An evaluation of levalbuterol HFA in the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm

Many continuous variables should be analyzed using the relative scale: a case study of β2-agonists for preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

BACKGROUND

The relative scale adjusts for baseline variability and therefore may lead to findings that can be generalized more widely. It is routinely used for the analysis of binary outcomes but only rarely for continuous outcomes. Our objective was to compare relative vs absolute scale pooled outcomes using data from a recently published Cochrane systematic review that reported only absolute effects of inhaled β₂-agonists on exercise-induced decline in forced-expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV₁).

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we selected placebo-controlled cross-over studies that reported individual participant data (IPD). Reversal in FEV₁ decline after exercise was modeled as a mean uniform percentage point (pp) change (absolute effect) or average percent change (relative effect) using either intercept-only or slope-only, respectively, linear mixed-effect models. We also calculated the pooled relative effect estimates using standard random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis using study-level mean effects.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 187 participants were identified for the IPD analysis. On the absolute scale, β₂-agonists decreased the exercise-induced FEV₁ decline by 28 pp., and on the relative scale, they decreased the FEV₁ decline by 90%. The fit of the statistical model was significantly better with the relative 90% estimate compared with the absolute 28 pp. estimate. Furthermore, the median residuals (5.8 vs. 10.8 pp) were substantially smaller in the relative effect model than in the absolute effect model. Using standard study-level meta-analysis of the same 14 studies, β₂-agonists reduced exercise-induced FEV₁ decline on the relative scale by a similar amount: 83% or 90%, depending on the method of calculating the relative effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the absolute scale, the relative scale captures more effectively the variation in the effects of β₂-agonists on exercise-induced FEV₁-declines. The absolute scale has been used in the analysis of FEV₁ changes and may have led to sub-optimal statistical analysis in some cases. The choice between the absolute and relative scale should be determined based on biological reasoning and empirical testing to identify the scale that leads to lower heterogeneity.

Beta₂-agonists for exercise-induced asthma

BACKGROUND

It is well known that physical exercise can trigger asthma symptoms and can induce bronchial obstruction in people without clinical asthma. International guidelines on asthma management recommend the use of beta2-agonists at any stage of the disease. At present, however, no consensus has been reached about the efficacy and safety of beta2-agonists in the pretreatment of exercise-induced asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. For the purpose of the present review, both of these conditions are referred to by the acronymous EIA, independently from the presence of an underlying chronic clinical disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of inhaled short- and long-acting beta2-agonists, compared with placebo, in the pretreatment of children and adults with exercise-induced asthma (or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction).

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified by electronic searching of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meetings. Searches are current as of August 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any study design, published in full text, that assessed the effects of inhaled beta2-agonists on EIA in adults and children. We excluded studies that did not clearly state diagnostic criteria for EIA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials consisting of 1139 participants. Forty-eight studies used a cross-over design, and five were performed in accordance with a parallel-group design. Forty-five studies addressed the effect of a single beta2-agonist administration, and eight focused on long-term treatment. We addressed these two different intervention regimens as different comparisons.Among primary outcomes for short-term administration, data on maximum fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) showed a significant protective effect for both short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -17.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) -19.51% to -15.84%, P = 0.00001, 799 participants from 72 studies). The subgroup analysis of studies performed in adults compared with those performed in children showed high heterogeneity confined to children, despite the comparable mean bronchoprotective effect.Secondary outcomes on other pulmonary function parameters confirmed a more positive and protective effect of beta2-agonists on EIA compared with placebo. Occurrence of side effects was not significantly different between beta2-agonists and placebo.Overall evaluation of the included long-term studies suggests a beta2-agonist bronchoprotective effect for the first dose of treatment. However, long-term use of both SABA and LABA induced the onset of tolerance and decreased the duration of drug effect, even after a short treatment period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of low to moderate quality shows that beta2-agonists, both SABA and LABA, when administered in a single dose, are effective and safe in preventing EIA.Long-term regular administration of inhaled beta2-agonists induces tolerance and lacks sufficient safety data. This finding appears to be of particular clinical relevance in view of the potential for prolonged regular use of beta2-agonists as monotherapy in the pretreatment of EIA, despite the warnings of drug agencies (FDA, EMA) regarding LABA.

Pharmacotherapy for exercise-induced asthma: allowing normal levels of activity and sport

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is experienced by the majority of an estimated 300 million individuals who have asthma, a condition that affects all ages and is increasing globally. Respiratory water loss with dehydration of the airways causing mediator release and airway narrowing is considered the cause of EIB, the severity of which will be increased if the inhaled air is cold or polluted. Adequate control of asthma is essential to minimize or prevent EIB and permit normal levels of physical activity and sport. This is important because exercise is a necessary component of daily living, assists in obtaining and maintaining a healthy body and has been demonstrated to benefit asthmatics. Inhaled glucocorticosteroids and inhaled β(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (IβA) are the pharmacological agents of choice to manage asthma and minimize EIB, assisted when necessary, by other drugs including leukotriene receptor antagonists and chromones. Tolerance from daily use of IβA is of concern and more flexible drug therapy needs to be considered. Optimal use of inhalers to deliver drugs effectively requires closer attention. Pharmacogenetics may hold the key to future drug therapy.

Cromoglycate, reproterol, or both--what's best for exercise-induced asthma?

OBJECTIVE

International guidelines recommend short- (SABA) or long-acting b-agonists for the prevention of bronchoconstriction after exercise (EIB) in patients with exercise-induced asthma (EIA). However, other drugs are still in discussion for the prevention of EIB. We investigated the efficacy of a combination of inhaled sodium cromoglycate and the β-mimetic drug reproterol versus inhaled reproterol alone and both versus inhaled placebo in subjects with exercise-induced asthma (EIA).

METHODS

The study aimed to prove the preventive effect of a combination of 1-mg reproterol and 2-mg disodium cromoglycate (DSCG) and its single components vs. placebo, measuring the decrease of FEV1 after a standardized treadmill test in 11 patients with recorded EIA. The study medication was twice as high as those of drugs which are commercially available (e.g., Allergospasmin®, Aarane®).

RESULTS

The results revealed that the combination of reproterol and DSCG was significantly effective against a decrease of FEV1 after a standardized exercise challenge test (ECT) compared to placebo. The short-acting b-agonist reproterol alone had almost the same effectiveness as the combination of reproterol and DNCG. The difference between the combination with DNCG and reproterol alone was less than 10% and insignificant (p 0.48). DNCG alone did not show a difference in the effectiveness compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Prevention of EIA with the combination of reproterol and DSCG or with reproterol only is effective. An exclusive recommendation in favor of the combination cannot be given due to the low difference in the effectiveness versus reproterol alone. Due to the limited number of subjects and some probands showing protection under DSCG, it cannot be completely excluded that there is some preventive power of DSCG in individual cases.