Prioritizing Systemic Corticosteroid Treatments to Mitigate Relapse in Adults With Acute Asthma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Oral corticosteroids stewardship for asthma in adults and adolescents: A position paper from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are frequently used for asthma treatment. This medication is highly effective for both acute and chronic diseases, but evidence indicates that indiscriminate OCS use is common, posing a risk of serious side effects and irreversible harm. There is now an urgent need to introduce OCS stewardship approaches, akin to successful initiatives that optimized appropriate antibiotic usage. The aim of this TSANZ (Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand) position paper is to review current knowledge pertaining to OCS use in asthma and then delineate principles of OCS stewardship. Recent evidence indicates overuse and over-reliance on OCS for asthma and that doses >1000 mg prednisolone-equivalent cumulatively are likely to have serious side effects and adverse outcomes. Patient perspectives emphasize the detrimental impacts of OCS-related side effects such as weight gain, insomnia, mood disturbances and skin changes. Improvements in asthma control and prevention of exacerbations can be achieved by improved inhaler technique, adherence to therapy, asthma education, smoking cessation, multidisciplinary review, optimized medications and other strategies. Recently, add-on therapies including novel biological agents and macrolide antibiotics have demonstrated reductions in OCS requirements. Harm reduction may also be achieved through identification and mitigation of predictable adverse effects. OCS stewardship should entail greater awareness of appropriate indications for OCS prescription, risk-benefits of OCS medications, side effects, effective add-on therapies and multidisciplinary review. If implemented, OCS stewardship can ensure that clinicians and patients with asthma are aware that OCS should not be used lightly, while providing reassurance that asthma can be controlled in most people without frequent use of OCS.

Pharmacotherapeutic strategies for critical asthma syndrome: a look at the state of the art

INTRODUCTION

'Critical Asthma Syndrome' (CAS) is an umbrella term proposed to include several forms of asthma, responsible for acute and life-threatening exacerbations. CAS requires urgent and adequate supportive and pharmacological treatments to prevent serious outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this review is to discuss current knowledge on the pharmacotherapeutic strategies for treatment of CAS.

EXPERT OPINION

Airflow limitation, airway wall edema, and mucus plugs are the pathophysiological targets of pharmacological therapies. Strategies to achieve these goals are based on the use of various classes of drugs. Inhaled beta2-agonists are the mainstay of the initial therapy of CAS. Inhaled anticholinergic agents may be considered in the treatment of CAS in addition to beta 2 agonists. Systemic corticosteroids should be administered as soon as possible in order to counteract airway inflammation and restore normal airway sensitivity. The effectiveness of pharmacological therapies in CAS is linked not only to the timely use of drugsbut also to the dosage and route of administration. Early recognition and aggressive treatment are essential for the management of CAS; however, prevention is the best cure. Although significant progress has been made, further efforts are needed to implement an optimal exacerbation prevention strategy.

Mechanisms and Management of Asthma Exacerbations

Acute asthma remains an important medical emergency, the most frequent cause of acute admissions in children and a major source of morbidity for adults with asthma. In all ages with asthma, the presence of exacerbations is an important defining characteristic of asthma severity. In this review, we assess the epidemiology of acute asthma, the triggers of acute exacerbations, and the mechanisms that underlie these exacerbations. We also assess current treatments that prevent exacerbations, with an emphasis on the role of type 2 airway inflammation in the context of acute exacerbations and the novel treatments that effectively target this. Finally we review current management strategies of the exacerbations themselves.

Intramuscular versus oral corticosteroids to reduce relapses following discharge from the emergency department for acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Acute asthma is a common cause of presentations to acute care centres, such as the emergency department (ED), and while the majority of patients can be discharged, relapse requiring additional medical care is common. Systemic corticosteroids are a major part in the treatment of moderate to severe acute asthma; however, there is no clear evidence regarding the most effective route of administration for improving outcomes in patients discharged from acute care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of a single dose of intramuscular (IM) corticosteroids provided prior to discharge compared to a short course of oral corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma patients discharged from an ED or equivalent acute care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Airways Group conducted searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, most recently on 14 March 2018. In addition in April 2017 we completed an extensive search of nine electronic databases including Medline, Embase, EBM ALL, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and LILACS. Furthermore, we searched the grey literature to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials if they compared the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) versus oral corticosteroids to treat paediatric or adult patients presenting with acute asthma to an ED or equivalent acute care setting. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility and study quality. We resolved disagreements via a third party and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We reported continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model. We reported heterogeneity using I² and Cochran Q statistics. We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 804 participants (IM = 402 participants; oral = 402 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. Four studies enrolled children (n = 245 participants), while five studies enrolled adults (n = 559 participants). All of the studies recruited participants presenting to an ED, except one study which recruited participants attending a primary care clinic. All of the paediatric studies compared intramuscular (IM) dexamethasone to oral prednisone/prednisolone. In the adult studies, the IM corticosteroid provided ranged from methylprednisolone, betamethasone, dexamethasone, or triamcinolone, while the regimen of oral corticosteroids provided consisted of prednisone, methylprednisolone, or dexamethasone. Only five studies were placebo controlled. For the purposes of this review, we did not take corticosteroid dose equivalency into account in the analysis. The most common co-intervention provided to participants during the acute care visit included short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA), methylxanthines, and ipratropium bromide. In some instances, some studies reported providing some participants with supplemental oral or IV corticosteroids during their stay in the ED. Co-interventions provided to participants at discharge consisted primarily of SABA, methylxanthine, long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA), and ipratropium bromide. The risk of bias of the included studies ranged from unclear to high across various domains. The primary outcome of interest was relapse to additional care defined as an unscheduled visit to a health practitioner for worsening asthma symptoms, or requiring subsequent treatment with corticosteroids which may have occurred at any time point after discharge from the ED.We found intramuscular and oral corticosteroids to be similarly effective in reducing the risk for relapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 9 studies, 804 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). We found no subgroup differences in relapse rates between paediatric and adult participants (P = 0.71), relapse occurring within or after 10 days post-discharge (P = 0.22), or participants with mild/moderate or severe exacerbations (P = 0.35). While we found no statistical difference between participants receiving IM versus oral corticosteroids regarding the risk for adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 5 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), an estimated 50 fewer patients per 1000 receiving IM corticosteroids reported experiencing adverse events (95% from 106 fewer to 21 more). We found inconsistent reporting of specific adverse events across the studies. There were no differences in the frequency of specific adverse events including nausea and vomiting, pain, swelling, redness, insomnia, or personality changes. We did not seek additional adverse events data.Participants receiving IM corticosteroids or oral corticosteroids both reported decreases in peak expiratory flow (MD -7.78 L/min, 95% CI -38.83 L/min to 23.28 L/min; 4 studies, 272 participants; I² = 33%; moderate-quality evidence), similar symptom persistence (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.20; 3 studies, 80 participants; I² = 44%; low-quality evidence), and 24-hour beta-agonist use (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; 2 studies, 48 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to identify whether IM corticosteroids are more effective in reducing relapse compared to oral corticosteroids among children or adults discharged from an ED or equivalent acute care setting for acute asthma. While we found no statistical differences, patients receiving IM corticosteroids reported fewer adverse events. Additional studies comparing the effectiveness of IM versus oral corticosteroids could provide further evidence clarity. Furthermore, there is a need for studies comparing different IM corticosteroids (e.g. IM dexamethasone versus IM methylprednisone) and different oral corticosteroids (e.g. oral dexamethasone versus oral prednisone), with consideration for dosing and pharmacokinetic properties, to better identify the optimal IM or oral corticosteroid regimens to improve patient outcomes. Other factors, such as patient preference and potential issues with adherence, may dictate practitioner prescribing.