Stepping down asthma treatment: how and when

Omalizumab in combination with subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of multiple allergies associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a case report and a literature review

We describe the case of a 10-year-old boy with asthma (AS), accompanied by allergic rhinitis (AR), food allergy (FA), and combined attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who was treated at Shanghai Renji Hospital on 11 July 2020. The efficiency of the previous treatment with salmeterol/ticlosone was poor. Treatment with montelukast sodium resulted in development of neurological symptoms. Treatment with omalizumab in combination with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was then initiated in our department based on anti-asthmatic therapy. Symptoms of asthma were completely controlled, and FA and AR symptoms improved. The treatment regimen led to a significant improvement in ADHD symptoms and the overall quality of life of the patient. The literature search was done in the PubMed database using "attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder/ADHD" and "asthma" as keywords, and we identified 47 relevant articles. In conclusion, our results show that treating asthma with omalizumab in combination with salmeterol/ticlosone and SCIT is efficient in controlling symptoms of multiple allergies and may lead to the improvement in ADHD symptoms and the overall quality of life of pediatric patients with ADHD. While current studies suggest that allergic diseases are closely related to ADHD, there is still a lack of studies or case reports of complete treatment protocols to provide clinical clues for management of the disease.

The Association of Periconception Asthma Medication Discontinuation with Adverse Obstetric Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate asthma medication reduction in the periconceptional period as it relates to asthma status and adverse outcomes in pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

In a prospective cohort study, self-reported current and past asthma medications were collected and analyzes compared measures of asthma status in women who discontinued asthma medication in the 6 months prior to enrollment ("step-down") versus those who did not ("no change"). Evaluation of asthma was done at three study visits (one per trimester) and by daily diaries, including measures of lung function (percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 and 6 s [%FEV1, %FEV6], peak expiratory flow [%PEF], forced vital capacity [%FVC], FEV1 to FVC ratio [FEV1/FVC]), lung inflammation (fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO], ppb), rate of asthma symptoms (activity limitation, night symptoms, rescue inhaler use, wheeze, shortness of breath, cough, chest tightness, chest pain), and rate of asthma exacerbations. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also evaluated. Adjusted regression analyses examined whether adverse outcomes differed by periconceptional asthma medication changes.

RESULTS

Of 279 participants included in analyses, 135 (48.4%) did not change asthma medication in the periconceptional period, whereas 144 (51.6%) reported a step down in medication. Those in the step-down group were more likely to have milder disease (88 [61.1%] in the step-down vs. 74 [54.8%] in the no change group), exhibited less activity limitation (rate ratio [RR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.98), and experienced fewer asthma attacks (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.84) during pregnancy. The step-down group had a nonsignificant increase in overall odds of experiencing an adverse pregnancy outcome (odds ratio: 1.62, 95% CI: 0.97-2.72).

CONCLUSION

Over half of women with asthma reduce asthma medication in the periconceptional period. Although these women typically have milder disease, a step down in medication may be associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

KEY POINTS

· Many women reduce their asthma medication in pregnancy.. · Reduction is more common among those with mild disease.. · Medication reduction may lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes..

Towards the Lowest Efficacious Dose: Results From a Multicenter Noninferiority Randomized Open-Label Controlled Trial Assessing Tocilizumab or Abatacept Injection Spacing in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission

OBJECTIVE

We assess the clinical and structural impact at two years of progressively spacing tocilizumab (TCZ) or abatacept (ABA) injections versus maintenance at full dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission.

METHODS

This multicenter open-label noninferiority (NI) randomized clinical trial included patients with established rheumatoid arthritis in sustained remission receiving ABA or TCZ at a stable dose. Patients were randomized to treatment maintenance (M) at full dose (M-arm) or progressive injection spacing (S) driven by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints every 3 months up to biologics discontinuation (S-arm). The primary end point was the evolution of disease activity according to the Disease Activity Score in 44 joints during the 2-year follow-up analyzed per protocol with a linear mixed-effects model, evaluated by an NI test based on the one-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the slope difference (NI margin 0.25). Other end points were flare incidence and structural damage progression.

RESULTS

Overall, 202 of the 233 patients included were considered for per protocol analysis (90 in S-arm and 112 in M-arm). At the end of follow-up, 16.2% of the patients in the S-arm could discontinue their biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, 46.9% tapered the dose and 36.9% returned to a full dose. NI was not demonstrated for the primary outcome, with a slope difference of 0.10 (95% CI 0.10-0.31) between the two arms. NI was not demonstrated for flare incidence (difference 42.6%, 95% CI 30.0-55.1) or rate of structural damage progression at two years (difference 13.9%, 95% CI -6.7 to 34.4).

CONCLUSION

The Towards the Lowest Efficacious Dose trial failed to demonstrate NI for the proposed ABA or TCZ tapering strategy.

Triple Therapy with Mometasone/Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium or Doubling the ICS/LABA Dose in GINA Step 4: IRIDIUM Analyses

INTRODUCTION

GINA guidelines recommend increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as a step-up option for patients with inadequately controlled asthma at GINA step 4 [inadequately controlled asthma on medium-dose ICS/long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)]. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) add-on to medium-dose ICS/LABA in patients at GINA 2022 step 4.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of the IRIDIUM study evaluated the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume (FEV1 ) in patients receiving medium-dose MF/IND/GLY versus high-dose MF/IND and high-dose FLU/SAL at Week 26. Other outcomes included improvement in lung functions [peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of the FVC (FEF)25-75%)], asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7)], responder analysis (≥ 0.5 unit improvement in ACQ-7), and reduction in asthma exacerbations at Weeks 26 and 52.

RESULTS

A total of 1930 patients were included in this analysis. Medium-dose MF/IND/GLY improved trough FEV1 versus high-dose MF/IND (Δ 41 mL; 95% CI - 7-90) and high-dose FLU/SAL (Δ 88 mL; 95% CI 39-137) at Week 26 which were sustained until Week 52. Exacerbation rates were 16% lower with medium-dose MF/IND/GLY versus high-dose MF/IND for all (mild, moderate, and severe) exacerbations and 21-30% lower versus high-dose FLU/SAL for all (mild, moderate, and severe), moderate or severe, and severe exacerbations over 52 weeks. Further improvements in other lung functions were observed with medium-dose MF/IND/GLY. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSION

Medium-dose MF/IND/GLY improved lung function and reduced asthma exacerbations compared to high-dose ICS/LABA and may be an undervalued option in patients at GINA 2022 step 4.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02571777.

Discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with controlled asthma: The DISCO (Discontinuation of Inhaled Steroid in Controlled asthmatics Over 6 months) study

BACKGROUND

Although inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are the recommended first-line therapy for asthma, determining whether to continue or discontinue ICS treatment in patients with mild asthma remains challenging for clinicians. Several studies have revealed that patients with mild-persistent asthma maintained a well-controlled state after ICS withdrawal. However, the long-term outcomes of ICS withdrawal have not yet been determined.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the possible clinical outcomes of the discontinuation of ICS in patients with well-controlled mild asthma.

METHODS

We investigated the clinical outcomes of discontinuing ICSs in patients with well-controlled mild asthma and compared the time to loss of control (LOC) between patients who stopped ICS treatment (ICS withdrawal group, IWG) and those who continued treatment for 3 years (continuous ICS group, CIG).

RESULTS

A significant difference in the time to LOC was observed between the IWG and CIG (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-4.33; P < .001). Increasing fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels (P = 0.008) and sputum eosinophil counts (%) (P = 0.015) revealed a weak but significant association with LOC risk in the CIG. The sputum eosinophil counts (P = 0.039) and serum total immunoglobulin E levels (P = 0.014) were significantly higher in the LOC group than in the non-LOC group of the CIG.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the maintenance of ICS treatment may help keep patients' asthma under control. Furthermore, patients with LOC had significantly higher sputum eosinophil counts in the CIG than those in the non-LOC group. Therefore, continuous ICS use by patients with mild, well-controlled asthma could be associated with good clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: KCT0002234.

Qualitative Study of Practices and Challenges of Stepping Down Asthma Medication in Primary Care Across the UK

Background

Guidelines recommend that asthma treatment should be stepped down to the minimally effective dose that achieves symptom control to prevent medication side effects and reduce unnecessary costs. Little is known about the practice of stepping down and the challenges in primary care, where most asthma patients are managed.

Objective

To explore views, experiences, barriers and ideas, of doctors, nurses and pharmacists working in primary care, related to step down of asthma medication.

Methods

Primary care practitioners from across the UK participated in a survey and/or semi-structured interview. Questions explored four main areas: how asthma medication is reviewed, views on asthma guidelines, perceived barriers faced by healthcare workers and facilitators of stepping down. Qualitative content analysis enabled data coding of interview transcripts to identify major themes.

Results

A total of 274 participants responded to the survey, 29 participated in an interview (12 doctors, 9 nurses, and 8 pharmacists), working in GP practices from across the UK. Nearly half of the survey participants infrequently step down asthma medication (doctors=42.7%, nurses=46.3%). Four major themes related to barriers to stepping down were (i) lack of awareness of the need to step down, (ii) inertia to step down, driven by low confidence in ability, fear of consequences, and concern for who is responsible for stepping down, (iii) self-efficacy of ability to step down, influenced by lack of clear, applied guidance and limited training, and (iv) feasibility of step down, driven by a lack of systematic acceptance of stepping down and time. Strategies proposed to reduce overtreatment included education and training, improved gathering of evidence and guidance, and integrating step down into routine asthma care.

Conclusion

Failure to implement this guideline recommendation into everyday asthma management is influenced by several contributing factors. Future directions should include addressing evidence gaps, implementing clear and practical guidance, integration of step-down assessment into the asthma review, and education of professionals and patients.

[A clinical follow-up study of children with well-controlled asthma after withdrawal of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids]

OBJECTIVE

To study the incidence of acute attacks of asthma and dynamic changes in laboratory markers in children with well-controlled asthma after the withdrawal of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and to provide a basis for optimal long-term control regimens for children with asthma.

METHODS

A total of 63 children with well-controlled asthma were enrolled as subjects. According to their parents' wishes, they were continuously administered with ICS (ICS treatment group; n=35) and without ICS (ICS withdrawal group; n=28). They were followed up for 18 months. The incidence of acute attacks of asthma was evaluated, dynamic monitoring was performed for pulmonary function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and childhood asthma control test (C-ACT) was performed every three months.

RESULTS

At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up, there was no significant difference in FeNO between the ICS treatment and withdrawal groups (P>0.05). However, at 15 and 18 months of follow-up, the withdrawal group had a significantly higher level of FeNO than the ICS treatment group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the C-ACT score between the two groups at all time points of follow-up (P>0.05). At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of forced expiratory volume in 1 second, the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second to forced vital capacity, percentage of predicted maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF%), and maximal expiratory flow at 50% of vital capacity (MEF50) (P>0.05), while at 15 and 18 months of follow-up, the ICS treatment group had significantly higher MMEF% and MEF50 than the withdrawal group (P<0.05). During follow-up, 3 children (9%) in the ICS treatment group and 8 (29%) in the withdrawal group experienced acute attacks of asthma (P=0.0495).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous inhalation of low-dose ICS can maintain the stability of pulmonary function and reduce acute attacks of asthma in children with well-controlled asthma.

[A clinical follow-up study of children with well-controlled asthma after withdrawal of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids]

OBJECTIVE

To study the incidence of acute attacks of asthma and dynamic changes in laboratory markers in children with well-controlled asthma after the withdrawal of low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and to provide a basis for optimal long-term control regimens for children with asthma.

METHODS

A total of 63 children with well-controlled asthma were enrolled as subjects. According to their parents' wishes, they were continuously administered with ICS (ICS treatment group; n=35) and without ICS (ICS withdrawal group; n=28). They were followed up for 18 months. The incidence of acute attacks of asthma was evaluated, dynamic monitoring was performed for pulmonary function and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and childhood asthma control test (C-ACT) was performed every three months.

RESULTS

At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up, there was no significant difference in FeNO between the ICS treatment and withdrawal groups (P>0.05). However, at 15 and 18 months of follow-up, the withdrawal group had a significantly higher level of FeNO than the ICS treatment group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the C-ACT score between the two groups at all time points of follow-up (P>0.05). At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the percentage of forced expiratory volume in 1 second, the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second to forced vital capacity, percentage of predicted maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF%), and maximal expiratory flow at 50% of vital capacity (MEF50) (P>0.05), while at 15 and 18 months of follow-up, the ICS treatment group had significantly higher MMEF% and MEF50 than the withdrawal group (P<0.05). During follow-up, 3 children (9%) in the ICS treatment group and 8 (29%) in the withdrawal group experienced acute attacks of asthma (P=0.0495).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous inhalation of low-dose ICS can maintain the stability of pulmonary function and reduce acute attacks of asthma in children with well-controlled asthma.

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.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Adverse drug reactions associated with asthma medications in children: systematic review of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Respiratory medications are frequently prescribed for use in children. Several studies have reported information on the safety of asthma medications in clinical studies in adults, but information about safety in children is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To review published clinical trials on the occurrence and characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in children, reported for asthma medications licensed for paediatric use.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, IPA, and CINAHLs databases were searched from origin until July 2013 for studies reporting ADRs for beta2-receptor agonists, inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists and combination products in children from birth to age 17. Information on ADR reporting rates, age and gender, type and seriousness of ADRs, design, setting, observation period, type of assessors, and funding sources was extracted from the articles.

RESULTS

Literature searches resulted in 162 potential relevant articles. However only 12 of these studies were included in this review as they reported information about ADR rates from use of salmeterol, formoterol, fluticasone, montelukast, zafirlukast and budesonide/formoterol in children. The total population was approximately 3,000 children; the majority was 6- to 11-year-olds and two thirds of these were boys. The observation period varied from 1 to 22 months. The most frequently reported ADRs were exacerbation of asthma, respiratory tract infection, cough, fever and headache. Only few ADRs were rated as being serious, however a number of children dropped out of the clinical trials due to serious ADRs, and, therefore, the real number of serious ADRs is probably higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Few clinical trials reporting ADRs from use of asthma medications in children were identified in the literature. These studies reported only a few types of ADRs, the majority being non-serious.

Can the anti-inflammatory activities of β2-agonists be harnessed in the clinical setting?

Beta2-adrenoreceptor agonists (β2-agonists) are primarily bronchodilators, targeting airway smooth muscle and providing critical symptomatic relief in conditions such as bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These agents also possess broad-spectrum, secondary, anti-inflammatory properties. These are mediated largely, though not exclusively, via interactions with adenylyl cyclase-coupled β2-adrenoreceptors on a range of immune and inflammatory cells involved in the immunopathogenesis of acute and chronic inflammatory disorders of the airways. The clinical relevance of the anti-inflammatory actions of β2-agonists, although often effective in the experimental setting, remains contentious. The primary objectives of the current review are: firstly, to assess the mechanisms, both molecular and cell-associated, that may limit the anti-inflammatory efficacy of β2-agonists; secondly, to evaluate pharmacological strategies, several of which are recent and innovative, that may overcome these limitations. These are preceded by a consideration of the various types of β2-agonists, their clinical applications, and spectrum of anti-inflammatory activities, particularly those involving adenosine 3',5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase-mediated clearance of cytosolic calcium, and altered gene expression in immune and inflammatory cells.

Allergen immunotherapy: how to balance the different views from pulmonologists and allergists?

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the treatment characterizing the allergological approach to respiratory allergy. Unfortunately, most available data from the literature and current practice indicate that pulmonologists do no consider AIT when choosing the treatment strategy in patients with asthma. Indeed AIT, from its introduction in 1911 to nowadays, was unceasingly improved and has accumulated clear evidence on its effectiveness. Moreover, AIT has a characteristic not shared by drugs in the capacity to modify the natural history of asthma, due to its immunologic mechanisms of actions, and thus also works after the treatment withdrawal. This also makes AIT a clearly cost-effective treatment over time. It is surprising that pulmonologists, for whom asthma is a major disease to manage, do not consider AIT when choosing the optimal treatment in single patients. The insufficient information on AIT and the availability of allergen extracts with less than good quality are likely to be the most important factors influencing such an attitude. The current development of standardized, pharmaceutical-grade products for AIT seems capable of making allergen extracts comparable to drugs and to stimulate a rethinking of AIT's role in the treatment of asthma in pulmonologists. A reappraisal of the significance of the allergen-specific bronchial challenge could represent a further factor suggesting AIT as a reliable option.

Loss of asthma control in pediatric patients after discontinuation of long-acting Beta-agonists

Recent asthma recommendations advocate the use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) in uncontrolled asthma, but also stress the importance of stepping down this therapy once asthma control has been achieved. The objective of this study was to evaluate downtitration of LABA therapy in pediatric patients who are well-controlled on combination-inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapy. Clinical and physiologic outcomes were studied in children with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma after switching from combination (ICS/LABA) to monotherapy with ICS. Of the 54 patients, 34 (63%) were determined to have stable asthma after the switch, with a mean followup of 10.7 weeks. Twenty (37%) had loss of asthma control leading to addition of leukotriene receptor antagonists, increased ICS, or restarting LABA. There were 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic steroids. In patients with loss of control, there was a statistically significant decline in FEV(1) (-8% versus -1.9%, P = 0.03) and asthma control test (-3.2 versus -0.5, P = 0.03). This did not approach significance for FEF(25-75%), exhaled nitric oxide, lung volumes or airway reactivity. No demographic, asthma control measures, or lung function variables predicted loss of control. Pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma who discontinue LABA therapy have a 37% chance of losing asthma control resulting in augmented maintenance therapies. Recent recommendations of discontinuing LABA therapy as soon as control is achieved should be evaluated in a prospective long-term study.