The efficacy and safety of fluticasone/salmeterol compared to fluticasone in children younger than four years of age

Updates in the treatment of asthma in pediatrics: A review for pharmacists

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to summarize the management of asthma in children and to highlight different guideline-based approaches. This review also discusses literature regarding the use of corticosteroids, both inhaled and systemic, as well as biologic agents, in asthma management.

SUMMARY

Asthma is a common chronic respiratory condition in the pediatric population and has evolved into a highly patient-specific disease. Of the 2 main asthma guidelines, one developed by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program was recently published as a focused update in 2020. The other, from the Global Initiative for Asthma, focuses on a global strategy for management and prevention, with the most recent update in 2023. Both reports discuss diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of asthma in adults and children. Treatment is designed as a stepwise approach in both reports, although there are key differences. This article focuses on gaps in these guidelines, including the use of bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids with single maintenance and reliever therapy and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in children. It also reviews treatment in children under 5 years of age, although recommendations are limited due to a lack of evidence in this age group. Finally, this review discusses considerations for emerging treatments, including biologics, for patients who are difficult to treat.

CONCLUSION

New treatment strategies and agents have emerged in the treatment of pediatric asthma. Pharmacists play a key role in providing education about, dispensing, and recommending the newest evidence-based treatment options for children.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and fluticasone propionate monotherapy in step-up treatment of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that affects millions of children worldwide and can impair their quality of life and development. Inhaled glucocorticoids are the mainstay of asthma treatment, but some children require step-up therapy with additional drugs to achieve symptom control. Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FSC) has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function in adults. However, the evidence for its efficacy and safety in children is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide a comprehensive basis for treatment selection by summarizing existing clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of FSC compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy in children with asthma who require step-up treatment.

METHODS

Five online databases and three clinical trial registration platforms were systematically searched. The effect size and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the heterogeneity among the included studies.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were identified and a total of 9, 859 patients were involved. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the use of FSC was associated with a greater reduction in the incidence of asthma exacerbations than FP alone when the dose of FP was the same or when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. In addition, FSC resulted in a greater proportion of time with asthma-free and without the use of albuterol compared to FP alone when the duration of treatment exceeded 12 weeks. No significant differences were observed between FSC and FP alone in the incidence of drug-related adverse events and other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Both FSC and FP alone are viable options for the initial selection of step-up treatment in asthmatic children. While, FSC treatment demonstrates a greater likelihood of reducing asthma exacerbations which is particularly important for reducing the personnel, social and economic burden in children requiring step-up asthma treatment.

Diagnosis and management of asthma in infants and preschoolers

Asthma is one of the most common chronic disease affecting children, and it often starts in infancy and preschool years. In previous birth cohorts, frequent wheezing in early life was associated with the development of asthma in later childhood and reduced lung function persisting into adulthood. Preschool wheezing is considered an umbrella term for distinctive diseases with different clinical features (phenotypes), each of which may be related to different underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms (endotypes). The classification of phenotypes of early wheezing is needed to identify children at high risk for developing asthma later who might benefit from early intervention. However, diagnosis of asthma in infants and preschoolers is particularly difficult because objective lung function tests cannot be performed and definitive biomarkers are lacking. Moreover, management of early asthma is challenging because of its different phenotypic presentations. Many prediction models and asthma guidelines have been developed to provide useful information for physicians to assess young children with recurrent wheezing and manage them appropriately. Many recent studies have investigated the application of personalized medicine for early asthma by identifying specific phenotypes and biomarkers. Further researches, including genetic and molecular studies, are needed to establish a clear definition of asthma and develop more targeted therapeutic approaches in this age group.

Management of Preschool Wheezing: Guideline from the Emilia-Romagna Asthma (ERA) Study Group

Preschool wheezing should be considered an umbrella term for distinctive diseases with different observable and measurable phenotypes. Despite many efforts, there is a large gap in knowledge regarding management of preschool wheezing. In order to fill this lack of knowledge, the aim of these guidelines was to define management of wheezing disorders in preschool children (aged up to 5 years). A multidisciplinary panel of experts of the Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy, addressed twelve different key questions regarding the management of preschool wheezing. Clinical questions have been formulated by the expert panel using the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) and systematic reviews have been conducted on PubMed to answer these specific questions, with the aim of formulating recommendations. The GRADE approach has been used for each selected paper, to assess the quality of the evidence and the degree of recommendations. These guidelines represent, in our opinion, the most complete and up-to-date collection of recommendations on preschool wheezing to guide pediatricians in the management of their patients, standardizing approaches. Undoubtedly, more research is needed to find objective biomarkers and understand underlying mechanisms to assess phenotype and endotype and to personalize targeted treatment.

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.

New Perspectives in the Management of Mild to Moderate Asthma in Children

Mild to moderate asthma makes up the greatest proportion of all asthma severities in childhood. Children who are treated with steps 1–2 are defined as having mild asthma and step 3 as having moderate asthma, according to the guidelines. Although many studies focused on the management of severe asthma over the last decade, there have also been important changes and improvements in the management of mild to moderate asthma. In this article, new perspectives in the management of children with mild to moderate asthma will be reviewed and compared according to the two major guidelines.

Tiotropium as an Add-on Treatment Option for Severe Uncontrolled Asthma in Preschool Patients

Background

Toddlers with asthma suffer disproportionally more than school-aged children from exacerbations with emergency visits and hospital admissions despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment. A recent trial for children ≤5 years showed tolerability of tiotropium and potential to reduce asthma-related events.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic outpatient records (2017‒2019) of children <6 years treated with ICS plus long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) plus tiotropium as an add-on for uncontrolled severe asthma. The primary endpoint was a comparison of systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions 6 months before and after ICS/LABA/tiotropium start. Secondary endpoints included physician visits, hospitalisations and antibiotic prescriptions. We compared outcomes with children without asthma matched for age, sex, season and screening date.

Results

Compared with a mean 2.42 (95% CI: 1.75, 3.36) SCS courses per patient within 6 months prior to ICS/LABA/tiotropium, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.25, 1.08) SCS courses per patient were prescribed within 6 months after starting ICS/LABA/tiotropium (P<0.001). Physician visits dropped from 9.23 (95% CI: 7.15, 12.72) to 5.76 (95% CI: 3.10, 7.70) per patient (P<0.01). Nineteen hospitalisations were recorded 6 months before ICS/LABA/tiotropium compared with one hospitalisation after (P<0.01). A mean 1.79 antibiotic courses (95% CI: 1.22, 2.23) per patient were prescribed before ICS/LABA/tiotropium compared with 0.74 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.00) after ICS/LABA/tiotropium (P<0.001). Hospitalisation rates for patients at observation end were not statistically different from healthy controls before/after matching.

Interpretation

Our retrospective study showed that adding tiotropium to ICS/LABA is a new treatment option for patients with severe preschool asthma; however, larger confirmatory studies are needed.

Hospitalization, Asthma Phenotypes, and Readmission Rates in Pre-school Asthma

Objective: Children with pre-school asthma suffer disproportionally more often from severe asthma exacerbations with emergency visits and hospital admissions compared to school children. Despite this high disease burden, there are only a few reports looking at this particular severe asthma cohort. Similarly, there is little real-life research on the distribution of asthma phenotypes and personalized treatment at discharge in this age group. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of the electronic charts of all children aged 1-5 years with asthma hospitalizations (ICD J45) at the Frankfurt University between 2008 and 2017. An acute severe asthma exacerbation was defined as dyspnea, oxygen demand, and/or systemic steroid therapy. Age, gender, duration of hospitalization, asthma phenotype, treatment, and readmission rate were analyzed. Results: Of 572 patients, 205 met the definition of acute severe asthma. The phenotypic characterization showed 56.1% had allergic asthma, 15.2% eosinophilic asthma and 28.7% non-allergic asthma. Of these patients, 71.7% were discharged with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS + long-acting-beta-agonists (LABA), 15.1% with leukotriene antagonists (LTRA) and 7.3% salbutamol on demand. The rate of emergency presentations (emergency department and readmission) within 12 months after discharge was high (n = 42; 20.5%). No phenotype tailored treatment was detectable. Neither the number of eosinophils (>300/μl) nor the treatment at discharge had an effect on emergency visits and readmission rate. Conclusion: Despite protective therapy with ICS, ICS + LABA, or LTRA, the readmission rate was high. Thus, current care and treatment strategies should be reevaluated continuously, in order to better control asthma in pre-school children and prevent hospitalization.

2020 Brazilian Thoracic Association recommendations for the management of asthma

The pharmacological management of asthma has changed considerably in recent decades, as it has come to be understood that it is a complex, heterogeneous disease with different phenotypes and endotypes. It is now clear that the goal of asthma treatment should be to achieve and maintain control of the disease, as well as to minimize the risks (of exacerbations, disease instability, accelerated loss of lung function, and adverse treatment effects). That requires an approach that is personalized in terms of the pharmacological treatment, patient education, written action plan, training in correct inhaler use, and review of the inhaler technique at each office visit. A panel of 22 pulmonologists was invited to perform a critical review of recent evidence of pharmacological treatment of asthma and to prepare this set of recommendations, a treatment guide tailored to use in Brazil. The topics or questions related to the most significant changes in concepts, and consequently in the management of asthma in clinical practice, were chosen by a panel of experts. To formulate these recommendations, we asked each expert to perform a critical review of a topic or to respond to a question, on the basis of evidence in the literature. In a second phase, three experts discussed and structured all texts submitted by the others. That was followed by a third phase, in which all of the experts reviewed and discussed each recommendation. These recommendations, which are intended for physicians involved in the treatment of asthma, apply to asthma patients of all ages.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone/salmeterol compared to fluticasone in children younger than four years of age

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone propionate 50 μg/salmeterol xinafoate 25 μg (FP/SAL) is widely used in adults and children with asthma, but there is sparse information on its use in very young children.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, controlled trial conducted in children aged 8 months to 4 years. During a 2-week run-in period, they all received FP twice daily. At randomization, they commenced FP/SAL or FP twice daily for 8 weeks. All were then given FP/SAL only, in a 16-week open-label study continuation. Medications were inhaled through an AeroChamber Plus with attached face mask. The primary end-point was mean change in total asthma symptom scores from baseline to the last 7 days of the double-blind period. Analyses were undertaken in all children randomized to treatment and who received at least one dose of study medication.

RESULTS

Three hundred children were randomized 1:1 to receive FP/SAL or FP. Mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom scores was -3.97 for FP/SAL and -3.01 with FP. The between-group difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.21; 95% confidence interval: -2.47, 0.54). No new safety signals were seen with FP/SAL.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized, double-blind study of this size to evaluate FP/SAL in very young children with asthma. FP/SAL did not show superior efficacy to FP; no clear add-on effect of SAL was demonstrated. No clinically significant differences in safety were noted with FP/SAL usage.