Rescue use of beclomethasone and albuterol in a single inhaler for mild asthma

Critical reappraisal of short-acting bronchodilators for pediatric respiratory diseases

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

A network meta-analysis of the association between patient traits and response to regular dosing with ICS plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol reliever only in mild asthma

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Mild asthma treatment recommendations include intermittent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol dosing or regular ICS dosing with short-acting β2-agonist reliever. Due to the heterogeneity of asthma, identification of traits associated with improved outcomes to specific treatments would be clinically beneficial.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of patient traits on treatment outcomes of regular ICS dosing compared with intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing, a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Searches identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma aged ≥12 years, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing treatment arm, reporting traits and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 11 RCTs of mild asthma, of 14,516 patients. A total of 11 traits and 11 outcomes of interest were identified. Of these, a feasibility assessment indicated possible assessment of three traits (age, baseline lung function, smoking history) and two outcomes (exacerbation rate, change in lung function). The NMA found no significant association of any trait with any outcome with regular ICS dosing relative to intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing. Inconsistent reporting of traits and outcomes between RCTs limited analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic analysis of associations between patient traits and differential treatment outcomes in mild asthma. Although the traits analysed were not found to significantly interact with relative treatment response, inconsistent reporting from the RCTs prevented assessment of some of the most clinically relevant traits and outcomes, such as adherence. More consistent reporting of respiratory RCTs would provide more comparable data and aid future analyses.

The Wiser Strategy of Using Beta-Agonists in Asthma: Mechanisms and Rationales

Concerns regarding the safety of beta-2 agonists have led to revisions of the major asthma guidelines to better address these issues. Although these updates allow for a combination of previous and current strategies, they may confuse clinical practitioners. Beta-2 agonists are vital for alleviating asthma symptoms by relaxing smooth muscles; however, they also pose significant risks by inducing pro-inflammatory mediators both in vitro and in vivo. In addition to the risks of overuse and symptom masking, the use of beta-agonists alone at therapeutic doses can worsen airway inflammation and enhance virus-induced inflammation during asthma exacerbation. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can effectively prevent these adverse effects. With new insights into the mechanisms of these adverse events, reserving short-acting beta-agonists for acute symptom relief during exacerbations and only for those who are already on ICS or oral steroids represents a careful approach to using beta-agonists with least adverse effects in patients with asthma. However, a major drawback of this approach is the potential non-compliance with ICS, leading to beta-agonist use without the necessary counteraction by ICS. An optimal strategy, both during and outside exacerbations, would integrate beta-agonists into an anti-inflammatory regimen that includes ICS, ideally combined with the same inhaler to ensure their concurrent use where finances allow. This would maintain the beneficial effects of beta-agonists, such as bronchodilation, while preventing the adverse effects from the induction of inflammatory mediators. This method is aligned with diverse clinical settings, maximizes the safe use of beta-agonists, and supports a comprehensive guideline-compliant management strategy.

Asthma in pregnancy: a review of recent literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Asthma remains the most common respiratory disease in pregnancy. Identifying risk factors for asthma exacerbations during pregnancy is critical, as uncontrolled asthma can have detrimental effects for both mother and baby. In this review, we discuss recent literature exploring risk factors, fetal and maternal effects, and treatment options for asthma during pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature suggests that optimizing asthma during pregnancy improves outcomes for both mother and baby, as well as later in childhood. Current research affirms that the benefit of asthma medication use outweighs any potential risks related to the medications themselves. Limited information is available regarding the use of newer therapies such as biologics during pregnancy.

SUMMARY

Identifying risk factors for asthma exacerbations during pregnancy is critical to prevent adverse outcomes for both mother and baby. Recent evidence continues to affirm the safety of asthma medication use; more studies are needed regarding the use of new therapies during pregnancy.

Budesonide/Formoterol or Budesonide/Albuterol as Anti-Inflammatory Reliever Therapy for Asthma

Overuse of reliever as short-acting beta-agonist and associated underuse of controller as inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) administered via separate inhalers results in worse asthma outcomes. Such discordance can be obviated by combining both controller and reliever in the same inhaler. So-called anti-inflammatory reliever (AIR) therapy comprises the use of a single inhaler containing an ICS such as budesonide (BUD) in conjunction with a reliever as either albuterol (ALB) or formoterol (FORM), to be used on demand, with variable dosing driven by asthma symptoms in a flexible patient-centered regimen. Global guidelines now support the use of BUD-ALB as AIR therapy to reduce exacerbations, either on its own in mild asthma or in conjunction with fixed-dose maintenance ICS-long-acting beta-agonist in moderate to severe asthma. Using BUD-FORM on its own allows patients to seamlessly move in an intuitive flexible fashion between AIR and maintenance and reliever therapy, by stepping up and down the dosing escalator across a spectrum of asthma severities. Head-to-head clinical studies are indicated to compare BUD-FORM versus BUD-ALB as AIR in mild asthma, and also BUD-FORM as maintenance and reliever therapy versus BUD-ALB as AIR plus maintenance ICS-long-acting beta-agonist in moderate to severe asthma. Patients should be encouraged to make an informed decision in conjunction with their health care professional regarding the best therapeutic option tailored to their individual needs, which in turn is likely to result in long-term compliance and associated optimal asthma control.

The Role of ICS-Containing Rescue Therapy Versus SABA Alone in Asthma Management Today

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends that short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) monotherapy should no longer be prescribed, and that as-needed combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol is the preferred reliever therapy in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. These recommendations are based on the risks of SABA monotherapy, the evidence that ICS-formoterol reliever therapy markedly decreases the occurrence of severe asthma exacerbations compared with SABA reliever therapy alone, and because ICS-formoterol reliever therapy has a favorable risk/benefit profile compared with maintenance ICS plus SABA reliever therapy. Data supporting the use of combination ICS-albuterol reliever therapy in mild asthma are more limited, but there are studies that inform its use in this population. In this review, we compare, using a pros and cons format, the (1) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-formoterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (2) long-term safety and efficacy of ICS-albuterol reliever therapy versus SABA reliever therapy alone, (3) immediate bronchodilator effects of ICS-formoterol versus SABA alone, and (4) clinical and regulatory factors that may inform reliever therapy prescription decisions. By presenting the evidence of these reliever inhaler options, we hope to inform the reader while also calling for necessary future effectiveness and implementation research.

Mild asthma: Conundrums, complexities and the need to customize care

Mild and moderate asthma cover a wide range of asthma presentations, phenotypes and symptom burden, and account for the majority of people with asthma worldwide. Mild asthma has been difficult to define because of its heterogeneity and wide spectrum of impact and outcomes, including being associated with severe exacerbations. Assessment of mild-moderate asthma is best made by combining asthma symptom control and exacerbation risk as the principle means by which to determine treatment needs. Incontrovertible evidence and guidelines support treatment initiation with anti-inflammatory medication, completely avoiding reliever-only treatment of mild asthma. Shared decision making with patients and a treatable traits approach will ensure that a holistic approach is taken to maximize patient outcomes. Most importantly, mild asthma should be regarded as a reversible, potentially curable condition, remaining in long-term remission through minimizing triggers and optimizing care.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

Systematic literature review of traits and outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of asthma with regular dosing of inhaled corticosteroids with short-acting β2-agonist reliever, as-needed ICS/formoterol, or ICS/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy

INTRODUCTION

Asthma treatments based solely on diagnostic label do not benefit patients equally. To identify patient traits that may be associated with improved treatment response to regular inhaled corticosteroid (ICSs) dosing with short-acting β2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol-containing therapy, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted.

METHODS

Searches of databases including MEDLINE and Embase identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma, aged ≥12 years, published 1998-2022, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or ICS/formoterol-containing treatment arm, and reporting patient traits and outcomes of interest. Relevant data was extracted and underwent a feasibility assessment to determine suitability for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 39 RCTs of 72,740 patients and 90 treatment arms, reporting 11 traits and 11 outcomes. Five patient traits (age, body mass index, FEV1, smoking history, asthma control) and five outcomes (exacerbation rate, lung function, asthma control, adherence, time to first exacerbation) were deemed feasible for inclusion in meta-analyses due to sufficient comparable reporting. Subgroups of clinical outcomes stratified by levels of patient traits were reported in 16 RCTs.

CONCLUSION

A systematic review of studies of regular ICS dosing with SABA or ICS/formoterol-containing treatment strategies in asthma identified consistent reporting of five traits and outcomes, allowing exploration of associations with treatment response. Conversely, many other traits and outcomes, although being potentially relevant, were inconsistently reported and limited subgroup reporting meant analyses of treatment response for subgroups of traits was not possible. We recommend more consistent measurement and reporting of clinically relevant patient traits and outcomes in respiratory RCTs.

Managing Asthma During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in pregnancy and is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Asthma symptoms worsen in approximately 40% of women, and exacerbations requiring medical intervention occur in at least 20% of women. Factors associated with exacerbation and worsening asthma include multiparity, obesity, Black race, exacerbations before pregnancy, and poor asthma control. Exacerbations are associated with further increased risks for poor perinatal outcomes, including low birth weight, preterm birth, and small for gestational age (SGA) status, as well as an increase in the development of asthma in early childhood. Common medications used for asthma, including short-acting β-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids, are considered safe to use in pregnancy. Whereas guidelines generally suggest traditional step therapy for managing asthma in pregnancy, there are alternative models of care and management approaches that may be effective in pregnancy, but require more research. These include single-inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy, treatment adjustment with FeNO, treatable traits personalized medicine approaches, and telemedicine. Little is known about changes to asthma in the postpartum period. However, low adherence to medication and the potential effects of postpartum depression on asthma exacerbation risk warrant further research.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Beginning to Address an Implementation Gap in Asthma: Clinicians' Views of Prescribing Reliever Budesonide-Formoterol Inhalers and SMART in the United States

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations regarding inhaler management in asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma now recommends that combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol inhalers replace short-acting β-agonists as the preferred reliever therapy at all steps of asthma management. Although the most recent guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program did not review reliever ICS-formoterol usage in mild asthma, they similarly recommended single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) at steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. Despite these recommendations, many clinicians-particularly in the United States-are not prescribing new inhaler paradigms. Clinician-level reasons for this implementation gap remain largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an in-depth understanding of the facilitators and barriers to prescribing reliever ICS-formoterol inhalers and SMART in the United States.

METHODS

Community and academic primary care providers, pulmonologists, and allergists who reported regularly caring for adults with asthma were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, qualitatively coded, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were continued until theme saturation.

RESULTS

Among 20 interviewed clinicians, only 6 clinicians described regularly prescribing ICS-formoterol inhalers as a reliever inhaler (either alone or within SMART). Significant barriers to new inhaler approaches included concerns surrounding a lack of Food and Drug Administration labeling for ICS-formoterol as a reliever therapy, a lack of awareness regarding a patient's formulary-preferred ICS-long-acting β-agonist choices, the high cost of combination inhalers, and time constraints. Facilitators to using new inhaler approaches included clinicians' beliefs that the latest inhaler recommendations are simpler and more congruent with real-world patients' behavior, and that a potential change in management strategy would offer a valuable opportunity for shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Although new guidelines exist in asthma, many clinicians described significant barriers to using them including medicolegal issues, pharmaceutical formulary confusion, and high drug costs. Nonetheless, most clinicians believed that the latest inhaler approaches would be more intuitive for their patients and would offer an opportunity for patient-centered collaboration and care. Stakeholders may find these results useful in future attempts to increase the real-world adoption of recent asthma recommendations.

Albuterol-Budesonide Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Asthma: Results of the DENALI Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 MANDALA trial, as-needed albuterol-budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler significantly reduced severe exacerbation risk vs as-needed albuterol in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing maintenance therapy. This study (DENALI) was conducted to address the US Food and Drug Administration combination rule, which requires a combination product to demonstrate that each component contributes to its efficacy.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do both albuterol and budesonide contribute to the efficacy of the albuterol-budesonide combination pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This phase 3 double-blind trial randomized patients aged ≥ 12 years with mild-to-moderate asthma 1:1:1:1:1 to four-times-daily albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg or 180/80 μg, albuterol 180 μg, budesonide 160 μg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Dual-primary efficacy end points included change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (FEV1 AUC0-6h) over 12 weeks (assessing albuterol effect) and trough FEV1 at week 12 (assessing budesonide effect).

RESULTS

Of 1,001 patients randomized, 989 were ≥ 12 years old and evaluable for efficacy. Change from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-6h over 12 weeks was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 μg vs budesonide 160 μg (least-squares mean [LSM] difference, 80.7 [95% CI, 28.4-132.9] mL; P = .003). Change in trough FEV1 at week 12 was greater with albuterol-budesonide 180/160 and 180/80 μg vs albuterol 180 μg (LSM difference, 132.8 [95% CI, 63.6-201.9] mL and 120.8 [95% CI, 51.5-190.1] mL, respectively; both P < .001). Day 1 time to onset and duration of bronchodilation with albuterol-budesonide were similar to those with albuterol. The albuterol-budesonide adverse event profile was similar to that of the monocomponents.

INTERPRETATION

Both monocomponents contributed to albuterol-budesonide lung function efficacy. Albuterol-budesonide was well tolerated, even at regular, relatively high daily doses for 12 weeks, with no new safety findings, supporting its use as a novel rescue therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03847896; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Maintenance Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Asthma: Guidelines and Recommendations from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Asthma is the most frequent chronic disease of childhood, affecting up to 20% of children worldwide. The main guidelines on asthma maintenance therapy in pediatrics suggest different approaches and describe different stages of asthma to determine the most appropriate treatment. This project aims to summarize the most recent evidence regarding maintenance therapy for asthma in children and adolescents. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was asked clinical questions regarding the treatment of children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, 10 clinical questions were addressed, and the search strategy included accessing electronic databases and a manual search of gray literature published in the last 25 years. After data extraction and narrative synthesis of results, recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Results showed that the choice of medication depends on the severity of the child's asthma, phenotype, age, preference, and individual factors. In addition to medications, the identification of comorbidities and modifiable factors is crucial to obtaining good control. Asthma in children is heterogeneous, and its evolution varies over time. Since most recommendations for asthma management in childhood are extrapolated from clinical studies performed in adults, more clinical trials specifically designed for young children should be conducted.

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.]

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Mild asthma: Lessons learned and remaining questions

Patients living with mild disease represent the largest proportion of asthma patients. There are significant challenges in proposing a definition that would best describe these patients, while also accurately identifying at-risk individuals. Current literature suggests considerable inflammatory and clinical heterogeneity within this group. Research has shown that these patients are at risk of poor control, exacerbations, lung function decline, and death. Despite conflicting data on its prevalence, eosinophilic inflammation appears to be a predictor of poorer outcomes in mild asthma. There is an immediate need to better understand phenotypic clusters in mild asthma. It is also important to understand factors that influence disease progression and remission, as it is evident that both vary in mild asthma. Guided by robust literature that supports inhaled corticosteroid-based strategies over short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) reliant regimens, the management of these patients has evolved considerably. Unfortunately, SABA use remains high in clinical practice despite strong advocacy from the Global Initiative for Asthma. Future mild asthma research should explore the role of biomarkers, develop prediction tools based on composite risk scores, and explore targeted therapies at least for at-risk individuals.

Questions in Mild Asthma: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Patients with mild asthma are believed to represent the majority of patients with asthma. Disease-associated risks such as exacerbations, lung function decline, and death have been understudied in this patient population. There have been no prior efforts from major societies to describe research needs in mild asthma. Methods: A multidisciplinary, diverse group of 24 international experts reviewed the literature, identified knowledge gaps, and provided research recommendations relating to mild asthma definition, pathophysiology, and management across all age groups. Research needs were also investigated from a patient perspective, generated in conjunction with patients with asthma, caregivers, and stakeholders. Of note, this project is not a systematic review of the evidence and is not a clinical practice guideline. Results: There are multiple unmet needs in research on mild asthma driven by large knowledge gaps in all areas. Specifically, there is an immediate need for a robust mild asthma definition and an improved understanding of its pathophysiology and management strategies across all age groups. Future research must factor in patient perspectives. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in severe asthma, there remain innumerable research areas requiring urgent attention in mild asthma. An important first step is to determine a better definition that will accurately reflect the heterogeneity and risks noted in this group. This research statement highlights the topics of research that are of the highest priority. Furthermore, it firmly advocates the need for engagement with patient groups and for more support for research in this field.

"As-Needed" Inhaled Corticosteroids for Patients With Asthma

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant articles in the literature published by February 2021.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

SMART in treatment of asthma exacerbations

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of SMART (single maintenance and reliever therapy) in the treatment of asthma exacerbation.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Clinical Trial databases using the keywords SMART therapy, maintenance and reliever therapy, and budesonide and formoterol.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were selected based on their relevance and applicability to this topic.

RESULTS

Multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of SMART in reducing asthma exacerbations in comparison to standard inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance and short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) rescue therapy. Most of the randomized trials demonstrated a reduction in asthma exacerbation with open-label studies revealing similar effectiveness in reducing asthma exacerbation. Previously, concerns have been raised regarding the administration of increased doses of long-acting beta-agonist that may potentially mask symptoms and delay appropriate medical attention. However, studies have not demonstrated an increase in morbidity or mortality. The primary concern regarding many of these trials is that they have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

CONCLUSION

Although not all studies demonstrated the effectiveness of SMART, the majority revealed a significant reduction in asthma exacerbation frequency and severity.

Understanding the Updates in the Asthma Guidelines

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory lung disease that affects millions of Americans, with variable symptoms of bronchospasm and obstruction among individuals over time. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) published the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines based on the latest research since the 2007 Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3). The following article reviews the 21 new recommendations on the six core topics in asthma: use of intermittent inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy, use of the fractional exhaled nitric oxide test in asthma diagnosis and monitoring, indoor allergen mitigation, immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate recommendations as strong or conditional based on the evidence. The recommendations were based on systematic reviews of the literature and focused on patient-centered critical outcomes of asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and asthma-related quality of life. Understanding the recommendations with consideration of individual values through shared decision-making may improve asthma outcomes.

Expert Opinion on Practice Patterns in Mild Asthma After the GINA 2019 Updates: A Major Shift in Treatment Paradigms from a Long-Standing SABA-Only Approach to a Risk Reduction-Based Strategy with the Use of Symptom-Driven (As-Needed) Low-Dose ICS/LABA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This expert opinion, prepared by a panel of chest disease specialists, aims to review the current knowledge on practice patterns in real-life management of mild asthma and to address the relevant updates in asthma treatment by The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) to guide clinicians for the best clinical practice in applying these new treatment paradigms.

RECENT FINDINGS

On the basis of the emerging body of evidence suggesting the non-safety of short-acting β2-agonists (SABA)-only therapy and comparable efficacy of the as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol combinations with maintenance ICS regimens, GINA recently released their updated Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention Guide (2019). The new GINA 2019 recommendations no longer support the SABA-only therapy in mild asthma but instead includes new off-label recommendations such as symptom-driven (as-needed) low-dose ICS-formoterol and "low dose ICS taken whenever SABA is taken." The GINA 2019 asthma treatment recommendations include a major shift from long-standing approach of clinical practice regarding the use of symptom-driven SABA treatment alone in the management of mild asthma. This expert opinion supports the transition from a long-standing SABA-only approach to a risk reduction-based strategy, with the use of symptom-driven (as-needed) low-dose ICS/LABA in mild asthma patients, particularly in those with poor adherence to controller medications. The thoughtful and comprehensive approach of clinicians to these strategies is important, given that the exact far-reaching impact of this major change in management of mild asthma in the real-world settings will only be clarified over time.

Albuterol-Budesonide Fixed-Dose Combination Rescue Inhaler for Asthma

BACKGROUND

As asthma symptoms worsen, patients typically rely on short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) rescue therapy, but SABAs do not address worsening inflammation, which leaves patients at risk for severe asthma exacerbations. The use of a fixed-dose combination of albuterol and budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication might reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

We conducted a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, randomized, event-driven trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol-budesonide, as compared with albuterol alone, as rescue medication in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies, which were continued throughout the trial. Adults and adolescents (≥12 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three trial groups: a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 160 μg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg and 80 μg, respectively [the higher-dose combination group]), a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 80 μg of budesonide (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg and 40 μg, respectively [the lower-dose combination group]), or 180 μg of albuterol (with each dose consisting of two actuations of 90 μg [the albuterol-alone group]). Children 4 to 11 years of age were randomly assigned to only the lower-dose combination group or the albuterol-alone group. The primary efficacy end point was the first event of severe asthma exacerbation in a time-to-event analysis, which was performed in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

A total of 3132 patients underwent randomization, among whom 97% were 12 years of age or older. The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower, by 26%, in the higher-dose combination group than in the albuterol-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The hazard ratio in the lower-dose combination group, as compared with the albuterol-alone group, was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = 0.052). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the three trial groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of severe asthma exacerbation was significantly lower with as-needed use of a fixed-dose combination of 180 μg of albuterol and 160 μg of budesonide than with as-needed use of albuterol alone among patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma who were receiving a wide range of inhaled glucocorticoid-containing maintenance therapies. (Funded by Avillion; MANDALA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03769090.).

Combination fixed-dose β agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma: a Cochrane systematic review

BACKGROUND

In people with mild asthma poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. The use of fixed-dose combination inhalers containing an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a fast-acting β₂-agonist (FABA) is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined FABA/ICS inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cochrane meta-analysis of available trial data.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged 12+ and adults with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal on 19 March 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

A single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trial. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures and applied the GRADE approach to assess the evidence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We included six studies from which 9657 participants contributed to the meta-analyses. All used dry powder budesonide and formoterol as the combination inhaler. Two studies included children aged 12+ years and two studies were open-label.

FABA/ICS AS-REQUIRED VERSUS FABA AS-REQUIRED

Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reducing the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (mean difference (MD) -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42).

FABA/ICS AS REQUIRED VERSUS REGULAR ICS PLUS FABA AS REQUIRED

There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than MCID. Adverse events and total systemic corticosteroid doses were similar between groups. FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to ICS than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 mcg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

CONCLUSIONS

FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma and reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events compared with FABA as required alone. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely associated with increased adverse events.

Cellular mechanism underlying the facilitation of contractile response induced by IL-25 in mouse tracheal smooth muscle

Asthma is a common heterogeneous respiratory disease characterized by airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) which is associated with abnormality in smooth muscle contractility. The epithelial cell-derived cytokine IL-25 is implicated in type 2 immune pathology including asthma, whereas the underlying mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. This study aims to investigate the effects of IL-25 on mouse tracheal smooth muscle contractility and elucidate the cellular mechanisms. Incubation with IL-25 augmented the contraction of mouse tracheal smooth muscles, which could be suppressed by the L-type voltage-dependent Ca²⁺ channel (L-VDCC) blocker nifedipine. Furthermore, IL-25 enhanced the cytosolic Ca²⁺ signals and triggered up-regulation of α1C L-VDCC (Ca_V1.2) in primary cultured mouse tracheal smooth muscle cells. Knocking down IL-17RA/IL-17RB receptors or inhibiting the transforming growth factor-β-activated kinase 1 (TAK1)-tumor progression locus 2 (TPL2)-MAPK kinase 1/2 (MEK1/2)-ERK1/2-activating protein-1 (AP-1) signaling pathways suppressed the IL-25-elicited up-regulation of Ca_V1.2 and hyperreactivity in tracheal smooth muscles. Moreover, inhibition of TPL2, ERK1/2 or L-VDCC alleviated the AHR symptom induced by IL-25 in a murine model. This study revealed that IL-25 potentiated the contraction of tracheal smooth muscle and evoked AHR via activation of TPL2-ERK1/2-Ca_V1.2 signaling, providing novel targets for the treatment of asthma with a high-IL-25 phenotype.

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

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

Reducing Tolerance for SABA and OCS towards the Extreme Ends of Asthma Severity

Asthma is a heterogeneous chronic inflammatory airway disease that imposes a great burden on public health worldwide. In the past two years, fundamental changes have been addressed in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommendations focusing mainly on the management of mild and severe asthma. The use of as-needed treatment containing inhaled corticosteroids plus fast-acting bronchodilators (either short or long-acting formoterol) in mild asthma has dominated the field, and both randomized and real-world studies favor such an approach and associate it with fewer exacerbations and good asthma control. At the same time, the effort to diminish the use of oral steroids (OCS) as maintenance treatment in severe asthma was substantially accomplished with the initiation of treatment with biologics. Still, these options are available at the moment only for severe asthmatics with a T2-high endotype, and relevant studies on biologics have yielded, as a primary outcome, the reduction or even cessation of OCS. Accordingly, OCS should be considered as a temporary option, mainly for the treatment of asthma exacerbations, and as a maintenance treatment only for a minority of patients with severe asthma, after ensuring good inhaler technique, modification of all possible contributory factors and comorbidities, and optimized pharmacotherapy using all other add-on treatments including biologics in the armamentarium of anti-asthma medication.

Biomarkers to Predict Response to Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists in Adolescents and Adults with Mild Persistent Asthma

Rationale: Whether biomarkers can be used to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in mild persistent asthma is unclear. Objectives: In a prespecified exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial of 295 participants 12 years of age or older with uncontrolled mild persistent asthma, we sought to identify biomarkers of treatment response after 12 weeks of ICS (mometasone, 200 μg or 220 μg twice/d), LAMA (tiotropium, 5 μg/d), or placebo in adults (⩾18 yr) and adolescents (12-17 yr) separately. Methods: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of asthma control (treatment failure, asthma control days, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]). Analyses examined type 2 inflammatory biomarkers and physiologic biomarkers. We assessed the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for response to ICS and LAMA (each versus placebo). An AUC of 0.5 suggests no discrimination, 0.7-0.8 is considered acceptable, more than 0.8-0.9 is considered excellent, and more than 0.9 is considered outstanding. Results: In 237 adults, sputum and blood eosinophil levels and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (Fe_NO) each predicted ICS response (AUCs: 0.61 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-0.69], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.56-0.72], and 0.62 [95% CI, 0.54-0.70], respectively; all P < 0.01); the AUC for blood eosinophil levels and Fe_NO together was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.74; P < 0.001). In 58 adolescents, the number of positive aeroallergens and total serum immunoglobulin E each predicted ICS response (AUCs: 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52-0.85] and 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.87], respectively; both P < 0.03); the AUC for both together was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.87; P = 0.003). After ipratropium bromide, FEV₁ reversibility predicted LAMA response in adults (AUC: 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.69], P = 0.007) but not in adolescents. Conclusions: The AUCs of the type 2 inflammatory biomarkers and physiological biomarkers we examined may not be high enough to confidently identify individuals with asthma who respond to ICS and LAMA. However, our findings indicate that the biomarkers that predict response to ICS or LAMA may differ in adults versus adolescents with uncontrolled mild persistent asthma. Prospective, biomarker-stratified clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings and to identify first-line controllers tailored for each population.

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

Asthma is the most common non-communicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where they suffer disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality.Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times/week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS is prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting beta₂ agonist (SABA) alone, due to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries.The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death - despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches - is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

The safety of long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the safety of long-term use of ICS in patients with asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of asthma with ICS, compared with non-ICS treatment (placebo or other active drugs), were reviewed.

RESULTS

Eighty-six RCTs (enrolling 51,538 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Oral or oropharyngeal candidiasis (RR 2.58, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.33), and dysphonia/hoarseness (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.85) were less frequent in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of upper respiratory tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, influenza, decline in bone mineral density, and fractures between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the mild local adverse events, the long-term use of ICS was safe in patients with asthma.

[Translated article] Spanish Asthma Management Guidelines (GEMA) v.5.1. Highlights and Controversies

In this fifth phase of development, the contents of the Spanish Asthma Management Guidelines (GEMA), which include versions 5.0 and 5.1, have undergone a thorough review. The aim here is to set the main changes in context. These could be summarized as follows: DIAGNOSIS: new FENO cut-off and severity classification based on treatment needed to maintain control; INTERMITTENT ASTHMA: a more restrictive concept and treatment extended to include a glucocorticoid/adrenergic combination as needed; MILD ASTHMA: glucocorticoid/adrenergic therapy as needed as an alternative in case of low therapeutic adherence to conventional fixed-dose steroids; SEVERE ASTHMA: readjustment of phenotypes, incorporation of triple therapy in a single inhaler, and criteria for selection of a biologic in severe uncontrolled asthma; OTHERS: specific scoring in childhood asthma, incorporation of certain organizational aspects (care circuits, asthma units, telemedicine), new sections on COVID-19 and nasal polyposis.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of as-needed albuterol/budesonide versus albuterol in adults and children aged ≥4 years with moderate-to-severe asthma: rationale and design of the randomised, double-blind, active-controlled MANDALA study

Introduction

Uncontrolled asthma is associated with substantial morbidity. While fast-acting bronchodilators provide quick relief from asthma symptoms, their use as rescue fails to address the underlying inflammation. Combining a short-acting beta₂-agonist, such as albuterol (salbutamol), with an inhaled corticosteroid, such as budesonide, in a single inhaler as rescue therapy could help control both bronchoconstriction and inflammation, and reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations.

Methods and analysis

The Phase 3 MANDALA study was designed to determine the efficacy of albuterol in combination with budesonide (albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg or 180/80 µg, two actuations of 90/80 µg or 90/40 µg, respectively) versus albuterol (180 µg, two actuations of 90 µg) as rescue therapy in adult, adolescent and paediatric patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. This event-driven study enrolled symptomatic patients (3000 adults/adolescents and 100 children aged 4–11 years) who experienced ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation in the previous year and were receiving maintenance therapy for ≥3 months prior to study entry. The primary efficacy endpoint was time-to-first severe asthma exacerbation.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki, and that are consistent with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use and Good Clinical Practice and the applicable regulatory requirements.

Trial registration

NCT03769090.

2020 NAEPP Guidelines Update and GINA 2021-Asthma Care Differences, Overlap, and Challenges

The 2020 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group (NAEPP [2020 Focused Asthma Update]) guidelines and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2021 strategy report are compared in this Rostrum article. The methodologies of each publication are described. Subsequently, 4 different selected pharmacological recommendations are compared in the 2 documents: step 1 for children 0 to 4 years of age with viral-induced wheezing, step 2 in ages 12 years and older with the intermittent use of inhaled corticosteroid, steps 3 and 4 with single-inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy with inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol (SMART), and steps 3, 4, and 5 with add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy. Nonpharmacological recommendations are also considered and contrasted, including for exhaled nitric oxide, environmental control, immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. Similarities and differences in these 2 documents are highlighted, and recommendations are made about harmonizing the approaches where possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manifesto on the overuse of SABA in the management of asthma: new approaches and new strategies

The risks of overusing short-acting β₂-agonists (SABA), including an increase in asthma-related deaths, are many and well known. The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) 2019 and 2020 updates recommend as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol as the preferred rescue medication in mild asthma as monotherapy and also in moderate to severe asthma when the maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) strategy is used. Using SABA for symptom relief, however, was the standard of treatment for many years, and consequently this practice persists, particularly in patients not taking ICS regularly. Here, we examine the rationale for this shift from a long-standing recommendation for as-needed SABA treatment to the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol and consider clinical evidence on strategies for asthma treatment and patient management.