Step-down therapy with low-dose fluticasone-salmeterol combination or medium-dose hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone alone

Stepping down therapy for well-controlled mild asthma: an experience from University Medical Center at Ho Chi Minh City

Background

Stepping down treatment for well-controlled mild asthma is challenging to clinicians. The step-down strategy using regularly-intermittent low-dose inhaled corticosteroid has been applied at the University Medical Center (UMC) of Ho Chi Minh City, called as “UMC” approach.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of UMC step-down strategy in well- controlled mild asthma.

Methods

A real-world retrospective descriptive study was conducted at UMC from 2009 to 2018. All asthmatic patients (age ≥ 12) who received step-down therapy using this UMC approach were evaluated.

Results

Among 2,072 asthma patients to be treated with UMC step-down strategy, only 112 subjects were eligible. The median age was 38.5 years and female was 62.5%. Most patients at their initial presentation were indicated step 4 treatment (87.5%). The controller medications before initiation of UMC treatment included fluticasone propionate 125 μg once-daily, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 25/125 μg once-daily, and formoterol/budesonide 4.5/160 μg once-daily. After being treated with the UMC approach, the rates of well-controlled asthma ranged from 67.6% to 91.1%. During 1 year with UMC treatment, pulmonary function remained stable and only 7 subjects (6.3%) developed exacerbation.

Conclusion

The UMC step-down treatment for well-controlled mild asthma was relatively efficient in maintaining asthma control, stabilization of pulmonary function, and reducing risk of severe exacerbation.

The Asthma Controller Step-down Yardstick

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998–2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF_25–75%)_, and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available.

Results

Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV₁ (L) (−0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: −3.874, 95% CI: −10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: −1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF_{25–75% predicted} (−2.418, 95% CI: −6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]).

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma.

Trial registration

GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Treating the small airways

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT00497237.

Stepping down asthma treatment: how and when

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Asthma diagnosis and treatment: filling in the information gaps

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

Proof of concept study to evaluate step-down therapy with inhaled corticosteroid alone or additive therapy on surrogate inflammatory markers in asthma

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Much of the focus of inflammatory surrogates and airway challenges in asthma has been directed towards success of therapy and diagnosis. Few have considered them in the context of guiding dose reduction once sufficient control has been achieved.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) as an indirect bronchial airway challenge, together with non invasive inflammatory surrogate measures were not found to be clinically useful when guiding therapy in a group of asthmatic patients through step 3-4 in British Thoracic Society asthma guidelines. However, they may still play a role in predicting failure of individual step-down.

AIM

The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of inflammatory surrogates in determining step-down therapy in asthma.

METHODS

AMP challenge, serum eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) and pulmonary function tests were recorded. Subjects were divided into two groups following high dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS): Group A fixed dose ICS vs. Group B ICS alone and in combination with add on therapies.

RESULTS

No differences were seen in inflammatory measures between fixed dose ICS and reduced dose ICS alone or with combination therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

AMP challenge conferred no additional benefit in guiding step-down therapy. The role of inflammatory surrogates may still play a role in predicting failed step-down on an individual basis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.

[Treatments targeting distal airways in asthma: update on clinical studies]

Two strategies are possible for targeting distal airways in asthma. The first one is systemic, with the delivery of medications either orally or intravenously. Montelukast is the only oral drug that has demonstrated its efficacy on distal airways by reducing lung hyperinflation. The second possible strategy is to deliver inhaled medications using ultrafine particles. Studies performed with formoterol-HFA solution (Formoair Modulite), the only available long-acting beta2 agonist with ultrafine particles have shown a non-inferior bronchodilator effect and a good tolerance as compared to inhaled long acting beta2 agonists with non-ultrafine particles. Studies performed with BDP-HFA alone (QVAR) or combined BDP-HFA/formoterol (Fostair) with ultrafine particles have mostly demonstrated their clinical non- inferiority on bronchodilation, quality of life, and symptoms in asthmatic subjects as compared to non-ultrafine inhaled medications. With the exception of a few studies, most publications have been performed in a limited number of patients and for only short durations. The available studies have not yet demonstrated a long-term benefit in terms of additional clinical efficacy of these ultrafine inhaled medications on symptoms, control and exacerbations of asthma.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Quality of care for children hospitalized with asthma

OBJECTIVES

The goals were (1) to identify evidence-based clinical process measures that are appropriate, feasible, and reliable for assessing the quality of inpatient asthma care for children and (2) to evaluate provider compliance with these measures.

METHODS

Key asthma quality measures were identified by using a modified Rand appropriateness method, combining a literature review of asthma care evidence with a consensus panel. The feasibility and reliability of obtaining these measures were determined through manual chart review. Provider compliance with these measures was evaluated through retrospective manual chart review of data for 252 children between 2 and 17 years of age who were admitted to a tertiary care children's hospital in 2005 because of asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Nine appropriate, feasible, reliable, clinical process measures of inpatient asthma care were identified. Provider compliance with these measures was as follows: acute asthma severity assessment at admission, 39%; use of systemic corticosteroid therapy, 98%; use of oral (not intravenous) systemic corticosteroid therapy, 87%; use of ipratropium bromide restricted to <24 hours after admission, 71%; use of albuterol delivered with a metered-dose inhaler (not nebulizer) for children >5 years of age, 20%; documented chronic asthma severity assessment, 22%; parental participation in an asthma education class, 33%; written asthma action plan, 5%; scheduled follow-up appointment with the primary care provider at discharge, 22%.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine appropriate, feasible, reliable, clinical process measures of inpatient asthma care were identified. Provider compliance across these measures was highly variable but generally low. Our study highlights opportunities for improvement in the provision of asthma care for hospitalized children. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings in other inpatient settings.

Airway cell and cytokine changes in early asthma deterioration after inhaled corticosteroid reduction

BACKGROUND

Back-titration of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose in well-controlled asthma patients is emphasized in clinical guidelines, but there are few published data on the airway cell and cytokine changes in relation to ICS reduction. In our study, 20 mild-to-moderate persistent (inspite of low-moderate dose ICS treatment) asthmatic subjects prospectively rendered largely asymptomatic by high-dose ICS were assessed again by clinical, physiological, and airway inflammatory indices after 4-8 weeks of reduced ICS treatment. We aimed at assessing the underlying pathological changes in relation to clinical deterioration.

METHODS

Patients recorded daily symptom scores and peak expiratory flows (PEF). Spirometry and airways hyperreactivity (AHR) were measured and bronchoscopy was performed with assessment of airway biopsies (mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, and T lymphocytes), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) IL-5 and eotaxin levels and cellular profiles at the end of high-dose ICS therapy and again after ICS dose reduction. Baseline data were compared with symptomatic steroid-free asthmatics (n=42) and non-asthmatic controls (n=28).

RESULTS

After ICS reduction, subjects experienced a variable but overall significant increase in symptoms and reductions in PEF and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. There were no corresponding changes in AHR or airways eosinophilia. The most relevant pathogenic changes were increased CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio, and decreased sICAM-1 and CD18 macrophage staining (potentially indicating ligand binding). However, there was no relationship between the spectrum of clinical deterioration and the changes in cellular profiles or BAL cytokines.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that clinical markers remain the most sensitive measures of early deterioration in asthma during back-titration of ICS, occurring at a time when AHR and conventional indices of asthmatic airway inflammation appear unchanged. These findings have major relevance to management and to how back-titration of ICS therapy is monitored.

Randomized comparison of strategies for reducing treatment in mild persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma who have persistent symptoms and the "stepping down" of therapy to the minimum needed to maintain control of asthma. Whether patients with asthma that is well controlled with the use of inhaled corticosteroids twice daily can receive a step-down treatment with once-daily montelukast (our primary hypothesis) or once-daily fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (our secondary hypothesis) has not yet been determined.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 500 patients with asthma that was well controlled by inhaled fluticasone (100 microg twice daily) to receive continued fluticasone (100 microg twice daily) (169 patients), montelukast (5 or 10 mg each night) (166 patients), or fluticasone (100 microg) plus salmeterol (50 microg) each night (165 patients). Treatment was administered for 16 weeks in a double-blind manner. The primary outcome was the time to treatment failure.

RESULTS

Approximately 20% of patients assigned to receive continued fluticasone or switched to treatment with fluticasone plus salmeterol had treatment failure, as compared with 30.3% of subjects switched to montelukast. The hazard ratio for both comparisons was 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.6; P=0.03). The percentage of days on which patients were free of asthma symptoms (78.7 to 85.8%) was similar across the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with asthma that is well controlled with the use of twice-daily inhaled fluticasone can be switched to once-daily fluticasone plus salmeterol without increased rates of treatment failure. A switch to montelukast results in an increased rate of treatment failure and decreased asthma control; however, patients taking montelukast remained free of symptoms on 78.7% of treatment days. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00156819 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus placebo in addition to inhaled corticosteroids in children and adults with chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled beta2-adrenergic agonists are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and other measures of asthma control.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers, until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to corticosteroids with inhaled corticosteroids alone for asthma therapy in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptom scores, adverse events and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 594 identified citations, 49 trials met the inclusion criteria: 27 full-text publications, one unpublished full-text report and 21 abstracts. Twenty-three citations (21 abstracts and two full-text publications) provided data in insufficient detail, 26 trials contributed to this systematic review. All but three trials were of high methodological quality. Most interventions (N = 26) were of four-month duration or less. Eight trials focused on children and 18 on adults, with participants generally symptomatic with moderate airway obstruction despite their current inhaled steroid regimen. If a trial had more than one intervention or control group, additional control to intervention comparisons were considered separately. Formoterol (N = 17) or salmeterol (N = 14) were most frequently added to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent). The addition of a daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids by 19% (relative risk (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.90). The number needed to treat for one extra patient to be free from exacerbation for one year was 18 (95% CI 13 to 33). The addition of LABA significantly improved FEV1 (weighted mean difference (WMD) 170 mL, 95% CI 110 to 240) using a random-effects model, increased the proportion of symptom-free days (WMD 17%, 95% CI 12 to 22, N = 6 trials) and rescue-free days (WMD 19%, 95% CI 12 to 26, N = 2 trials). The group treated with LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid showed a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists (WMD -0.7 puffs/day, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2), experienced less withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7) and less withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.98), using a random-effects model. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75) or specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are symptomatic on low to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, improves lung function, symptoms and use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists. The similar number of serious adverse events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of long-acting beta2-agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids.

Combination of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled steroids versus higher dose of inhaled steroids in children and adults with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled beta2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in asthmatic patients, the effect of the combination of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, on pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children aged 2 years and older, and in adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of rescue beta2 agonists, adverse events and withdrawal rates. The meta-analysis was done with RevMan Analyses and the meta-regression, with Stata.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 593 citations identified, 30 (three pediatric; 27 adult) trials were analysed recruiting 9509 participants, including one study providing two control-intervention comparisons. Only one trial included corticosteroid-naive patients. Participants were symptomatic, generally (N=20 trials) presenting with moderate (FEV1 60-79% of predicted) rather than mild airway obstruction. Trials tested the combination of salmeterol (N=22) or formoterol (N=8) with a median of 400 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 800 to 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq. Trial duration was 24 weeks or less in all but four trials. There was no significant group difference in the rate of patients with exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [N=15, RR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.02)]. The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 [N=7, WMD=0.10 L (95% CI: 0.07, 0.12)], in symptom-free days [N=8 , WMD=11.90% (95% CI:7.37, 16.44), random effects model], and in the daytime use of rescue beta2 agonists than a higher dose of ICS [N=4, WMD= -0.99 puffs/day (95% CI: -1.41, -0.58), random effects model]. There was no significant group difference in the rate of overall adverse events [N=15, RR=0.93 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.03), random effects model], or specific side effects, with the exception of a three-fold increase rate of tremor in the LABA group [N= 10, RR=2.96 (95%CI: 1.60, 5.45)]. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS [N=20, RR=0.69 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.93)].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adult asthmatics, there was no significant difference between the combination of LABA and ICS and a higher dose of ICS for the prevention of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Overall, the combination therapy led to greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue beta2 agonists, (although most of the results are from trials of up to 24 weeks duration). There were less withdrawals due to poor asthma control in this group than when using a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor, the two options appear safe although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of initiating anti-inflammatory therapy using the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS+LABA) as compared to inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) until April 2004, bibliographies of identified RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS + LABA) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone in steroid-naive children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by each reviewer for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of other measures of asthma control, adverse events, and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria; nine (totaling 1061 adults) contributed sufficient data to be analysed. Baseline forced expiratory volume in one minute (FEV1) was less than 80% predicted value in four trials and equal to or greater than 80% in five trials. The long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) formoterol (N=2) or salmeterol (N=7) were added to a dose of at least 800 microg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in three trials and to at least 400 microg/day in the six remaining trials. Treatment with ICS plus LABA was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than ICS alone (relative risk (RR) 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.9). FEV1 improved significantly with LABA (weighted mean difference (WMD) 210 ml; 95% CI 120 to 300), as did symptom-free days (WMD 10.74%; 95% CI 1.86 to 19.62), but the change in use of rescue fast-acting beta2-agonists was not significantly different between the groups (WMD -0.4 puff/day, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.1). There was no significant group difference in adverse events (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), withdrawals (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the initiation of inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists does not significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations over that achieved with inhaled corticosteroids alone; it does improve lung function and symptom-free days but does not reduce rescue beta2-agonist use as compared to inhaled steroids alone. Both options appear safe. There is insufficient evidence at present to recommend use of combination therapy rather than ICS alone as a first-line treatment.

Benefit-risk assessment of long-acting beta2-agonists in asthma

The use of a regular long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (beta2-agonists; LABA) is now established in asthma guidelines as the preferred option for second-line controller therapy in addition to inhaled corticosteroids. This has been driven by data showing beneficial effects of LABAs on exacerbation rates, in turn suggesting a putative corticosteroid-sparing effect. As LABAs are devoid of any clinically meaningful anti-inflammatory activity in vivo, their effects on exacerbations are presumably due to a diurnal stabilising effect on airway smooth muscle. LABAs have marked effects on symptoms and lung function, and this may make it difficult to assess anti-inflammatory control with inhaled corticosteroids when used in a combination inhaler such as fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol. The use of fixed-dose combination inhalers is in many respects counter-intuitive to conventional teaching regarding flexible dosage titration with inhaled corticosteroids. It would therefore seem prudent first to gain optimal control of inflammation with inhaled corticosteroids before considering adding a LABA. Increasing the dosage of inhaled corticosteroids will have a relatively greater effect on exacerbations than on symptoms and lung function, whereas the converse applies when adding a LABA. Another option is to add a leukotriene receptor antagonist, which confers additional anti-inflammatory activity and is as effective on exacerbations as adding a LABA. Despite in vitro and ex vivo data showing a ligand-independent effect of LABAs on glucocorticoid receptor activation, clinical data do not indicate any relevant synergy between LABAs and inhaled corticosteroids when used together in the same inhaler. In particular, there is no evidence of potentiation by LABAs of the in vivo anti-inflammatory activity of inhaled corticosteroids that would suggest any genuine corticosteroid-sparing activity. Nonetheless, the data support the additive effects of inhaled corticosteroids and LABAs when used together due to their separate effects on inflammation and smooth muscle, respectively. Tolerance with LABAs is a predictable pharmacological phenomenon that occurs despite concomitant therapy with inhaled corticosteroids. Moreover, cross-tolerance also develops to short-acting beta2-agonists used for protection against bronchoconstrictor stimuli as a result of LABA-induced down-regulation, desensitisation and prolonged occupancy of beta2-adrenoceptors. The exact role of beta2-adrenoceptor polymorphism in determining tolerance with LABAs requires further prospective clinical studies evaluating long-term effects on outcomes such as exacerbations in patients with relevant genotypes and haplotypes. The next decade will provide challenging issues for clinicians with respect to defining further the role of LABAs as add-on controller therapy, particularly in evaluating the long-term effects of combination inhalers on inflammatory outcomes and airway remodelling.

Effects of montelukast on surrogate inflammatory markers in corticosteroid-treated patients with asthma

We evaluated whether montelukast conferred additive effects in patients with asthma receiving fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/SM) combination and FP alone. Twenty-two patients with mild to moderate asthma completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a 2-week run-in using FP 250 microg/SM 50 microg 1 puff twice daily, patients entered a randomized crossover period to receive additional montelukast 10 mg daily or placebo for 3 weeks each. For the first 2 weeks, they received FP/SM 1 puff BID, and then they received FP 250 microg 1 puff BID for the 3rd week. The primary outcome was adenosine monophosphate challenge threshold and recovery time; secondary outcomes included surrogate inflammatory markers and lung function. Compared with FP/SM run-in, adding montelukast to FP/SM was better (p < 0.05) than placebo for inflammatory markers but not for lung function. For adenosine monophosphate threshold, recovery, exhaled nitric oxide, and blood eosinophils, there were 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.8) geometric mean fold, 10 minutes (3-17 minutes), 2.1 parts per billion (0.2-3.9 parts per billion), and 88 (34-172) x 10(6)/L differences, respectively. The combination of FP plus montelukast was superior to FP/SM for inflammatory markers but was inferior for lung function. Thus, in patients taking FP/SM or FP, montelukast conferred complimentary effects on surrogate inflammatory markers, which were dissociated from lung function. Further studies are required to evaluate whether these effects of montelukast translate into clinical benefits.

Clinical advances in adult asthma

From October 2001 through September 2002, reports of clinical research on asthma in adults focused on the epidemiology of asthma, the investigation of pharmacologic and immunologic therapy in the context of new national guidelines, and discussions of medical economics. Epidemiologic findings include the observation that overall mortality has declined and hospitalizations have remained constant in the United States since 1995, although these rates are at least twice as high in Blacks. Socially and economically disadvantaged groups receive poorer health care for asthma. Young children who have fewer than 5 episodes of wheezing in conjunction with respiratory infections generally have a good prognosis and do not have compromised lung function as adults. Pharmacologic reports and the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Update recommend low- to medium-dose inhaled steroids combined with a long-acting beta-agonist as the preferred therapy for moderate persistent asthma. The use of chlorofluorocarbon-free medications for asthma is increasing. Medications comprise the largest cost category for asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting beta2-agonists as a combined therapy in asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of asthma treatment. Since 1994, when the first trial showed an equivalent effect of doubling the ICS dose or adding salmeterol, it has repeatedly been shown that the combinations of beclomethasone dipropionate and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol, or fluticasone propionate and salmeterol have at least the same efficacy as doubling the dose of the ICS in adults, though a conclusive trial in asthmatic children is still lacking. The addition of a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) to ICS appears more efficacious than adding a short-acting beta(2)-agonist or an antileukotriene, even though available data are sparse. Concurrent (two inhalers) and combination (same inhaler) modes of administration are equivalent from the clinical point of view, as is also true regarding administration via metered dose inhaler or dry powder inhaler. Using a single inhaler might eventually have a positive effect on treatment compliance, but there are no confirmatory data yet. Despite some clues regarding a presumed agonist effect of ICS and LABAs, there are still more doubts than certainties. Even though there are still unanswered questions, the data available strongly suggest that the fixed combination of ICS and LABAs using the same inhaler is an efficacious, safe and practical approach for those asthmatic patients who are not well controlled with low doses of ICS alone.