Safety of Adding Salmeterol to Fluticasone Propionate in Children with Asthma

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.

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.

New approaches in childhood asthma treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Applying the new guidelines to asthma management in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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.

Difficult-to-Treat Asthma Management in School-Age Children

The World Health Organization divides severe asthma into three categories: untreated severe asthma; difficult-to-treat severe asthma; and severe, therapy-resistant asthma. The apparent frequency of severe asthma in the general population of asthmatic children is probably around 5%. Upon referral of these children, it is important to evaluate the diagnosis of asthma carefully before modifying management and applying a long-term monitoring plan. Identification of pathophysiologic phenotypes using objective biomarkers is essential in our routine assessments of severe asthma. Although conventional pharmacologic approaches should be attempted first, there is growing recognition that children with difficult-to-treat asthma may have unique clinical phenotypes that may necessitate alternative treatment approaches including asthma biologics. These new medications, especially those with effects on multiple pathologic features of asthma, raise the hope that new treatment strategies could induce remission. Besides introducing new medications, the opportunity for closer monitoring is feasible with advances in digital health. Therefore, we have the opportunity to improve response to medications, individualize treatment, and monitor response along with potential steps to prevent severe asthma.

An assessment of asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients using a long-acting B2-agonist plus inhaled corticosteroid versus an inhaled corticosteroid alone

Background

An asthma exacerbation is an anticipated sudden worsening of the disease severity, which usually does not respond to conservative therapy. The management of asthma depends on the severity of the disease symptoms, which includes an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a bronchodilator. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of combining a long-acting B2-agonist (LABA) with ICS, compared to ICS alone, to reduce the incidence of asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients, diagnosed with severe persistent asthma.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the medical records was conducted for 586 children, admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) at King Abdullah Specialized Children Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for the management of severe persistent asthma symptoms, from January 2016 to September 2019.

Results

The majority (n = 480, 81.9%) of the patients received fluticasone (Flovent)® as the standard of care ICS treatment for controlling asthma, and a small proportion (n = 106, 18.1%) were treated with a combination of LABA and ICS. A significant increase in the frequency of recurrent asthma exacerbation episodes occurred in the group receiving ICS alone (98.5%), compared to 67.0% in the combination group (p < 0.0001). Moderate to severe exacerbations were significantly higher in the ICS group compared to the combination group (95.6% versus 84.5%, respectively, p = 0.0005).

Conclusions

The current results confirm the substantial efficacy of the LABA/ICS combination therapy in reducing the incidence and severity of asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients, compared to ICS alone.

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.

Prevention and Outpatient Treatment of Asthma Exacerbations in Children

Acute exacerbations cause significant morbidity and mortality in children with asthma worldwide. Although exacerbations can be minor and transient, in some children they are recurrent and significantly adversely impact quality of life. Children with frequent exacerbations account for a disproportionate amount of unscheduled care in nonprimary health facilities. Frequent exacerbators are often prescribed controller medications, but poor adherence is common. Major predictors for asthma exacerbations include genetic, social, comorbid, biological, and environmental factors. Although virus infections are a key trigger for exacerbations, other environmental factors also significantly increase risk. A previous exacerbation is a major risk factor for future exacerbations and thus identifies children to target for prevention of future episodes. In this review, we discuss both modifiable and fixed factors associated with asthma exacerbations, how to assess children for risk, and which pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions may be of benefit. Finally, we review the current evidence around treatment within the outpatient setting for an emerging exacerbation.

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.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Safety of anti-inflammatory drugs in children with asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used as the first-line treatment of asthma. When the disease is not controlled by standard doses of ICS, other anti-inflammatory drugs should be considered. The aim of this report is to review the main adverse events induced by anti-inflammatory drugs in children with asthma and discuss possible actions to prevent or mitigate these effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Proper interpretation of ICS safety studies requires knowledge of the pharmaceutical properties and delivery device systems of the different ICS available. Genetic variants affecting susceptibility to corticosteroid-induced adrenal suppression were found in children and adults who use ICS to treat their asthma. There is evidence of the association between montelukast use and neuropsychiatric events.

SUMMARY

Benefits of ICS, properly prescribed and used, outweigh their potential adverse effects. There is substantial evidence that the combination of ICS with long-acting beta2 agonists is safe for asthmatic children. Awareness of the potential risks of neuropsychiatric events in children taking montelukast should inform the clinicians' prescribing practices. Omalizumab is generally well-tolerated, but the evidence on the safety of other biologic agents in children is scanty. The risk of systemic adverse events with anti-inflammatory drugs must be balanced against the risks of uncontrolled asthma and/or frequent oral steroid use.

Severe Adult Asthmas: Integrating Clinical Features, Biology, and Therapeutics to Improve Outcomes

Evaluation and effective management of asthma, and in particular severe asthma, remains at the core of pulmonary practice. Over the last 20-30 years, there has been increasing appreciation that "severe asthma" encompasses multiple different subgroups or phenotypes, each with differing presentations. Using clinical phenotyping, in combination with rapidly advancing molecular tools and targeted monoclonal antibodies (human knockouts), the understanding of these phenotypes, and our ability to treat them, have greatly advanced. Type-2 (T2)-high and -low severe asthmas are now easily identified. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide and blood eosinophil counts can be routinely employed in clinical settings to identify these phenotypes and predict responses to specific therapies, meeting the initial goals of precision medicine. Integration of molecular signals, biomarkers, and clinical responses to targeted therapies has enabled identification of critical molecular pathways and, in certain phenotypes, advanced them to near-endotype status. Despite these advances, little guidance is available to determine which class of biologic is appropriate for a given patient, and current "breakthrough" therapies remain expensive and even inaccessible to many patients. Many of the most severe asthmas, with and without T2-biomarker elevations, remain poorly understood and treated. Nevertheless, conceptual understanding of "the severe asthmas" has evolved dramatically in a mere 25 years, leading to dramatic improvements in the lives of many.

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

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

Safety of As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol in Mild Asthma: Data from the Two Phase III SYGMA Studies

Introduction

Budesonide-formoterol taken as needed is an emerging treatment for mild asthma.

Objective

We used data from the SYGMA studies to assess the safety of As-needed budesonide-formoterol compared with As-needed terbutaline and compared with maintenance budesonide.

Methods

SYGMA 1 and 2 were 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies in patients aged ≥ 12 years with physician-assessed mild asthma. Patients were randomized to As-needed budesonide-formoterol 200/6 μg, twice-daily budesonide 200 μg as maintenance plus As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg, and As-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SYGMA 1 only). Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs (DAEs), and study-defined asthma-related discontinuations from corresponding treatment groups in both studies were pooled. SYGMA 1 data were used for comparisons with As-needed terbutaline alone.

Results

The pooled analysis included 3366 patients in the As-needed budesonide-formoterol group and 3369 in the budesonide maintenance group, with AEs in 40.8% and 42.5% of patients, respectively. Common AEs included viral upper respiratory tract infection (viral URTI) and URTI. SAE, DAE, and asthma-related discontinuation rates were similar with As-needed budesonide-formoterol and maintenance budesonide. Potential local and systemic corticosteroid class effects were reported in ≤ 1% of patients for each budesonide-containing regimen. In SYGMA 1, AEs were more common in the As-needed terbutaline (n = 1277) than As-needed budesonide-formoterol (n = 1277) groups (42.7 vs. 38.0%), as were DAEs (2.9 vs. 0.8%) and asthma-related discontinuations (1.6 vs. 0.3%).

Conclusions

Budesonide-formoterol anti-inflammatory reliever therapy is generally well-tolerated in patients with mild asthma and has a safety profile similar to that of daily budesonide. No new safety signals were identified.

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifiers

NCT02149199 (SYGMA 1) and NCT02224157 (SYGMA 2).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-020-01041-z.

Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Bronchodilators Revisited

Bronchodilators remain the cornerstone of the treatment of airway disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is therefore considerable interest in understanding how to optimize the use of our existing classes of bronchodilator and in identifying novel classes of bronchodilator drugs. However, new classes of bronchodilator have proved challenging to develop because many of these have no better efficacy than existing classes of bronchodilator and often have unacceptable safety profiles. Recent research has shown that optimization of bronchodilation occurs when both arms of the autonomic nervous system are affected through antagonism of muscarinic receptors to reduce the influence of parasympathetic innervation of the lung and through stimulation of β ₂-adrenoceptors (β ₂-ARs) on airway smooth muscle with β ₂-AR-selective agonists to mimic the sympathetic influence on the lung. This is currently achieved by use of fixed-dose combinations of inhaled long-acting β ₂-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists (LAMAs). Due to the distinct mechanisms of action of LAMAs and LABAs, the additive/synergistic effects of using these drug classes together has been extensively investigated. More recently, so-called "triple inhalers" containing fixed-dose combinations of both classes of bronchodilator (dual bronchodilation) and an inhaled corticosteroid in the same inhaler have been developed. Furthermore, a number of so-called "bifunctional drugs" having two different primary pharmacological actions in the same molecule are under development. This review discusses recent advancements in knowledge on bronchodilators and bifunctional drugs for the treatment of asthma and COPD. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Since our last review in 2012, there has been considerable research to identify novel classes of bronchodilator drugs, to further understand how to optimize the use of the existing classes of bronchodilator, and to better understand the role of bifunctional drugs in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Uncovering Outcome Disparities of β2 Adrenergic Agonists in Blacks: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Outcome differences driven by variation in Blacks' biologic response to treatment may contribute to persistent racial disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality. This review assessed systematic variation in β₂ agonist treatment outcomes among Blacks compared to other groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting differential response to β₂ agonists among Blacks, including studies identifying pharmacogenetic variants.

RESULTS

Of 3158 papers, 20 compared safety or efficacy of β₂ agonists among Blacks as compared with other subgroups. Six papers evaluating efficacy of short-acting β₂ agonists (SABA) found similar or improved results among Blacks compared with other groups, while one small study found reduced response to SABA therapy among Blacks. Reports of safety and efficacy of long-acting β₂ agonists (LABA) indicated similar results among Blacks in four papers, while four reports found reduced safety among Blacks, as compared with other groups. Four papers assessed genomic variation and relative treatment response in Blacks, with two finding significant effects of the p.Arg16Gly variant in ADRB2 on β₂ agonist response and one finding significant gene-gene IL6/IL6R interaction effects on albuterol response.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests the potential for differences in β₂ agonist outcomes among Blacks compared with other groups. This literature, however, remains small and significantly underpowered for substantive conclusions. There are notable opportunities for adequately-powered investigations exploring safety and efficacy of β₂ agonists among Blacks, including pharmacogenomic modifiers of response.

A phase 3 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a pediatric dose of mometasone furoate with and without formoterol for persistent asthma

OBJECTIVES

Asthma affects over 6 million children in the United States alone. This study investigated the efficacy and long-term safety of mometasone furoate-formoterol (MF/F) and MF monotherapy in children with asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated metered-dose inhaler twice daily (BID) dosing with MF/F 100/10 µg or MF 100 µg in children, aged 5 to 11 years, with a history of asthma for greater than or equal to 6 months and confirmed bronchodilator reversibility, who were adequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist combination therapy for greater than or equal to 4 weeks. After a 2-week run-in on MF 100 µg BID, eligible patients received 24 weeks of double-blind treatment and were followed for safety up to 26 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in AM postdose 60-minute AUC %predicted FEV1% across 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 181 participants received at least one dose of MF/F (n = 91) or MF (n = 90). MF/F was superior to MF across the 12-week evaluation period, with a treatment advantage of 5.21 percentage points (P < .001). Superior onset of action with MF/F over MF was achieved as early as 5 minutes postdose on day 1. Overall, approximately 50% of participants experienced one or more treatment-emergent adverse events, with fewer occurring in the MF/F group.

CONCLUSIONS

In children 5 to 11 years of age with persistent asthma, the addition of F to MF was well tolerated and provided significant, rapid, and sustained improvement in lung function compared with MF alone.

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of short- and long-acting beta-agonists on asthma exacerbations: a prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

In asthma, short- and long-acting β-agonists (SABAs and LABAs) should be used together with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and regular use is inappropriate.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship between patterns of use of therapy and asthma exacerbations (AEx).

METHODS

Patients with asthma (6-40 years) were enrolled in France and the United Kingdom. Prescribing data, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATIs), and text messages assessed medication use and AEx over a maximum period of 24 months. Generalized linear mixed models provided AEx risks associated with therapy.

RESULTS

Among the 908 patients (median age: 20.0 years, 46.6% women, 24.5% children) answering a total of 4248 CATIs over 486 (±235) days, regular (ie, daily) use was more frequent for single LABAs and fixed dose combinations (FDCs) than for single ICS (75.6%, 70.1%, and 65.4% of investigated periods of use, respectively). Regular (ie, daily or almost daily) SABA use was observed for 21.1% of periods of use. Altogether, 265 patients (29.2%) experienced 1 or more AEx. The ORs for AEx risk related to regular vs no use of FDCs, single ICS, and single LABAs were 0.98 (95% CI = [0.73-1.33]), 0.90 (95% CI = [0.61-1.33]), and 1.29 (95% CI = [0.76-2.17]), respectively, after adjustment for cotherapy, sociodemographic, and disease characteristics. The OR was 2.09 (95% CI = [1.36-3.21]) in regular SABA users.

CONCLUSION

Inhaled corticosteroids and FDCs were often used intermittently, whereas SABAs and LABAs could be used regularly, and exacerbations were frequent. Compared with non-users, the risk of exacerbation increased moderately under regular use of single LABAs, whereas it doubled, significantly, in regular SABA users, likely in relationship with poor overall asthma control.

Management of Asthma in the Preschool Child

The management of asthma in the preschool population is challenging because disease phenotypes are heterogeneous and evolving. Available therapies aimed at preventing persistent symptoms and recurrent exacerbations include inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene receptor antagonists; episodic use of inhaled corticosteroids and azithromycin may result in a decrease in exacerbations among children with intermittent disease. This article reviews an approach using patient characteristics for selecting initial treatment approaches based on disease phenotype, such as symptom patterns or evidence of atopic markers. Evidence for and against the use of oral corticosteroids during acute episodes and barriers to adherence and effective treatment are discussed.

Management/Comorbidities of School-Aged Children with Asthma

Asthma is a complex heterogeneous disease characterized by reversible airflow obstruction. After appropriate diagnosis, the management in school-aged children centers on 3 broad domains: pharmacologic treatment, treatment of underlying comorbidities, and education of the patient and caregivers. It is important to understand that the phenotypic differences that exist in the school-aged child with asthma may impact underlying comorbid conditions as well as pharmacologic treatment choices. Following initiation of therapy, asthma control must be continually evaluated in order to optimize management.

Personalized Medicine and Pediatric Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous disorder described by a large number of clinical features. A growing body of literature on more specific asthma phenotypes provides evidence for a phenotype-based approach to management in which specific therapies are recommended based on patient and disease characteristics. This understanding, coupled with an increase in the number of available therapies for children with asthma, as well as emerging therapies and phenotypic markers, will allow for improved asthma management in the future.

The Tempest: Difficult to Control Asthma in Adolescence

Severe asthma is associated with significant morbidity and is a highly heterogeneous disorder. Severe asthma in adolescence has some unique elements compared with the features of severe asthma a medical provider would see in younger children or adults. A specific focus on psychological issues and adherence highlights some of the challenges in the management of asthma in adolescents. Treatment of adolescents with severe asthma now includes 3 approved biologic phenotype-directed therapies. Therapies available to adults may be beneficial to adolescents with severe asthma. Research into predictors of specific treatment response by phenotypes is ongoing. Optimal treatment strategies are not yet defined and warrant further investigation.

Challenges and choices in the pharmacological treatment of non-severe pediatric asthma: A commentary for the practicing physician

In recent years, asthma research has focused intensely on the severe part of the disease spectrum, leading to new treatments, mostly therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. However, severe asthma accounts for not more than 2% of asthma in the pediatric population. Therefore, non-severe asthma remains a major health problem in children, not only for patients and parents but also for healthcare professionals such as general practitioners, pediatricians and allergists who take care of these patients. It is thus essential to identify and put in context novel concepts, applicable to the treatment of these patients. Recent evidence suggests benefits from using anti-inflammatory treatment even for the mildest cases, for whom until now only symptomatic bronchodilation was recommended. Likewise, “reliever” medication may be better combined with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Among “new” treatments (for children), ICS formulation in ultrafine particles has showed promise and tiotropium is gaining access to the pediatric population. Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) is an option for moderate disease. Most importantly, personalized response to medications appears to be considerable, therefore, it may need to be taken into account. Overall, these new options provide opportunities for multiple new management strategies. The deployment of such strategies in different populations remains to be evaluated.

Chuankezhi injection for asthma: Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by recurrent attacks of breathlessness and wheezing, which often worsen at night or in the early morning and vary from person to person in severity and frequency. Chuankezhi injection (CKZ), as a new Chinese medicine, was recently found to have a good clinical effect on asthma. Whereas neither systematic nor meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) explain the efficacy of CKZ in treating asthma. Therefore, we provide a protocol to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CKZ for asthma.

METHODS

From inception until April 2019, a systematic and comprehensive literature search will be conducted in both 4 Chinese databases and 3 English databases. RCTs will be included related to CKZ for asthma. We will assess the quality of the included trials in accordance with the risk of bias tools in Cochrane manual 5.1.0. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method to assess the certainty of the estimated evidence. Data analysis will be performed using the STATA 15.0.

RESULTS

This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of CKZ for the treatment of asthma, in order to provide evidence for the clinical practice of Chinese medicine. This protocol will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal once it is completed.

CONCLUSION

The consequence of this study will furnish proof to evaluate if CKZ is effective in the treatment of asthma.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

ROSPERO CRD42019134458.

Seasonal variation in asthma exacerbations in the AUSTRI and VESTRI studies

Seasonal peaks in asthma exacerbations are well described, as is the age-dependent nature of the magnitude of these peaks [1]. Children with asthma experience seasonal peaks in exacerbation frequency, which vary according to geographical location and climate [1–3]. Previous studies have examined the effect of season on the efficacy of pharmacological interventions. The anti-immunoglobulin-E monoclonal antibody omalizumab showed an increase in treatment benefits compared with placebo in the autumn and spring versus summer months in children, adolescents and young adults with allergic asthma in the USA [4]. In contrast, the anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody mepolizumab showed no effect of seasonal differences in adolescents and adults with severe eosinophilic asthma [5].

Seasonal variation in the benefit of LABA/ICS versus ICS on asthma exacerbation rate is observed in children.http://ow.ly/pcZF30o8hHk

[New approaches of inhaled steroid asthma management in mild to moderate asthma]

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of the management of asthma. Daily use allows to reduce mortality, intensity and frequency of exacerbations, to increase the control of symptoms of asthma and the quality of life of asthmatics patients and to reduce the decline of the lung function. A daily use of a weak dose of ICS allows to control the symptoms of asthma of the vast majority of mild to moderate asthmatics patients who account for about 75-80 % of the French asthmatic patients. An add-on strategy with a combination by ICS/LABA allows to decrease by 20 % the risk of an exacerbation compared with a treatment by CSI in monotherapy. "SMART" which consists in using a fixed ICS/LABA combination as a maintenance and reliever therapy had showed better results in the prevention of exacerbations that the use of the same combination associated with a SABA as a reliever therapy. This strategy is recommended by GINA at the same level of proof as the classical treatment. An "on-demand" use of a ICS/LABA combination according to symptoms is clearly less efficacious in terms of control of the symptoms than the classical strategy by ICS/LABA; but both strategies are identical in terms of prevention of exacerbations. The daily dose of ICS is 4 to 5 times less than in the daily ICS group. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a standard asthma self-management plan that advises patients to temporarily quadrupling the dose of ICS in case of asthma worsening can be an alternative and allow to reduce 20 % of clinically important asthma exacerbations.

Changes in Persistent Asthma Care and Outcomes From 2006 to 2016 in France

BACKGROUND

Changes in asthma care need to be documented at arrival of biotherapies.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize changes in asthma care and outcomes in patients with persistent asthma.

METHODS

Repeated transversal analyses were conducted on a historical cohort using the French national claims data over 10 years. Patients aged 18 to 40 years with either 1 or more (any-use population) or 4 or more (high-use population) yearly dispensings of controller therapy were selected. Clinical and demographic features were characterized, and comparisons were made between 2006 and 2016 to assess temporal changes in asthma therapy, health care resource utilization, and outcomes.

RESULTS

In 2016, prevalent use of controller therapy was 5.2% (any-use population) and 0.8% (high-use population) of the population aged 18 to 40 years. In the any-use population, the use of long-acting β₂-agonists in monotherapy, and inhaled corticosteroids decreased (1.7% and 40.3% in 2016, respectively), whereas the use of fixed-dose combinations increased (56.4%). In both populations, visits to respiratory or hospital physicians and pulmonary function testing increased with time, in parallel to a decreasing number of general practitioner visits; in addition, oral corticosteroid use and incidence of emergency room visits increased. However, asthma hospitalizations and mortality remained low in both populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in persistent asthma care included replacement of inhaled corticosteroids by fixed-dose combinations, decreased use of long-acting β₂-agonists as a monotherapy, and increased involvement of secondary care physicians. In parallel, despite low figures for hospital admissions and mortality, overall use of oral corticosteroids and incidence of emergency room visits have increased over the last decade.

Controversies in Pediatric Asthma

Pediatric asthma, the most common chronic disease of childhood, remains a significant burden to the health care system. Although there are guidelines for the management of pediatric asthma, there remain several controversies about how best to manage asthma in the primary care setting, and how to prevent asthma exacerbations and subsequent emergency department visits and hospitalizations. In this article, we address four of these controversies: use of written asthma treatment plans, the role of long-acting beta-agonists, spirometry and peak flow measurements in disease management, and engagement of school nurses in the health care team. We provide suggestions and guidance related to these topics for the pediatric primary care provider. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(3):e128-e134.].

Expression of corticosteroid-regulated genes by PBMCs in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Variability in response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) can result in less than optimal asthma control. Development of biomarkers assessing the therapeutic efficacy of corticosteroids is important.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine whether in vitro PBMC responses to corticosteroids relate to the clinical ICS response.

METHODS

PBMCs were collected from 125 children with asthma (6-17 years) at enrollment (visit 0 [V0]) and after 1 year of bimonthly guidelines-based management visits (visit 6 [V6]). Difficult-to-control and easy-to-control asthma were defined as requiring daily therapy with 500 μg or more of fluticasone propionate (FLU) with or without a long-acting β-agonist versus 100 μg or less of FLU in at least 4 visits. mRNA levels of glucocorticoid receptor α and corticosteroid transactivation (FK506-binding protein 5) and transrepression markers (IL-8 and TNF-α) were measured by using RT-PCR in freshly isolated cells and in response to 10-8 mol/L FLU.

RESULTS

Compared with PBMCs from patients with easy-to-control asthma, PBMCs from those with difficult-to-control asthma had significantly lower glucocorticoid receptor α levels at V0 (P = .05). A 30% increase in IL-8 suppression by FLU (P = .04) and a trend for increased TNF-α suppression by FLU between V0 and V6 (P = .07) were observed in patients with easy-to-control asthma. In contrast, no changes between V0 and V6 in IL-8 and TNF-α suppression by FLU were observed in patients with difficult-to-control asthma. Corticosteroid-mediated transactivation (FK506-binding protein 5 induction by FLU) increased in the PBMCs of patients with difficult-to-control and easy-to-control asthma between V0 and V6 (P = .05 and P = .03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PBMCs of children with difficult-to-control asthma treated with guidelines-based therapy and requiring high-dose ICSs had reduced in vitro responsiveness to corticosteroids.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone/salmeterol compared to fluticasone in children younger than four years of age

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate 50 μg/salmeterol xinafoate 25 μg (FP/SAL) is widely used in adults and children with asthma, but there is sparse information on its use in very young children.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, controlled trial conducted in children aged 8 months to 4 years. During a 2-week run-in period, they all received FP twice daily. At randomization, they commenced FP/SAL or FP twice daily for 8 weeks. All were then given FP/SAL only, in a 16-week open-label study continuation. Medications were inhaled through an AeroChamber Plus with attached face mask. The primary end-point was mean change in total asthma symptom scores from baseline to the last 7 days of the double-blind period. Analyses were undertaken in all children randomized to treatment and who received at least one dose of study medication.

RESULTS

Three hundred children were randomized 1:1 to receive FP/SAL or FP. Mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom scores was -3.97 for FP/SAL and -3.01 with FP. The between-group difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.21; 95% confidence interval: -2.47, 0.54). No new safety signals were seen with FP/SAL.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized, double-blind study of this size to evaluate FP/SAL in very young children with asthma. FP/SAL did not show superior efficacy to FP; no clear add-on effect of SAL was demonstrated. No clinically significant differences in safety were noted with FP/SAL usage.

Challenges in the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of effective treatments, asthma control in children and adolescents remains inadequate and rates of health care use are high. This follow-up to a recent review (O'Byrne et al, Eur Respir J. 2017;50[3]) examines a number of challenges in current pediatric asthma management compared with that of an adult perspective and discusses possible alternative strategies that might improve pediatric asthma management and control.

DATA SOURCES

The evidence base for this review is limited because, historically, much of the research has been performed in adults.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

Pediatric asthma management is complicated by variability in asthma severity and control and difficulty in measuring pulmonary function and airway inflammation. Current challenges in pediatric asthma management include the recommended initial therapy treating only the symptoms rather than the underlying inflammation and switching to controller therapy only when asthma subsequently worsens.

CONCLUSION

Alternative strategies that might improve pediatric asthma management and control include replacement of short-acting β₂-agonist relievers by an inhaled corticosteroid plus a fast-acting β₂-agonist (short-acting β₂-agonist or fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist) combination at Global Initiative for Asthma step 1 or 2 to ensure that patients receive an inhaled corticosteroid whenever they feel the need for symptomatic relief. Such an approach could eliminate the problem of learned overuse or over-reliance on short-acting β₂-agonist reliever medication and address the other challenges in current pediatric asthma management. Clinical studies in pediatric patients or large studies involving a proportion of pediatric patients are required to provide the supporting evidence needed to help advance such new approaches and improve asthma control from a pediatric perspective.