Rate of response of individual asthma control measures varies and may overestimate asthma control: an analysis of the goal study

SABAs as Reliever Medications in Asthma Management: Evidence-Based Science

The role of as-needed inhaled short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) in the management of asthma has become a subject of debate due to differing opinions in the professional community relating to the use of SABAs. In this article, we summarize the current position of SABAs when used as reliever medications and examine the challenges to appropriate use including a critique of the data that have led to the condemnation of SABA used as a reliever. We consider the evidence for the appropriate use of SABA as a reliever together with practical solutions to ensure such use, including identifying patients at risk of misusing their SABA relievers and managing issues of inhaler technique and treatment adherence. We conclude that inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-based maintenance treatment with SABA used as-needed as a reliever is an effective and safe treatment for patients with asthma, with no scientific evidence of a causal link between SABA use as a reliever and mortality or serious adverse events (including exacerbations). Increased SABA use warns of a deterioration in asthma control, and patients at risk of misusing their ICS and SABA medication should be rapidly identified to ensure they are receiving adequate ICS-based controller therapy. Appropriate use of ICS-based controller therapy and as-needed SABA should be encouraged and promoted with educational activities.

The influence of self-assessment of asthma control on the Asthma Control Test outcome

OBJECTIVE

The Asthma Control Test (ACT) consists of five items, one of which is self-assessment of asthma control. The goal of this study was to compare the responses to the first four ACT items with the response to the fifth item and determine whether this response affects the final ACT score.

METHODS

Adult asthmatics (n = 417) were recruited from a specialty asthma center in Poland. Clinical data were collected by questionnaire. Spirometry and skin prick tests were performed for clinical evaluation. Asthma control was assessed through the ACT. The cutoff point for uncontrolled asthma was <20 points.

RESULTS

Asthma was uncontrolled in 42.5% of patients. Based upon scores of the first four ACT items, three clusters of patients were identified. Cluster 1 comprised very well-controlled asthmatics [mean (sd) ACT total score 24.7 (0.7)]. Cluster 2 included both controlled and uncontrolled asthmatics [ACT total score 20.1 (2.5)]. Cluster 3 comprised poorly controlled asthmatics [ACT total score 12.1 (2.9)]. Misjudgment of asthma control in the fifth ACT item had no impact on the ACT total score in clusters 1 and 3. In cluster 2, the response to this item caused misclassification in 10.2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with either very well or very poorly controlled asthma, the response to the fifth ACT item did not alter the assignment into the appropriate asthma control group. Only in a small group of patients with a total ACT score of approximately 20 points did the asthma group classification result in either controlled or uncontrolled.

The Danish National Database for Asthma: establishing clinical quality indicators

Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide affecting more than 300 million people. Symptoms are often non-specific and include coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Asthma may be highly variable within the same individual over time. Although asthma results in death only in extreme cases, the disease is associated with significant morbidity, reduced quality of life, increased absenteeism, and large costs for society. Asthma can be diagnosed based on report of characteristic symptoms and/or the use of several different diagnostic tests. However, there is currently no gold standard for making a diagnosis, and some degree of misclassification and inter-observer variation can be expected. This may lead to local and regional differences in the treatment, monitoring, and follow-up of the patients. The Danish National Database for Asthma (DNDA) is slated to be established with the overall aim of collecting data on all patients treated for asthma in Denmark and systematically monitoring the treatment quality and disease management in both primary and secondary care facilities across the country. The DNDA links information from population-based disease registers in Denmark, including the National Patient Register, the National Prescription Registry, and the National Health Insurance Services register, and potentially includes all asthma patients in Denmark. The following quality indicators have been selected to monitor trends: first, conduction of annual asthma control visits, appropriate pharmacological treatment, measurement of lung function, and asthma challenge testing; second, tools used for diagnosis in new cases; and third, annual assessment of smoking status, height, and weight measurements, and the proportion of patients with acute hospital treatment. The DNDA will be launched in 2016 and will initially include patients treated in secondary care facilities in Denmark. In the nearby future, the database aims to include asthma diagnosis codes and clinical data registered by general practitioners and specialised practitioners as well.

Asthma control in Australia: a cross-sectional web-based survey in a nationally representative population

OBJECTIVE

To identify patterns of asthma control and treatment in Australian adults with asthma.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional web-based survey, conducted 1-27 November 2012.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with current asthma, at least 16 years of age, drawn randomly from a web-based panel and weighted to reflect national population proportions for people with asthma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores; health care utilisation; medication use.

RESULTS

2686 participants completed the survey (57.1% female; median age group, 40-49 years). Mean ACT score was 19.2 (95% CI, 18.9-19.3), with asthma classified as "well controlled" for 54.4% of participants, "not well controlled" for 22.7% and "very poorly controlled" for 23.0%. 60.8% reported using preventer medication (mostly combined inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist) during the previous year. 23.4% had made at least one urgent visit to a general practitioner concerning their asthma, 10.0% at least one emergency department visit. Urgent consultations were more common for "very poorly controlled" than "well controlled" asthma (adjusted odds ratio, urgent GP visits 5.98 [95% CI, 4.75-7.54] and emergency department visits 2.59 [95% CI, 1.91-3.53] respectively). Participants were classified according to asthma symptom control and frequency of preventer medication usage: Those with "well controlled" asthma included Group A (40.0% of participants) who used preventer medication infrequently (less than 5 days a week) or not at all, consistent with mild asthma, and Group B (14.7%), who used it at least 5 days a week. Uncontrolled asthma symptoms were reported by Group C (19.7%) despite regular preventer use, and by Group D (25.7%), who used none or little.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first data about asthma control and its relationship with treatment in a large representative Australian population. The findings highlight significant preventable asthma morbidity in Australia.

Therapeutic potential of ASP3258, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, on chronic eosinophilic airway inflammation

We investigated and compared the pharmacological effects of a PDE4 inhibitor ASP3258 (3-[4-(3-chlorophenyl)-1-ethyl-7-methyl-2-oxo-1,2-dihydro-1,8-naphthyridin-3-yl] propanoic acid), with those of roflumilast, the most clinically advanced PDE4 inhibitor known. ASP3258 inhibited human PDE4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D with respective IC(50) values of 0.036, 0.050, 0.45, and 0.035 nmol/l, all approximately 3-6 times more potent than roflumilast. ASP3258 inhibited LPS-induced TNF-α production and PHA-induced IL-5 production in human whole blood cells with respective IC(50) values of 110 and 100 nmol/l, both approximately 10 times less potent than roflumilast. Repeatedly administered ASP3258 and roflumilast both suppressed chronic airway eosinophilia induced by repeated exposure to ovalbumin in Brown Norway rats with respective ED(50) values of 0.092 and 0.17 mg/kg. We also evaluated the toxicological profiles of ASP3258. Although PDE4 inhibitors induce emesis by mimicking the pharmacological action of an α(2)-adrenoceptor antagonist, repeated administration of ASP3258 (3 mg/kg) had no such inhibitory effect on rats anesthetized with α(2) - adrenoceptor agonist. PDE4 inhibitors are also known to induce vascular injury in rats. Although repeatedly administered ASP3258 (3 and 10 mg/kg) significantly increased plasma fibrinogen, a biomarker for toxicity, 1 mg/kg of ASP3258 did not. These results suggest that ASP3258 is an attractive PDE4 inhibitor for treating chronic eosinophilic airway inflammation due to asthma.

Drug development for severe asthma: what are the metrics?

Although reversible airway obstruction in part defines asthma, lung function as measured by spirometry alone inadequately predicts the value of new therapeutic agents in the treatment of severe asthma. Our objectives are 1) to review whether pulmonary function and bronchodilator reversibility are endpoints for drug discovery and 2) to identify parameters that predict efficacy in drug development in severe asthma. An English language literature search using MedLine and PubMed was conducted from 1997 to present concerning pathophysiology, diagnosis and therapy of severe asthma using the terms "severe asthma," "irreversible asthma," "difficult asthma," "airway remodeling," "fixed airway obstruction," "reversibility" and "bronchodilator reversibility" as index terms. Eight studies were characterized that encompass 1424 subjects with asthma. Our review identified the limitations of using bronchodilator reversibility as a predictor in drug development for severe asthma. Neither improvement in lung function nor bronchodilator reversibility characterized the benefit of new drugs in the treatment of severe asthma. Newly approved drugs in the treatment of severe asthma show decreased asthma exacerbations and improved quality of life associated with steroid-sparing benefits without altering bronchodilator responsiveness or improving lung function. Although changes in lung function predict asthma control in mild/moderate asthma, lung function alone is inadequate to assess improvement in asthma control in severe asthma manifested by fixed airway obstruction. Endpoints that focus on asthma control, as defined by the Expert Panel Report 3 and GINA guidelines, may predict the value of new therapeutics in the management of severe asthma.

Components of asthma control and treatment response of individual control criteria in children: analysis of the PEACE study

BACKGROUND

The aim of asthma management is to achieve and maintain clinical control. Control data for children is sparse.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis evaluated factors associated with not achieving well-controlled (WC) asthma using data from a study in 548 children with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of factors affecting the probability of not achieving WC asthma in children receiving salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100 µg bd (SFC) or montelukast 5 mg od (MON), included: reasons for patients failing the asthma control criteria; achievement of overall asthma control; time course of improvement in individual outcomes and composite score; factors associated with not achieving WC asthma.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients failing individual control criteria at baseline was: β2-agonist rescue use: 96%, peak expiratory flow (PEF): 91%, symptoms: 78%, and night-time awakenings: 66%. Most patients failed the composite control score for more than one reason with 482 (99%), 387 (80%), and 249 (52%) failing 2, 3, or 4 control criteria, respectively. Overall asthma control was achieved by 166 (59%) patients in the SFC group and 96 (36%) in the MON group (P < 0.001). Time course of control differed between individual control components with symptoms responding most rapidly and PEF most slowly. Factors significantly influencing the probability of not achieving WC asthma were treatment with MON, country, and night-time awakenings at baseline, treatment being the most important.

CONCLUSION

Different outcomes improve at different rates. Assessment of one or a few outcomes over-estimates the level of asthma control. An overall composite score in combination with the proportion of patients failing on three or more criteria seemed to most accurately reflect the level of control. Compared with SFC treatment, MON was three times less likely to result in good asthma control.

Control charts demonstrated limited utility for the monitoring of lung function in asthma

OBJECTIVE

Statistical process control charts have been advocated for use in monitoring of lung function in asthma. We aimed to evaluate their application in asthma using existing data from a randomized trial.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Patients on optimal inhaled corticosteroid/bronchodilator therapy (n=81) were randomized to continue the same or change to corticosteroid alone. Baseline statistical control was assessed from 20 days of electronically recorded lung function (peak expiratory flow [PEF], forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV(1)]). The ability to detect lung function changes was assessed during 10 days after randomization.

RESULTS

PEF measurements were in statistical control during baseline for only 59-79% of patients for different combinations of five control chart rules (e.g., Rule 1: >3 standard deviations outside mean and 95% expected to be in control), with similar proportions for FEV(1). After randomization, among those previously in statistical control, Rule 1 signaled lower FEV(1) for 35% of patients randomized to treatment change compared with 6% continuing baseline treatment (P=0.004). Control charts performed poorly for PEF, signaling a decrease for 8% of patients randomized to treatment change compared with 11% continuing treatment (P=0.7). A paradoxical increase was signaled for many patients continuing treatment.

CONCLUSION

Control charts may not be suitable for use in many patients with asthma.

Single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) of asthma: a critical appraisal

The use of a combination inhaler containing budesonide and formoterol as both maintenance and quick relief therapy (SMART) has been recommended as an improved method of using inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy. Published double-blind trials show that budesonide/formoterol therapy delivered in SMART fashion achieves better asthma outcomes than budesonide monotherapy or lower doses of budesonide/formoterol therapy delivered in constant dosage. Attempts to compare budesonide/formoterol SMART therapy with regular combination ICS/LABA dosing using other compounds have been confounded by a lack of blinding and unspecified dose adjustment strategies. The asthma control outcomes in SMART-treated patients are poor; it has been reported that only 17.1% of SMART-treated patients are controlled. In seven trials of 6–12 months duration, patients using SMART have used quick reliever daily (weighted average 0.92 inhalations/day), have awakened with asthma symptoms once every 7–10 days (weighted average 11.5% of nights), have suffered asthma symptoms more than half of days (weighted average 54.0% of days) and have had a severe exacerbation rate of one in five patients per year (weighted average 0.22 severe exacerbations/patient/year). These poor outcomes may reflect the recruitment of a skewed patient population. Although improvement from baseline has been attributed to these patients receiving additional ICS therapy at pivotal times, electronic monitoring has not been used to test this hypothesis nor the equally plausible hypothesis that patients who are non-compliant with maintenance medication have used budesonide/formoterol as needed for self-treatment of exacerbations. Although the long-term consequences of SMART therapy have not been studied, its use over 1 year has been associated with significant increases in sputum and biopsy eosinophilia. At present, there is no evidence that better asthma treatment outcomes can be obtained by moment-to-moment symptom-driven use of ICS/LABA therapy than conventional physician-monitored and adjusted ICS/LABA therapy.

Pharmacogenetic study of the effects of NK2R G231E G>A and TBX21 H33Q C>G polymorphisms on asthma control with inhaled corticosteroid treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used as maintenance regimens for asthma patients. However, response to ICS shows marked inter-individual variability. Genetic factors have been shown to be potential predictors of responsiveness to ICS. We aimed to evaluate those pharmacogenetic effects on asthma control in further detail.

METHODS

Fifty-three mild-to-moderate asthmatics were genotyped for four genetic polymorphisms of four genes: beta2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2), adenylate cyclase 9 (ADCY9), neurokinin receptor 2 (NK2R) and T-box 21 (TBX21). The principal clinical outcome was the achievement of asthma control, as assessed using the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. During treatment with ICS, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) were monitored every 4 weeks and twice daily.

RESULTS

Forty-eight of the 53 patients with asthma were in a controlled or partly controlled state after 12 weeks of treatment with ICS, whereas five asthmatics were in an uncontrolled state even after active treatment. Of the four genetic polymorphisms examined, NK2R G231E G>A and TBX21 H33Q C>G were significantly associated with asthma control status (P = 0.041 and P = 0.006). The subjects with wild-type alleles at each polymorphism showed a significant association with the well-controlled or partly controlled state, as compared to those with mutant alleles. At 5-12 weeks after ICS treatment, the NK2R G231E G>A was associated with therapeutic response to ICS, as reflected by improvement in predicted FEV(1)%.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that NK2R G231E G>A and TBX21 H33Q C>G are genetic predictors of response to ICS, at least with respect to asthma control status and changes in FEV(1)%, in Korean patients with asthma. Further prospective validation of those associations is necessary.

Effect of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination on airway hyper-responsiveness in patients with well-controlled asthma

BACKGROUND

The hypothesis that regular treatment aimed at achieving and maintaining asthma control is accompanied by reduced airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR) was investigated.

METHODS

Adult patients (PC(20) methacholine <8 mg/ml, FEV(1)% predicted >or=70%) received salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination 50/250 microg bd (SFC250) for a 12-week run-in; those achieving well-controlled (WC) asthma were randomised to SFC250 (n = 88) or SFC50/500 microg bd (SFC500) (n = 90) for 24 weeks. AHR (PC(20) methacholine), asthma control, lung function, symptoms, exacerbations and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

During the 12 week run-in (SFC250), a greater than 1 doubling dose increase in PC(20) was observed. During randomised treatment, the increase in AHR was similar, and less than 1 doubling dose, for both groups (adjusted geometric mean PC(20) (mg/mL) at 24 weeks: SFC250: 2.796, SFC500: 2.802; p = 0.992). Compared with SFC250, patients receiving SFC500 had a more rapid improvement in AHR (adjusted mean ratio to baseline respectively at week 4: 1.193 vs. 1.386; week 12: 1.395 vs. 1.672; p = non-significant for both) and showed a greater response to treatment in patients with a low baseline PC(20). Patients maintaining WC asthma were 72 (84%) and 64 (74%) in the SFC250 and SFC500 groups respectively. Both doses of SFC were well tolerated; only four exacerbations were reported, all in the SFC500 group.

CONCLUSION

Regular treatment with SFC resulted in continuous improvement in AHR with maintenance of asthma control in the majority of patients. SFC500 showed a trend for a more rapid improvement in AHR and resulted in greater improvements in patients with a lower baseline PC(20).

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Overall asthma control: the relationship between current control and future risk

BACKGROUND

Asthma guidelines emphasize both maintaining current control and reducing future risk, but the relationship between these 2 targets is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective analysis of 5 budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART Turbuhaler(*)) studies assessed the relationship between asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5) and Global Initiative for Asthma-defined clinical asthma control and future risk of instability and exacerbations.

METHODS

The percentage of patients with Global Initiative for Asthma-defined controlled asthma over time was assessed for budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus the 3 maintenance therapies; higher dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), same dose ICS/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA), and higher dose ICS/LABA plus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. The relationship between baseline ACQ-5 and exacerbations was investigated. A Markov analysis examined the transitional probability of change in control status throughout the studies.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients achieving asthma control increased with time, irrespective of treatment; the percentage Controlled/Partly Controlled at study end was at least similar to budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus the 3 maintenance therapies: higher dose ICS (56% vs 45%), same dose ICS/LABA (56% vs 53%), and higher dose ICS/LABA (54% vs 54%). Baseline ACQ-5 score correlated positively with exacerbation rates. A Controlled or Partly Controlled week predicted at least Partly Controlled asthma the following week (>or=80% probability). The better the control, the lower the risk of an Uncontrolled week. The probability of an exacerbation was related to current state and was lower with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current control predicts future risk of instability and exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces exacerbations versus comparators and achieves at least similar control.

Mometasone furoate: an inhaled glucocorticoid for the management of asthma in adults and children

Mometasone furoate has been available for clinical use, starting with a dermatologic preparation, for nearly 20 years. An inhaled format of the drug for management of asthma had been in development during the last decade and has been available for clinical use for 6 years as a dry powder inhaler delivering either 100 mcg or 200 mcg per dose. It has a long half-life and is suitable for daily dosing. The drug is approved for use in the USA for the treatment of asthma in patients aged 4 years or over. Mometasone furoate is a topically potent glucocorticoid with a favorable risk-benefit profile. A wide variety of randomized clinical trials have shown the drug to have a clinically beneficial effect on asthma comparable to fluticasone propionate, and to permit the reduction or withdrawal of oral glucocorticoid therapy in patients with asthma. Mometasone furoate has approximately 1% oral bioavailability but does produce systemic glucocorticoid effects from the drug released from the lung and its metabolites. These effects are minimal when mometasone is used appropriately at low or moderate doses.

[Improving the control of asthma]

Asthma control is the cornerstone of monitoring for patients with this disease. Monitoring limited to questions of the type "how is your asthma?" underestimates the real effects of the disease. Measuring control requires assessing several criteria, which differ by the kinetics of their course during treatment. Basing monitoring on only a single criterion risks overestimating control, stepping down treatment too early, and losing control of the disease. In the case of inadequate control, uncontrolled comorbid conditions and aggravating factors or poor treatment adhesion must be sought before determining that the treatment itself is insufficient. After stepping up treatment, the chances of obtaining adequate control increase progressively with time, for at least a year. When the physician and patient jointly determine that the current treatment is the maximum acceptable, waiting may be a solution. Similarly, in seeking the minimal efficacious treatment, treatment must not be stepped down too rapidly. Once control is obtained, continuation of the treatment maintains long-term control for most patients.

Measures of asthma control and quality of life: longitudinal data provide practical insights into their relative usefulness in different research contexts

PURPOSE

To further our understanding of the relationships between asthma control and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and provide insights into the relative usefulness of various measures in different research contexts. We present a conceptual model and test it with longitudinal survey data.

METHODS

Participants recruited via population sampling and hospital Emergency Departments completed questionnaires every 6 months for up to 3 years. Measures included: sleep disturbance, use of short-acting beta agonists (SABA), activity limitation, urgent medical visits, hospital use, Marks' Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-M) and the SF-36 Health Survey. Correlation analysis and multi-level models tested predictions from the conceptual model.

RESULTS

A total of 213 people with asthma aged 16-75 years provided 967 observations. Correlations between asthma control and asthma-specific HRQOL were stronger than those between asthma control and generic HRQOL. The asthma control variables explained 54-58% of the variance in asthma-specific HRQOL and 8-25% of the variance in generic HRQOL. Activity limitation was the main contributor to between-person variation, while sleep disturbance and SABA use were the main contributors to within-person variation.

CONCLUSIONS

Sleep disturbance and SABA use may be most useful in evaluating treatment effectiveness, while activity limitation may be better when monitoring the impact of asthma in populations.

Asthma control over 3 years in a real-life study

This was a 3-year "real-life" study, during which patients' medication was increased and decreased to achieve sustained asthma control. Patients (282) were randomised to receive treatment with SAL 50microg, FP 250microg, or SFC 50/250microg via a Diskustrade mark inhaler, bid. A 12-month double-blind period was followed by a 2-year open phase. The physician increased or decreased patients' medication to achieve and maintain asthma control at regular clinical assessments using criteria based on the asthma treatment guidelines. On completion 73% (168/229) of the subjects were receiving SFC to maintain control of their asthma, compared with 21% (49/229) receiving FP and 5% (12/229) receiving SAL. Odds ratio for requiring increased treatment were 2.66 (p=0.002) for patients initially randomised to FP and 9.38 (p<0.0001) SAL, compared with SFC. Time until 25% of patients first required an increase in study medication was 6months for patients initially treated with SAL compared to 12months for FP and 21months for SFC. Symptoms and use of rescue medication improved first, followed rapidly by PEF with the greatest improvements occurring over the first year. Airway hyperresponsiveness continued to improve throughout the study. The majority of patients achieved and maintained control of asthma over a 3-year period with physician-driven medication changes. Patients treated with SFC were more likely to achieve control than patients treated with FP or SAL alone. Continuing improvements in airway hyperresponsiveness indicate the importance of maintaining treatment after clinical control of symptoms and lung function are achieved.

Endotyping asthma: new insights into key pathogenic mechanisms in a complex, heterogeneous disease

Clinical asthma is very widely assumed to be the net result of excessive inflammation driven by aberrant T-helper-2 (Th2) immunity that leads to inflamed, remodelled airways and then functional derangement that, in turn, causes symptoms. This notion of disease is actually poorly supported by data, and there are substantial discrepancies and very poor correlation between inflammation, damage, functional impairment, and degree of symptoms. Furthermore, this problem is compounded by the poor understanding of the heterogeneity of clinical disease. Failure to recognise and discover the underlying mechanisms of these major variants or endotypes of asthma is, arguably, the major intellectual limitation to progress at present. Fortunately, both clinical research and animal models are very well suited to dissecting the cellular and molecular basis of disease endotypes. This approach is already suggesting entirely novel pathways to disease-eg, alternative macrophage specification, steroid refractory innate immunity, the interleukin-17-regulatory T-cell axis, epidermal growth factor receptor co-amplification, and Th2-mimicking but non-T-cell, interleukins 18 and 33 dependent processes that can offer unexpected therapeutic opportunities for specific patient endotypes.

Inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists in adult asthma: a winning combination in all?

In the recent years, considerable insight has been gained in to the optimal management of adult asthma. Most adult patients with asthma have mild intermittent and persistent disease, and it is acknowledged that many patients do not reach full control of all symptoms and signs of asthma. Those with mild persistent asthma are usually not well controlled without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Studies have provided firm evidence that these patients can be well controlled when receiving ICS, especially when disease is of recent onset. This treatment should be given on a daily basis at a low dose and when providing a good response should be maintained to prevent severe exacerbations and disease deterioration. Intermittent ICS treatment at the time of an exacerbation has also been suggested as a strategy for mild persistent asthma, but it is less effective than low-dose regular treatment for most outcomes. Adding a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) to ICS appears to be unnecessary in most of these patients for optimising control of their asthma. Patients with moderate persistent asthma can be regarded as those who are not ideally controlled on low-dose ICS alone. The combination of an ICS and LABA is preferred in these patients, irrespective of the brand of medicine, and this combination is better than doubling or even quadrupling the dose of ICS to achieve better asthma control and reduce exacerbation risks. An ICS/LABA combination in a single inhaler represents a safe, effective and convenient treatment option for the management of patients with asthma unstable on inhaled steroids alone. Ideally, once asthma is under full control, the dose of inhaled steroids should be reduced, which is possible in many patients. The duration of treatment before initiating this dose reduction has, however, not been fully established. One of the combinations available to treat asthma (budesonide and formoterol) has also been assessed as both maintenance and rescue therapy with a further reduction in the risk for a severe exacerbation. Clinical effectiveness in the real world now has to be established, since this approach likely improves compliance with regular maintenance therapy.