Treatment strategies in mild asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids improve lung function, airway hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation but not symptom control in patients with mild intermittent asthma: A meta-analysis

It remains controversial whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) should be used in patients with intermittent asthma. The present study aimed to assess the effect of ICS compared with placebo or other therapies in patients with intermittent asthma. Medline, Embase and CNKI databases were searched up to June 2016 and a meta-analysis was conducted. The findings demonstrated that in adult patients, when compared with placebo, ICS increased forced expiratory volume in 1 sec FEV1 [standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.80] and alleviated airway hyper-responsiveness, which was indicated as log transformed PC20FEV1 (concentrations of methacholine when there was a fall in FEV1 ≥20%; SMD, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14). ICS also reduced fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels [weighted mean difference (WMD), -12.57 parts per billion (ppb; a unit of NO concentration in exhaled air); 95% CI -15.88 to -9.25 ppb]. However, symptom scores did not change after ICS treatment (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0). When compared with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), ICS had no advantage in increasing FEV1 (WMD, 0.04 l; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.13 l), reducing sputum eosinophil percentage (WMD, -6%; 95% CI, -12.38 to 0.38%) or symptom scores (SMD, 0.44; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.9). However, in child patients, ICS significantly (P<0.05) increased the possibility of symptom control when compared with placebo [relative risk (RR), 8; 95% CI, 1.04 to 61.52] or LTRA (RR, 2.67; 95% CI, 0.39 to 18.42). In conclusion, ICS improves lung function and alleviates airway hyper-responsiveness and airway inflammation but cannot influence symptom scores, and has no advantage over LTRA in terms of lung function improvement and airway inflammation control in adult patients with mild intermittent asthma. However, in children, the benefit of ICS in symptom control is more significant than with LTRA.

Strategies of mucosal immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Incidences of allergic disease have recently increased worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) has long been a controversial treatment for allergic diseases. Although beneficial effects on clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials by subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. Mucosal immunotherapy is one advantageous choice because of its non-injection routes of administration and lower side-effect profile. This study reviews recent progress in mucosal immunotherapy for allergic diseases. Administration routes, antigen quality and quantity, and adjuvants used are major considerations in this field. Also, direct uses of unique probiotics, or specific cytokines, have been discussed. Furthermore, some researchers have reported new therapeutic ideas that combine two or more strategies. The most important strategy for development of mucosal therapies for allergic diseases is the improvement of antigen formulation, which includes continuous searching for efficient adjuvants, collecting more information about dominant T-cell epitopes of allergens, and having the proper combination of each. In clinics, when compared to other mucosal routes, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a preferred choice for therapeutic administration, although local and systemic side effects have been reported. Additionally, not every allergen has the same beneficial effect. Further studies are needed to determine the benefits of mucosal immunotherapy for different allergic diseases after comparison of the different administration routes in children and adults. Data collected from large, well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and randomized trials, with post-treatment follow-up, can provide robust substantiation of current evidence.