Childhood evaluation of salmeterol tolerance--a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Comparison of the effect of fluticasone combined with salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma: review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of fluticasone + salmeterol and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

METHODS

Studies meeting specific selection criteria were selected from online databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Library. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were used to evaluate the effect size of continuous variables, while rate ratio (RR) and 95% CI were used for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies, including 8,272 pediatric asthma patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among these, 4,133 patients were in the salmeterol + fluticasone group. The changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second in children with asthma in the salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, WMD = 3.26, 95% CI: 1.52-5.00, P = 0.0002). Asthma exacerbation between two groups were significantly different (fixed effects model, RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, Z = 2.18, P = 0.03). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between salmeterol + fluticasone and fluticasone alone in the treatment of pediatric asthma (P > 0.05). When the control group was treated with double dose fluticasone, the difference of changes in FEV1 and asthma exacerbation in children with asthma between the two groups were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is better than fluticasone alone, and the efficacy of salmeterol + fluticasone is equal to doubling the dose of fluticasone in the treatment of pediatric asthma.

A comparison of tiotropium, long-acting β2-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists on lung function and exacerbations in paediatric patients with asthma

Diagnosing and treating asthma in paediatric patients remains challenging, with many children and adolescents remaining uncontrolled despite treatment. Selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment to add onto inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in children and adolescents with asthma who remain symptomatic despite ICS can be difficult. This literature review compares the efficacy and safety of long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) as add-on treatment to ICS in children and adolescents aged 4-17 years.A literature search identified a total of 29 studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LABAs versus placebo, two RCTs of LAMAs (tiotropium) versus placebo, and four RCTs of LTRA (montelukast), all as add-on to ICS. In these studies, tiotropium and LABAs provided greater improvements in lung function than LTRAs, when compared with placebo as add-on to ICS. Although exacerbation data were difficult to interpret, tiotropium reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids when added to ICS, with or without additional controllers. LABAs and LTRAs had a comparable risk of asthma exacerbations with placebo when added to ICS. When adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were analysed, LABAs, montelukast and tiotropium had a comparable safety profile with placebo.In conclusion, this literature review provides an up-to-date overview of the efficacy and safety of LABAs, LTRAs and LAMAs as add-on to ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. Overall, tiotropium and LABAs have similar efficacy, and provide greater improvements in lung function than montelukast as add-on to ICS. All three controller options have comparable safety profiles.

The evidence on tiotropium bromide in asthma: from the rationale to the bedside

Severe and poorly controlled asthma still accounts for a great portion of the patients affected. Disease control and future risk management have been identified by international guidelines as the main goals in patients with asthma. The need for new treatment approaches has led to reconsider anticholinergic drugs as an option for asthma treatment. Tiotropium is the first anticholinergic drug that has been approved for children and adults with poorly controlled asthma and is currently considered as an option for steps 4 and 5 of the Global Initiative for Asthma. In large randomized clinical trials enrolling patients with moderate to severe asthma, add-on therapy with tiotropium has demonstrated to be efficacious in improving lung function, decreasing risk of exacerbation and slowing the worsening of disease; accordingly, tiotropium demonstrated to be non inferior compared to long acting beta-agonists in the maintenance treatment along with medium to high inhaled corticosteroids. In view of the numerous ancillary effects acting on inflammation, airway remodeling, mucus production and cough reflex, along with the good safety profile and the broad spectrum of efficacy demonstrated in different disease phenotypes, tiotropium can represent a beneficial alternative in the therapeutic management of poorly controlled asthma. The present extensive narrative review presents the pharmacological and pathophysiological basis that guided the rationale for the introduction of tiotropium in asthma treatment algorithm, with a particular focus on its conventional and unconventional effects; finally, data on tiotropium efficacy and safety. from recent randomized clinical trials performed in all age categories will be extensively discussed.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Effectiveness of drug treatment strategies to prevent asthma exacerbations and increase symptom-free days in asthmatic children: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and safety of current maintenance therapies that include inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β-agonists (LABA) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) in preventing exacerbations and improving symptoms in pediatric asthma.

METHODS

A systematic review with network meta-analysis was conducted after a comprehensive search for relevant studies in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials databases, up to July 2014. Randomized clinical trials were selected comparing treatment strategies of the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. The full-text randomized clinical trials compared maintenance treatments for asthma in children (≤18 years) of ≥4 weeks duration, reporting exacerbations or symptom-free days. The primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were the rates of moderate/severe exacerbations and symptom-free days from baseline, respectively. Withdrawal rates were taken as the safety outcome.

RESULTS

Included in the network meta-analysis was 35 trials, comprising 12,010 patients. For both primary and secondary outcomes, combined ICS and LABA was ranked first in effectiveness (OR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97 and OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.94-1.61, respectively, compared with low-dose ICS), but the result of secondary outcomes was statistically insignificant. Low-dose ICS, medium- or high-dose ICS and combined ICS and LTRA strategies were comparable in effectiveness. ICS monotherapies, and ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA strategies were similarly safe. High-dose ICS had the highest rate of total withdrawals, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ICS and LABA treatments were most effective in preventing exacerbations among pediatric asthma patients. Medium- or high-dose ICS, combined ICS and LTRAs, and low-dose ICS treatments seem to be equally effective.

Management of Asthma in School age Children On Therapy (MASCOT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects one in eight children in the UK. National management guidelines have been available for many years but, unlike in adults, studies in children have been few, with their methodologies often based on inappropriate adult models. Sound medical evidence in support of the national guidelines for asthma management in children is lacking. The MASCOT study has been developed to address this need.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether adding salmeterol or montelukast to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) can reduce the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids in children with uncontrolled asthma.

DESIGN

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 4-week run-in period on a fluticasone propionate inhaler (100 µg twice daily) with inhaler technique correction. Patients who met the post run-in period eligibility criteria were randomised in the ratio of 1 : 1 : 1 and were followed for 48 weeks.

SETTING

Secondary care hospitals based in England and Scotland with recruitment from primary and secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Children aged 6-14 years with asthma requiring frequent short-acting beta-2 agonist relief, with symptoms of asthma resulting in nocturnal wakening and/or asthma that has interfered with usual activities.

INTERVENTIONS

Three groups were compared: (1) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg twice daily plus placebo tablet once daily; (2) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg and salmeterol 50 µg twice daily (combination inhaler) plus placebo tablet once daily; and (3) inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 µg twice daily plus montelukast 5-mg tablet once daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids over 48 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life as measured by the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities [PAQLQ(S)] and the Paediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ); time from randomisation to first exacerbation requiring treatment with a short course of oral corticosteroids; school attendance; hospital admissions; amount of rescue beta-2 agonist therapy prescribed; time from randomisation to treatment withdrawal (because of lack of efficacy or side effects); lung function at 48 weeks (as assessed by spirometry); cost-effectiveness; adverse events.

RESULTS

The study was closed prematurely because of poor recruitment and the target sample size of 450 was not achieved. In total, 898 children were screened to enter the trial, 166 were registered for the 4-week run-in period and 63 were randomised (group 1: 19, group 2: 23, group 3: 21), with 38 contributing data for the primary outcome analysis. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the outcomes. Adverse events were similar between the groups except for nervous system disorders, which were more frequently reported on fluticasone plus montelukast.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the MASCOT study it is not possible to conclude whether adding salmeterol or montelukast to ICSs can reduce the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids in children with uncontrolled asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03556343.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 4. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Salmeterol and fluticasone in young children with multiple-trigger wheeze

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend using an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β(2)-agonist (LABA) for childhood asthma when the symptoms are not controlled by ICS alone, but the appropriate use of LABAs in children continues to be debated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of an inhaled salmeterol and fluticasone propionate combination, 50/100 μg twice daily, with fluticasone propionate, 100 μg twice daily, or salmeterol, 50 μg twice daily, in children with multiple-trigger wheeze.

METHODS

A total of 105 children 4 to 7 years of age with multiple-trigger wheezing based on respiratory symptoms and bronchodilator responsiveness and/or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction without a viral cold were randomized to salmeterol-fluticasone, fluticasone propionate alone, or salmeterol alone via a metered-dose inhaler and a spacer device for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was exhaled nitric oxide level. Secondary outcomes were lung function measurements via impulse oscillometry, respiratory symptoms, and rescue medication use.

RESULTS

The exhaled nitric oxide levels decreased after all treatments, significantly more so after salmeterol-fluticasone and fluticasone than with salmeterol (adjusted geometric means at 8 weeks: salmeterol-fluticasone, 9.4 ppb; fluticasone, 9.3 ppb; salmeterol, 13.9 ppb; salmeterol-fluticasone vs salmeterol, P = .02; fluticasone vs salmeterol, P = .01). No treatment differences were found with respect to respiratory symptoms or median rescue use. Salmeterol-fluticasone resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in baseline lung function compared with fluticasone. All treatments were equally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The effects of salmeterol-fluticasone and fluticasone were comparable, although lung function improvement was better with salmeterol-fluticasone than with fluticasone alone. There is no obvious benefit in initiation therapy with salmeterol-fluticasone rather than fluticasone alone in the treatment of steroid-naive children with multiple-trigger wheeze.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pathway of clinical trial registry of Helsinki University:http://www.hus.fi/?Path=1;28;2530;9899;9900;23618;23903;33578.