Assessment of various second-line medications in addition to inhaled corticosteroid in asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

Prevalence and pattern of usage of complementary and alternative medicine among south Indian asthma patients in a tertiary care hospital

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to investigate the prevalence of CAM users among asthmatic patients in a tertiary care South Indian hospital.

METHODS

Prospective, cross sectional study was conducted in 394 asthmatic patients.

RESULTS

30.4% of the patients used CAM therapies. The most commonly used CAM treatment was herbal medicine followed by pranayama (controlled breathing exercises). Most of the CAM users were found to be in lower middle class. The baseline characteristics of the CAM users and the non CAM users were found to be similar except for education and socioeconomic status (p < .008). Among the CAM users, none of the patients disclosed about their CAM treatment to their pulmonologists.

CONCLUSION

Patients must be educated about CAM therapies and they must be advised to discuss all their treatment related issues with treating clinicians. Healthcare professionals should be familiar with the merits and demerits of using CAM therapy so that they could provide proper guidance to their patients.

Steroid sparing effects of doxofylline

Glucocorticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are growing concerns about the side effect profile of this class of drug, particularly an increased risk of pneumonia. Over the last two decades there have been many attempts to find drugs to allow a reduction of glucocorticosteroids, including xanthines such as theophylline. Use of xanthines has been shown to lead to a reduction in the requirement for glucocorticosteroids, although xanthines also have a narrow therapeutic window limiting their wider use. Doxofylline is another xanthine that has been shown to be of clinical benefit in patients with asthma or COPD, but to have a wider therapeutic window than theophylline. In the present study we have demonstrated that doxofylline produces a clear steroid sparing effect in both an allergic and a non-allergic model of lung inflammation. Thus, we have shown that concomitant treatment with a low dose of doxofylline and a low dose of the glucocorticosteroid dexamethasone (that alone had no effect) significantly reduced both allergen-induced eosinophil infiltration into the lungs of allergic mice, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced neutrophil infiltration into the lung, equivalent to a higher dose of each drug. Our results suggest that doxofylline demonstrates significant anti-inflammatory activity in the lung which can result in significant steroid sparing activity.

Periostin - A Novel Systemic Biomarker for Eosinophilic Airway Inflammation: A Case Control Study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic airway inflammation and remodelling are fundamental features of asthma. The molecular phenotypes in asthma are Th2 high and Th2 low. Serum periostin is a biomarker which aid in understanding Th2 high eosinophilic asthma.

AIM

The present study aimed to identify whether or not serum periostin is a systemic biomarker for eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthmatics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a prospective, case control study. Patients who presented with consistent symptoms of asthma and confirmed by spirometry with reversibility were the cases. The controls were healthy subjects who had no history of lung disease with normal lung function. The sputum and blood samples were collected from both the groups. Sputum eosinophils, Absolute Eosinophil Counts (AEC) and serum periostin levels were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The study comprised of 101 participants in which 30 were controls and 71 were cases. In the study group, mean post FEV1 was 64.45. There was a positive correlation of sputum eosinophils with severity of obstruction. The ROC curve analysis showed the cut-off value of 24.556 for serum periostin with the p-value of <0.001. As the severity of obstruction increased, the serum periostin levels were also found to be increased. Serum periostin had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.18% and 86.67% with a diagnostic accuracy of 94.06%.

CONCLUSION

Serum periostin appears to be a more sensitive tool for detection of airflow limitation in asthmatic patients with a Th2 high eosinophilic phenotype when compared to AEC and sputum eosinophils.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to combination long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Maintenance treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) can relieve asthma symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but there are limited treatment options for people who do not gain control on combination LABA/ICS. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) are a class of inhaled drug which have been effective for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now becoming available for people with asthma to take alongside their LABA/ICS inhaler.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to combination long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adults whose asthma is not well controlled by LABA/ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to January 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO trials portal, and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared LAMA as an add-on to LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS alone for adults with asthma. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), validated measures of asthma control, and serious adverse events (including mortality).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened searches and independently extracted details on risk of bias and numerical data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four double-blind, double-dummy trials comparing LAMA to placebo, including 1197 people with asthma taking combination LABA/ICS. One of the trials was designed to study glycopyrronium bromide but was withdrawn prior to enrolment, and the other three all studied tiotropium bromide (mostly 5 µg once daily via Respimat) over 48 to 52 weeks. People in the trials had a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 55% of their predicted value, indicating severe asthma.People randomised to take tiotropium add-on had fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than those continuing to take LABA/ICS alone, but the confidence intervals did not rule out no difference (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence). Over 48 weeks, 328 out of 1000 people taking their usual LABA/ICS would have to take oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation compared with 271 if they took tiotropium as well (95% CI 218 to 333 per 1000). Analyses comparing the number of exacerbations per patient in each group (rate ratio) and the time until first exacerbation (hazard ratio) were in keeping with the main result. Quality of life, as measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was no better for those taking tiotropium add-on than for those taking LABA/ICS alone when considered in light of the 0.5 minimal clinically important difference on the scale (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.20), and evidence for whether tiotropium increased or decreased serious adverse events in this population was inconsistent (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47; I(2) = 76%).Within the secondary outcomes, exacerbations requiring hospital admission were too rare to tell whether tiotropium was beneficial over LABA/ICS alone. There was high quality evidence showing benefits to lung function (trough FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC)) and potentially small benefits to asthma control. People taking tiotropium add-on were less likely to experience non-serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium add-on may have additional benefits over LABA/ICS alone in reducing the need for rescue oral steroids in people with severe asthma. The effect was imprecise, and there was no evidence for other LAMA preparations. Possible benefits on quality of life were negligible, and evidence for the effect on serious adverse events was inconsistent. There are likely to be small added benefits for tiotropium Respimat 5 µg daily on lung function and asthma control over LABA/ICS alone and fewer non-serious adverse events. The benefit of tiotropium add-on on the frequency of hospital admission is still unknown, despite year-long trials.Ongoing and future trials should clearly describe participants' background medications to help clinicians judge how the findings relate to stepwise care. If studies test LAMAs other than tiotropium Respimat for asthma, they should be at least six months long and use accepted and validated outcomes to allow comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between different preparations.

Effectiveness of vitamin D3 in severe persistent asthmatic patients: A double blind, randomized, clinical study

Objective:

To assess the pulmonary function and quality of life in asthma patients receiving vitamin D₃ supplementation with inhaled budesonide and formoterol.

Materials and Methods:

This was a double blinded, randomized, comparative study. Patients were recruited as per the study criteria and randomized into two groups: usual care group (n = 69) patients received budesonide (800 μg) with formoterol (24 μg) and intervention care group (n = 72) patients received vitamin D₃ (1000 IU) supplementation along with budesonide (800 μg) plus formoterol (24 μg) for a period of 6 months.

Results:

A total of 140 patients completed the study. Significant within-group improvement and non-significant between-group improvement is observed with respect to FEV₁. In terms of health-related quality of life, within-group comparison revealed a significant (P < 0.05) improvement in all the domains of SGRQ. However, between-group comparisons showed statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement in symptom, impact and total scores.

Conclusion:

On the basis of our findings, we conclude that supplementation of vitamin D₃ is effective in improving the quality of life rather than pulmonary function in severe asthmatics. However, further studies are warranted to substantiate the present findings.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus higher dose ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), a class of drugs with proven effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are being considered as an add-on option for adults with asthma whose condition is uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is important to assess the safety and efficacy of LAMA add-on as an alternative to the prolonged use of higher doses of ICS, which are known to cause undesirable side effects in some people.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of adding a LAMA to any dose of ICS versus increasing the dose of ICS, for uncontrolled asthma in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) from its inception in 1995 to April 2015, imposing no restriction on language of publication. We also handsearched trial registries, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, as well as manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel or cross-over randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 weeks, in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled on ICS alone were randomised to treatment with LAMA add-on to ICS or with an increased dose of ICS. Trials were excluded if patients were taking long-acting beta2-agonists during the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the searches and extracted data from studies meeting all the inclusion criteria. We used Covidence to manage duplicate screening, data extraction and risk of bias judgements, and to form a consensus where discrepancies arose. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), effects on quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

One cross-over randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. The trial was performed in 210 patients with moderate to severe asthma and compared the use of the LAMA tiotropium bromide with double dose beclomethasone (an ICS) using a cross-over design and 14-week treatment periods.Compared with people taking a double dose of ICS, fewer people taking a LAMA add-on had an exacerbation requiring treatment with OCS (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.43) or an exacerbation resulting in emergency department admission (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77), but the confidence intervals for both outcomes did not exclude the possibility that double dose ICS was more effective. Serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation occurred in similarly low numbers of people taking each treatment, but confidence intervals were too wide to suggest that the two treatment options were equivalent.Asthma-related quality of life was similar in both treatment groups (mean difference (MD) in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI - 0.07 to 0.27). Those taking LAMA add-on scored slightly better on a scale measuring asthma control than those increasing their ICS dose (MD in change from baseline - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.02), although the difference was clinically small. Evidence was deemed low quality for both quality of life and asthma control.There was moderate-quality evidence that participants' trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 100 mL better when taking LAMA add-on than with increased ICS dose (MD in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one randomised trial was found, comparing tiotropium add-on to increased dose beclomethasone. Differences between the treatments were too small or imprecise to understand whether adding a LAMA to ICS is safer or more effective than increasing the dose of ICS, and there is a possibility of carry-over effects due to the study's cross-over design. LAMA add-on may lead to more improvement in lung function (FEV1) than an increased dose of ICS.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA against other treatments, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma management, and this review should be updated as results from future trials emerge. Studies assessing the role of LAMA add-on should be longer and include a double-ICS treatment arm so that the results can be interpreted in the context of the guideline-recommended treatment options that are available to physicians.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus addition of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but have important safety concerns in asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have confirmed efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now being considered as an alternative add-on therapy for people with uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LAMA to ICS compared with adding a LABA for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. We searched additional resources to pick up unpublished studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization trials portal, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel and cross-over RCTs in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled with ICS alone were randomised to receive LAMA add-on or LABA add-on for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the electronic and additional searches and extracted data from study reports. We used Covidence for duplicate screening, extraction of study characteristics and numerical data, and risk of bias ratings.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS.Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses.People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies).There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant.More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.

Assessment of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide for the treatment of asthma: which is the best among the second-line treatment? A randomized trial

PURPOSE

Data comparing various second-line treatments for asthma with subjective and objective assessment are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with a low-dose budesonide in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients, all of whom were concurrently using inhaled budesonide (400 µg), were treated for 6 months with formoterol (12 µg), montelukast (10 mg), doxofylline (400 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg). Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, asthma symptom scores (daytime and nighttime), and assessment of tolerability and rescue medication use.

FINDINGS

A total of 297 patients completed the study. In all 4 groups, significant improvements were observed in all the outcome measures, with formoterol treatment having greater and earlier improvements than the other 3 second-line controller medications with budesonide. Among the second-line treatments, monteradlukast improved the FEV1 from day 45 (P < 0.01), SGRQ scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), daytime scores from day 30 (P < 0.05), nighttime scores from day 30 (P < 0.0001), and rescue medication use from day 15 (P < .0001) at a faster rate than doxofylline or tiotropium with budesonide. No patients discontinued the treatment because of adverse reactions.

IMPLICATIONS

Among the tested second-line treatment regimens, the budesonide/montelukast combination was found to be superior to either the budesonide/doxofylline or budesonide/tiotropium combination in all the outcome measures without adversely affecting the tolerability of the patients. Further clinical studies with blinding techniques are likely to be useful.