associated with SAEs and asthma-related death, while ICS monotherapy may be associated with a higher risk of growth suppression. On the other hand, the concurrent use of a LABA with an ICS has been associated with positive outcomes including symptom reduction and reduced rate and severity of exacerbations. Further clinical research is warranted and has been called for by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Addition of anti-leukotriene agents to inhaled corticosteroids in children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of children with mild persistent asthma, low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the preferred monotherapy (referred to as step 2 of therapy). In children with inadequate asthma control on low doses of ICS (step 2), asthma management guidelines recommend adding an anti-leukotriene agent to existing ICS as one of three therapeutic options to intensify therapy (step 3).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the combination of anti-leukotriene agents and ICS to the use of the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS in children and adolescents with persistent asthma who remain symptomatic despite the use of maintenance ICS. In addition, we wished to determine the characteristics of people or treatments, if any, that influenced the magnitude of response attributable to the addition of anti-leukotrienes.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), which were derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL; and the handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts, as well as the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. The search was conducted until January 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children and adolescents, aged one to 18 years, with asthma, who remained symptomatic despite the use of a stable maintenance dose of ICS and in whom anti-leukotrienes were added to the ICS if they were compared to the same, an increased, or a tapering dose of ICS for at least four weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Five paediatric (parallel group or cross-over) trials met the inclusion criteria. We considered two (40%) trials to be at a low risk of bias. Four published trials, representing 559 children (aged ≥ six years) and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma, contributed data to the review. No trial enrolled preschoolers. All trials used montelukast as the anti-leukotriene agent administered for between four and 16 weeks. Three trials evaluated the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS compared to the same dose of ICS alone (step 3 versus step 2). No statistically significant group difference was observed in the only trial reporting participants with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids over four weeks (N = 268 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.91). There was also no statistically significant difference in percentage change in FEV₁ (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) with mean difference (MD) 1.3 (95% CI -0.09 to 2.69) in this trial, but a significant group difference was observed in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR): N = 218 participants; MD 9.70 L/min (95% CI 1.27 to 18.13) and MD 10.70 (95% CI 2.41 to 18.99), respectively. One trial compared the combination of anti-leukotrienes and ICS to a higher-dose of ICS (step 3 versus step 3). No significant group difference was observed in this trial for participants with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over 16 weeks (N = 182 participants; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.25), nor was there any significant difference in exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. There was no statistically significant group difference in withdrawals overall or because of any cause with either protocol. No trial explored the impact of adding anti-leukotrienes as a means to taper the dose of ICS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of anti-leukotrienes to ICS is not associated with a statistically significant reduction in the need for rescue oral corticosteroids or hospital admission compared to the same or an increased dose of ICS in children and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma. Although anti-leukotrienes have been licensed for use in children for over 10 years, the paucity of paediatric trials, the absence of data on preschoolers, and the variability in the reporting of relevant clinical outcomes considerably limit firm conclusions. At present, there is no firm evidence to support the efficacy and safety of anti-leukotrienes as add-on therapy to ICS as a step-3 option in the therapeutic arsenal for children with uncontrolled asthma symptoms on low-dose ICS.

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.

A systematic review with attempted network meta-analysis of asthma therapy recommended for five to eighteen year olds in GINA steps three and four

Background

The recommendations for the treatment of moderate persistent asthma in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for paediatric asthma are mainly based on scientific evidence extrapolated from studies in adults or on consensus. Furthermore, clinical decision-making would benefit from formal ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness.

Our objective is to assess all randomized trial-based evidence specifically pertaining to 5-18 year olds with moderate persistent asthma. Rank the different drug treatments of GINA guideline steps 3&4 in terms of effectiveness.

Methods

Systematic review with network meta-analysis. After a comprehensive search in Central, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO search portal two reviewers selected RCTs performed in 4,129 children from 5-18 year old, with moderate persistent asthma comparing any GINA step 3&4 medication options. Further quality was assessed according the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and data-extracted included papers and built a network of the trials. Attempt at ranking treatments with formal statistical methods employing direct and indirect (e.g. through placebo) connections between all treatments.

Results

8,175 references were screened; 23 randomized trials (RCT), comparing head-to-head (n=17) or against placebo (n=10), met the inclusion criteria. Except for theophylline as add-on therapy in step 4, a closed network allowed all comparisons to be made, either directly or indirectly. Huge variation in, and incomplete reporting of, outcome measurements across RCTs precluded assessment of relative efficacies.

Conclusion

Evidence-based ranking of effectiveness of drug treatments in GINA steps 3&4 is not possible yet. Existing initiatives for harmonization of outcome measurements in asthma trials need urgent implementation.

Comparative resource utilization in medicaid-eligible patients with asthma treated with fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or fluticasone propionate monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to compare rates of asthma-related health service utilization for Medicaid-eligible pediatric and adult patients with asthma treated with fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC) or fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational claims analysis was conducted with Medicaid enrollees aged ≥4 years with ≥1 diagnosis code for asthma and a prescription fill for FSC or FP between January 1, 2002, and November 1, 2005. The end date allowed a follow-up period of ≥60 days; Medicaid data were available through December 31, 2005, and were obtained from 2 sources: a large US-managed Medicaid provider affiliated with i3 Innovus, and the Thomson Medstat Marketscan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) Medicaid claims database. Patients were new or continuing users of asthma controllers, but were new users of FSC or FP. Outcome measures included postindex use of systemic corticosteroid drugs and short-acting β-agonists (SABAs), asthma-related utilization, and costs. Descriptive and multivariate techniques were used, adjusting for differences in baseline demographics and length of follow-up time in the study population. Patients were grouped into cohorts according to age: 4 to 17 or ≥18 years.

RESULTS

The final study population was 50,428 patients, including 30,071 patients (59.6%) aged <18 years and 20,357 patients (40.4%) aged ≥18 years. Mean number of days of follow-up was 290.4, and 55.1% of patients (n = 27,793) were followed for ≥1 year after the index date. Among those aged <18 years, FSC treatment was associated with decreased adjusted risk of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.917; 95% CI, 0.855-0.984) and combined ED/inpatient (IP) visits (HR = 0.922; 95% CI, 0.860-0.988). Among those aged ≥18 years, FSC treatment was associated with decreased adjusted risk of asthma-related ED visits (HR = 0.907; 95% CI, 0.849-0.969) and combined ED/IP visits (HR = 0.907; 95% CI, 0.850-0.968). FSC treatment was also associated with significantly fewer prescription fills for SABAs compared with FP treatment in both age groups (aged <18 years: incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.960 [95% CI, 0.929-0.992]; aged ≥18 years: IRR = 0.950 [95% CI, 0.905-0.998]). Total mean (SD) unadjusted asthma costs were $579 ($2429) for FSC and $551 ($3151) for FP in the <18-year age group and were $1764 ($10,006) for FSC and $1512 ($5543) for FP in the ≥18-year age group.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective database analysis, Medicaid-eligible patients who initiated FSC therapy experienced better asthma control compared with patients who initiated FP monotherapy, as measured by asthma-related ED/IP visits and use of SABAs.

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled asthma medications: systematic review and research needs

PURPOSE

To assess the diversity, application, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in asthma clinical trials.

METHODS

We critically appraised the use of asthma-specific PROs in 87 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inhaled asthma medications published during 1985-2006.

RESULTS

A total of 79 RCTs reported PROs, of which 78 (99%) assessed symptom scores and seven (9%) assessed asthma quality of life scores. Only eight (10%) used validated instruments and five (6%) provided clinical interpretation of scores. Due to heterogeneity in the reporting of symptom measures, it is not possible to determine how many discrete symptom assessment instruments have been used. Only 26 (33%) of the RCTs that measured symptom scores reported the scores for follow-up. Limited improvement occurred over time: fewer than 30% of the RCTs used validated PRO measures in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

Numerous validated PRO instruments are available but it is unclear why few are used in asthma clinical trials. Problems include poor reporting, and uncritical analysis and interpretation of PRO scores. Research needs include identifying and recommending a set of PROs for use in asthma clinical research and providing guidance for researchers on the application, analysis and interpretation of PRO measures in clinical trials.

Asthma control in adolescents: role of leukotriene inhibitors

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

Treatment of persistent asthma with Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol): an inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler

OBJECTIVE

Budesonide/formoterol inhalation aerosol (Symbicort AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) combination administered twice daily via one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) approved in the United States for the long-term maintenance treatment of persistent asthma in patients >or=12 years of age whose asthma cannot be controlled by an ICS alone. The objective was to review efficacy, safety, and pharmacogenetic data on budesonide/formoterol pMDI in the treatment of persistent asthma.

METHODS

The authors searched PubMed and respiratory meeting databases to identify asthma studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Studies involving traditional and patient-reported outcomes, safety, tolerability, or pharmacogenetics were included.

RESULTS

In two 12-week pivotal trials in adolescents and adults, treatment with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 microg) twice daily for moderate to severe persistent asthma or 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg) twice daily for mild to moderate persistent asthma, demonstrated greater efficacy and similar tolerability compared with placebo and the same nominal dose of its monocomponents. Comparisons with formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) for predose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) and with budesonide pMDI for 12-hour mean postdose FEV(1) demonstrated the anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory contributions of budesonide and formoterol, respectively. Evaluations of patient-reported outcomes, including asthma-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction, further supported the clinical benefits of budesonide/formoterol pMDI. In a 52-week tolerability study of patients aged >or=12 years, budesonide/formoterol pMDI was delivered at up to double the maximum dose (640/18 microg twice daily) and demonstrated a safety profile similar to that of budesonide (640 microg twice daily), with no unexpected pattern of abnormalities. Additional studies reported that budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 microg twice daily and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI 250/50 microg twice daily have similar efficacy and tolerability, with significantly more patients achieving >or=15% improvement in FEV(1) within 15 minutes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with fluticasone/salmeterol DPI. Moreover, inheritance of the Gly16Arg polymorphism of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor does not appear to affect clinical outcomes with budesonide/formoterol pMDI.

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol pMDI administered twice daily is effective and generally well tolerated in patients whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

Use and safety of long-acting β2-agonists for pediatric asthma

Asthma guidelines recommend the use of long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) as the preferred add-on therapy for adults and children over 5 years of age when asthma is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids alone. It has been suggested that LABA use may be associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality; however, this view is controversial since study findings have been inconsistent. While the safety profile of LABA monotherapy has been questioned, the value of concomitant inhaled corticosteroids to eliminate possible risks remains unproven. There is a paucity of efficacy and safety data for LABA use in children, and existing evidence is not sufficiently convincing to demonstrate a clear position for LABAs in the management of childhood asthma. The main aims of this article are to place LABAs in context in the management of childhood asthma and evaluate the current evidence for safety and efficacy.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

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.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate vs. double dose fluticasone propionate on lung function and asthma control in children

There is a large body of data to support the use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting beta(2)-agonist vs. increasing the dose of ICS in adults, but less data in children. This double-blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared lung function and asthma control, based on Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, in children receiving either salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) 50/100 microg bd (n = 160) or fluticasone propionate (FP) 200 microg bd (n = 161) for 12 wks. Change from baseline in mean morning peak expiratory flow increased following both treatments, but was significantly greater in the SFC group compared with FP [Adjusted mean change (s.e.) (l/min): SFC: 26.9 (2.13), FP: 19.3 (2.12); treatment difference: 7.6 (3.01); 95% CI: 1.7, 13.5; p = 0.012)]. Asthma control improved over time in both groups. Mean pre-bronchodilator maximal-expiratory flow at 50% vital capacity and percentage rescue-free days showed significantly greater improvements in the SFC group compared with FP. All other efficacy indices showed comparable improvements in each group. Treatment with SFC 50/100 microg bd compared with twice the steroid dose of FP (200 microg bd), was at least as effective in improving individual clinical outcomes and overall asthma control, in asthmatic children previously uncontrolled on low doses of ICS.

Add-on salmeterol compared to double dose fluticasone in pediatric asthma: a double-blind, randomized trial (VIAPAED)

RATIONALE

In asthmatic children whose symptoms are uncontrolled on standard doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), guidelines recommend to either increase the ICS dose or to add further controller medication, e.g. a long acting ss2-agonist (LABA). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of doubling the dose of ICS (fluticasone proprionate FP 200 microg twice daily) with adding a long-acting beta-2 agonist to the ICS (SFC, salmeterol 50 microg/ FP 100 microg twice daily) in children with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

Children between 4 and 16 years of age were eligible for this multicenter, randomized, double blind, double dummy, parallel-group study. During a 14-day run-in phase, all children inhaled FP 100 microg b.i.d. Patients with persistent symptoms on > or =7 of 14 days were randomized to 8 weeks treatment with a Diskus(R) containing either SFC 50 microg/100 microg b.i.d. or FP 200 microg b.i.d.. The primary endpoint was the mean change in morning (a.m.) PEF from baseline. The initial statistical hypothesis of non-inferiority of SFC vs. FP was confirmed in an adaptive interim analysis, so that the study was terminated prematurely.

RESULTS

441 patients from 39 centers entered the run-in phase, and 64% of these were randomized to treatment (N = 138 to SFC and N = 145 to FP). After 8 weeks, patients on SFC had significantly better results for primary and secondary endpoints: The mean increase in morning PEF was 30.4 +/- 34.1 L/min in the SFC group and 16.7 +/- 35.8 L/min in the fluticasone group, and the mean (95% CI) improvement from baseline a.m. PEF in the ITT group was significantly larger after SFC (+8.6 L/min, CI: [1.3; infinity]). Patients in the SFC group experienced 8.7% (CI: [1.2;16.3]) more days without asthma symptoms and 8.0% (CI: [0.6;15.3]) more days without salbutamol than patients receiving FP. Good asthma control was achieved for a longer period in the SFC (3.4 +/- 2.7 weeks) group than in the FP group (2.7 +/- 2.7, P = 0.02). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Asthma exacerbations were recorded in 3 and 6 and SAEs in 2 and 1 patients from the SFC and FP groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma inadequately controlled on low dose ICS alone, adding a long acting beta-2-agonist to ICS in a single inhaler was more effective than doubling the ICS dose. These results support recommendations of adding LABA to low-dose ICS as the preferred controller option for children older than 4 years with symptomatic asthma.

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma (SINA) provides up-to-date guidelines for healthcare workers managing patients with asthma. SINA was developed by a panel of Saudi experts with respectable academic backgrounds and long-standing experience in the field. SINA is founded on the latest available evidence, local literature, and knowledge of the current setting in Saudi Arabia. Emphasis is placed on understanding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, medications, and clinical presentation. SINA elaborates on the development of patient-doctor partnership, self-management, and control of precipitating factors. Approaches to asthma treatment in SINA are based on disease control by the utilization of Asthma Control Test for the initiation and adjustment of asthma treatment. This guideline is established for the treatment of asthma in both children and adults, with special attention to children 5 years and younger. It is expected that the implementation of these guidelines for treating asthma will lead to better asthma control and decrease patient utilization of the health care system.

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

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included 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

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to 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 inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. 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.

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

Safety of regular use of long-acting beta agonists as monotherapy or added to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Safety of long-acting beta agonists (LABA) has been questioned and recent evidence suggested a detrimental effect on asthma control as well as an increased risk of death.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of regular use of LABA compared with placebo or LABA added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared with ICS in persistent asthma.

METHODS

Randomized studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were identified. Additionally, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and FDA clinical trials databases were searched. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations (AE) requiring systemic corticosteroids or hospitalization, life-threatening exacerbations and asthma-related deaths.

RESULTS

We identified 92 randomized clinical trials with 74,092 subjects. LABA (as monotherapy) reduced exacerbations requiring corticosteroids (Relative Risk [RR]=0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), without detrimental effects on hospitalizations or life-threatening episodes. Contrarily, LABA showed a significant increase in asthma-related deaths (Relative Risk=3.83; 95% CI, 1.21-12.14). Subgroup analysis suggests that children, patients receiving salmeterol, and a duration of treatment>12 weeks are associated with a higher risk of serious adverse effects; also there was a protective effect of concomitant use of ICS. On the other hand, combination of LABA/ICS reduced exacerbations (RR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.79), and hospitalizations (RR=0.58, 95% CI, 0.45-0.74). Combined therapy was also equivalent to ICS in terms of life-threatening episodes and asthma-related deaths. Again, children and use of salmeterol were associated with an increased risk of some severe outcomes as compared with adults and formoterol users, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reinforced the international recommendations in terms of the use of LABA remains the preferred add-on therapy to ICS for patients whose disease cannot adequately controlled with ICS, and that LABA cannot be prescribed as a monotherapy. Nevertheless, in spite of the protective effect of the ICS, children and salmeterol use still show an increased risk of non-fatal serious adverse events.

Systemic exposure and urinary cortisol effects of fluticasone propionate formulated with hydrofluoroalkane in 4- to 11-year-olds with asthma

The systemic exposure of fluticasone propionate with hydrofluoroalkane propellant compared with chlorofluoro-carbon propellant and the effect of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane on 24-hour urinary cortisol in children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma were evaluated. Study 1 was an open-label, 2-way crossover study in which 16 subjects were randomized to 7.5 days each of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane 88 mug twice a day or fluticasone propionate chlorofluorocarbon 88 mug twice a day. In study 2, 63 subjects received 13.5 days of placebo followed by 27.5 days of fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane 88 mug twice a day. The main outcome measure for study 1 was the difference between fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane and fluticasone propionate chlorofluorocarbon in fluticasone propionate AUC(last) (area under the plasma fluticasone propionate concentration-time curve from zero up to the last quantifiable plasma concentration), and for study 2, 24-hour overnight urinary cortisol excretion. In study 1, fluticasone propionate systemic exposure was significantly lower (55%) with hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler compared with chlorofluorocarbon metered dose inhaler. Study 2 showed no statistically significant changes in 24-hour overnight urinary cortisol excretion and no relationship to fluticasone propionate systemic exposure at this dose. The results of these 2 studies showed that in children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma, fluticasone propionate hydrofluoroalkane has lower systemic exposure compared with chlorofluorocarbon and no hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis effects as measured by 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion.

Tolerability profiles of leukotriene receptor antagonists and long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists in combination with inhaled corticosteroids for treatment of asthma: a review

Inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, and leukotriene receptor antagonists are widely used for treatment of asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy, whereas long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists are indicated as add-on therapy in patients not adequately controlled with corticosteroids alone. A number of studies have investigated the efficacy of combinations of these drugs in asthma, but several issues concerning the safety of these treatments are highly debated. This review provides a critical appraisal of the tolerability profiles of long-acting beta2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma.

Effects of salmeterol xinafoate and fluticasone propionate on immunological activation of human cultured mast cells

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy of combination therapy comprising a long acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) and corticosteroid is widely recognized for the treatment of adult asthma. Here we examine the effect of salmeterol xinafoate (SX) and fluticasone propionate (FP) alone and in combination on the immunological activation of human cultured mast cells (HCMC)in vitro.

METHODS

HCMC were passively sensitized with IgE antibody and then activated by challenging with anti-IgE antibody. The effect of drugs on the activation of mast cells was examined by measuring the amount of released chemical mediators (histamine, leukotrienes (LT) and prostaglandin D(2) (PGD(2))) and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF).

RESULTS

The release of each chemical mediator was inhibited by 10-9-10-8M SX but not by 10-10-10-7M FP. The production of GM-CSF was inhibited by a concentration of 10-8M in both drugs and the inhibition was augmented by combined treatment with 10-11M of each drug.

CONCLUSIONS

The immunological release of chemical mediators (histamine, LT, PGD(2)) from HCMC was inhibited by SX but not by FP. SX and FP inhibited the production of GM-CSF by HCMC and both drug showed synergistic inhibition in the production of GM-CSF.

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, administered twice daily via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Seretide/Advair Diskus), Seretide Accuhaler or metered-dose hydrofluoroalkane (chlorofluorocarbon-free) inhaler (Seretide Evohaler), is a combination of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (beta(2)-agonist) [LABA] salmeterol and the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate. Maintenance therapy with combined salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is at least as effective in improving lung function and symptoms and is as well tolerated in patients with asthma as concurrent salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate. In patients previously receiving as-required short-acting beta(2)-agonists (SABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was significantly more effective in providing asthma control than fluticasone propionate and in improving lung function and asthma symptoms than inhaled corticosteroids (at equivalent or higher dosages), salmeterol or montelukast (as monotherapy or in combination with fluticasone propionate). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective in improving asthma symptoms than adjusted-dose budesonide/formoterol in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA in a well designed 1-year study. In pharmacoeconomic analyses, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compared favourably with inhaled corticosteroids and mono- or combination therapy with oral montelukast. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is, therefore, an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of patients with asthma.

Childhood asthma: breakthroughs and challenges

As we move forward, our goal is to control and eliminate asthma and other allergic disorders. This may come through broadly applied manipulation of environmental, dietary, and infectious risk factors, possibly during the perinatal period. Or we may learn to identify genetically susceptible children and to intervene with individualized genotype-specific treatment before the onset of disease. Maybe we'll learn how to block the mechanisms that give rise to chronic inflammation, or how to subdue Th2 activation. However, as the Swedish proverb says--Don't throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water. To continue using the old bucket, we have to fix the leaks. One approach to reducing asthma disparities is through traditional disease prevention stages. Primary prevention targets asthma incidence; secondary prevention mitigates established disease and involves disease detection, management, and control; and tertiary prevention is the reduction of complications caused by severe disease. Once causative factors at each level of disease prevention are understood, this knowledge can be translated into clinical practice and public health policy. We need reliable diagnostic criteria to provide correct treatment for infants and toddlers. This will require longitudinal cohort studies supported by assessment of pulmonary function and inflammatory markers. We must find ways to convince more physicians to embrace controller therapy for more severe disease, and to identify the patients with less severe disease who also require ongoing controller therapy. We need to close the gap between what we know and what we do in practice. We need to link basic research to healthcare delivery, and to gain acceptance and support from the intended recipients of new interventions. We need better strategies for improving adherence. We need accountability, foresight, and imagination.