Inhaled corticosteroids, combined with long-acting beta(2)-agonists, improve the perception of bronchoconstriction in asthma

Pulmonary myeloid cell uptake of biodegradable nanoparticles conjugated with an anti-fibrotic agent provides a novel strategy for treating chronic allergic airways disease

Asthma (chronic allergic airways disease, AAD) is characterized by airway inflammation (AI), airway remodeling (AWR) and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). Current treatments for AAD mainly focus on targeting AI and its contribution AHR, with the use of corticosteroids. However, there are no therapies for the direct treatment of AWR, which can contribute to airway obstruction, AHR and corticosteroid resistance independently of AI. The acute heart failure drug, serelaxin (recombinant human gene-2 relaxin, RLX), has potential anti-remodeling and anti-fibrotic effects but only when continuously infused or injected to overcome its short half-life. To alleviate this limitation, we conjugated serelaxin to biodegradable and noninflammatory nanoparticles (NP-RLX) and evaluated their therapeutic potential on measures of AI, AWR and AHR, when intranasally delivered to a preclinical rodent model of chronic AAD and TGF-β1-stimulated collagen gel contraction from asthma patient-derived myofibroblasts. NP-RLX was preferentially taken-up by CD206⁺-infiltrating and CD68⁺-tissue resident alveolar macrophages. Furthermore, NP-RLX ameliorated the chronic AAD-induced AI, pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α), chemokines (CCL2, CCL11) and the pro-fibrotic TGF-β1/IL-1β axis on AWR and resulting AHR, as well as human myofibroblast-induced collagen gel contraction, to a similar extent as unconjugated RLX. Hence, NP-RLX represents a novel strategy for treating the central features of asthma.

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma.

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.

Mechanisms, measurement and management of exertional dyspnoea in asthma: Number 5 in the Series "Exertional dyspnoea" Edited by Pierantonio Laveneziana and Piergiuseppe Agostoni

Asthma is a heterogeneous condition, with dyspnoea during exercise affecting individuals to a variable degree. This narrative review explores the mechanisms and measurement of exertional dyspnoea in asthma and summarises the available evidence for the efficacy of various interventions on exertional dyspnoea. Studies on the mechanisms of dyspnoea in asthma have largely utilised direct bronchoprovocation challenges, rather than exercise, which may invoke different physiological mechanisms. Thus, the description of dyspnoea during methacholine challenge can differ from what is experienced during daily activities, including exercise. Dyspnoea perception during exercise is influenced by many interacting variables, such as asthma severity and phenotype, bronchoconstriction, dynamic hyperinflation, respiratory drive and psychological factors. In addition to the intensity of dyspnoea, the qualitative description of dyspnoea may give important clues as to the underlying mechanism and may be an important endpoint for future interventional studies. There is currently little evidence demonstrating whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions specifically improve exertional dyspnoea, which is an important area for future research.

Reduced airway microbiota diversity is associated with elevated allergic respiratory inflammation

BACKGROUND

An increased prevalence of allergic disorders in developed countries has been associated with decreased exposure to environmental micro-organisms and an alteration of microbiota colonization. An appropriate model is needed to investigate the mechanisms by which hygiene environment-driven changes in microbiota could regulate allergic disorders.

OBJECTIVE

To discover the correlation between the higher incidence and severity of allergies with the relative hygiene environment in a developed country.

METHODS

Allergic respiratory inflammation was induced in specific pathogen-free and control rats by sensitization and challenge with ovalbumin. The diversity of lower airway bacteria community was analyzed by polymerase chain reaction denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequencing before ovalbumin sensitization. Allergic respiratory inflammation resulting in cellular infiltrate was measured after the last challenge.

RESULTS

The diversity of microbiota in the airway of specific pathogen-free rats decreased compared with the control rats; the more frequent microbiota in the control rats were Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes. In addition, increased nasal rubbing and sneezing combined with exaggerated IgE production and leukocyte number was observed in ovalbumin-treated specific pathogen-free rats.

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that the excessive "hygienic" environment resulted in a decreased bacterial diversity in the airway during infancy, leading to an increased susceptibility to allergic disease.

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma well controlled by LABA and inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".

OBJECTIVES

To compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.Prespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.Stopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).People who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.Too few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided.

Stopping long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for children with asthma well controlled on LABA and inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic medical condition among children and is one of the most common causes of hospitalisation and medical visits. Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, hospital stays, or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for children with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The US Food and Drug Administration has issued a 'black box' warning for LABA in asthma, and now recommends that they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect on asthma control and adverse effects of stepping down to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-only therapy versus continuing ICS plus LABA in children whose asthma is well controlled on combined ICS and LABA therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, and also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to the present, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. The most recent search was done in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials of at least eight weeks' duration, available as published full text, abstract only, or unpublished data. We excluded studies including participants with other chronic respiratory comorbidities (for example bronchiectasis).We looked for studies in which children (18 years or younger) whose asthma was well controlled on any dose of ICS and LABA combination therapy were randomised to: a) step-down therapy to ICS alone or b) continued use of ICS and LABA.We included any dose of LABA (formoterol, salmeterol, vilanterol) and any dose of ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, mometasone, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate, fluticasone furoate, triamcinolone) delivered in a combination inhaler or in separate inhalers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records identified in the searches. We used a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel to manage searches and document reasons for inclusion and exclusion, and to extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting the inclusion criteria.The prespecified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral steroids, asthma control, and all-cause serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Despite conducting extensive searches of electronic databases, trial registries and manufacturers' websites we identified no trials matching the inclusion criteria.After removing duplicates, we screened 1031 abstracts, and assessed 43 full-text articles for inclusion. We identified several adult studies, which will be summarised in a separate review (Ahmad 2014). The most common reasons for exclusion after viewing full texts were 'wrong comparison' (n = 22) and 'adult population' (n = 18).Some adult studies recruited adolescents from age 15, but none reported data separately for those under 18.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence from randomised trials to inform the discontinuation of LABAs in children once asthma control is achieved with ICS plus LABA. It is disappointing that such an important issue has not been studied, and a randomised double-blind trial recruiting children who are controlled on ICS plus LABA is warranted. The study should be large enough to assess children of different ages, and to measure the important safety and efficacy outcomes suggested in this review over at least six months.The only randomised evidence for stopping LABA has been conducted in adults; it will be summarised in a separate review.

Perception of bronchoconstriction: a complementary disease marker in children with asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma guidelines use symptoms as the most important aspect of asthma control. Symptom perception varies widely between individuals. Over-perception as well as underperception of bronchoconstriction could have a negative effect on asthma management. We hypothesized that perception of bronchoconstriction in childhood asthma is not related to common measures of disease control. For that reason, we examined the clinical determinants of the perception of bronchoconstriction and the repeatability of perception measurements.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In school-age children with moderately severe atopic asthma, we measured the perception of bronchoconstriction (decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) during methacholine bronchoprovocation challenges. The perception of bronchoconstriction was assessed as the slope of the relation between FEV(1) and Borg score, and as the Borg score at a 20% decrease in FEV(1) from baseline during the provocation test (PS(20)). Data from subjects who had a 20% or more decrease in FEV(1) (n = 112) were used for the analysis. Fifty-four children repeated the test after 3 months. Symptoms, use of rescue medication, and peak expiratory flows were scored in diaries during the 2 weeks before testing.

RESULTS

Symptom perception was significantly better in children without (PD(20) > 1570 μg, n = 28) than in children with airway hyperresponsiveness (PD(20) ≤ 1570 μg, n = 112), slope 0.22 versus 0.13 respectively (p < .001). Borg scores correlated with PD(20) (p = .01), baseline FEV(1) (only for slope, p = .04), and use of rescue beta agonist (p = .01), but not with other aspects of asthma control. Repeatability of Borg scores was good (slope: R = 0.59, PS(20): R = 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Poorer symptom perception in asthmatic children correlated with hyperresponsiveness, and was associated with lower baseline FEV(1) and less use of rescue bronchodilators. This suggests that the measurement of symptom perception should be taken into account in individual management plans for children with asthma.

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta2-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta2-agonists are safe. This is an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids in comparison to the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search is August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel design controlled clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We have included 35 studies (13,447 participants) in adults and adolescents, and 5 studies (1862 participants) in children in this review. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low, and we obtained data on serious adverse events from all studies. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) who were randomised to salmeterol were given fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.Seven deaths occurred in 6986 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and seven deaths in 6461 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 2.60, moderate quality evidence). The risk of dying from any cause in adults on ICS was 10 per 10,000, and on salmeterol and ICS we would expect between 3 and 26 deaths per 10,000. No deaths were reported in 1862 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related in adults or children.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 167 adults on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 135 adults on regular ICS; again this was not a statistically significant increase (Peto OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44, moderate quality evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events was 21 per 1000 in the adults treated with ICS and 24 per 1000 in those treated with salmeterol and ICS. The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was an increase of 3 per 1000, that was not statistically significant (risk difference (RD) 0.003; 95% CI -0.002 to 0.008).There were 6 of 930 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with ICS, compared to 5 out of 932 on regular ICS: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.91, moderate quality evidence).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 29 and 23 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94, moderate quality evidence), and only 1 asthma-related event was reported in children in each treatment group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no statistically significant differences in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol was randomly allocated with ICS, in comparison to ICS alone at the same dose. Although 13,447 adults and 1862 children have now been included in trials, the frequency of adverse events is too low and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events with salmeterol used in conjunction with ICS. However, the absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was very small. We could not determine whether the increase in all cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular ICS. We await the results of large ongoing surveillance studies mandated by the FDA to provide more information. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. One author extracted outcome data and the second author checked them. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease-specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.31). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 149 people treated with regular formoterol (95% CI 66 to 1407 people). The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicate that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all severities of adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked manufacturers' websites of clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data and also checked Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included controlled, parallel-design clinical trials on patients of any age and with any severity of asthma if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included four studies (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma) and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six-month period, in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis, the percentages with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a three-month period the percentages of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol and 1.3% for salmeterol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified four studies comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all participants were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.

Predicting asthma treatment outcome at diagnosis: the role of symptom perception during a histamine challenge test

OBJECTIVE

In asthma, many treatment decisions are dependent upon patient perception/patient report of asthma symptoms. Discrepancies between patient perception of asthma symptoms and objective indicators of pathophysiology are widespread and can hinder asthma treatment. Early detection of problems in asthma symptom perception may be a first step to help these patients. We investigated the predictive value of symptom perception during a histamine challenge test (HCT) at asthma diagnosis for patient-rated outcome of asthma treatment 3 months later.

METHODS

In a prospective observational study, persons with asthma (N = 60) showing bronchial hyperresponsiveness in a HCT completed questions on asthma symptoms and negative affectivity (NA). The HCT was extended with an ambiguous situation suggesting asthma symptoms despite physiological recovery. Lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1))) and symptom ratings were measured during the test (after each histamine dosage), and we constructed several measures of asthma symptom perception based on FEV(1) and symptom ratings. Three months later, 30 participants completed questionnaires on asthma control and asthma-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Symptoms reported during HCT predicted worse asthma control and quality of life 3 months later. The prospective association between symptoms during HCT and asthma control remained significant when controlling for NA and baseline lung function. These effects were strongest for symptoms during ambiguous situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher symptom levels at the start of the HCT and during recovery may reflect a tendency to inaccurately perceive asthma symptoms in ambiguous situations. Assessing symptoms during diagnostic challenge tests can help predict problems with asthma treatment.

[Adult asthma exacerbations in questions]

In this article a French working party critically review the international literature to revise the definition, pathophysiology, treatment and cost of exacerbations of adult asthma. The various guidelines do not always provide a consistent definition of exacerbations of asthma. An exacerbation can be defined as deterioration of clinical and/or functional parameters lasting more than 24 hours, without return to baseline, requiring a change of treatment. No single clinical or functional criterion can be used as an early marker of an exacerbation. Innate and acquired immune mechanisms, modified by contact with infectious, irritant or allergenic agents, participate in the pathogenesis of exacerbations, which are accompanied by bronchial inflammation. In 2010, mortality is related to progression of exacerbations, often occurring before the patient seeks medical attention. The objective of treatment is to control asthma and prevent exacerbations. However, many factors can trigger exacerbations and often cannot be controlled. The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids has been demonstrated on reduction of the number of exacerbations and the number of asthma-related deaths. This treatment is cost-effective, especially in terms of reduction of exacerbations.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids versus same dose inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled ss(2)-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of LABAs to ICS in patients insufficiently controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs if they compared the addition of inhaled LABAs versus placebo to the same dose of ICS in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the relative risk (RR) of asthma exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), rescue beta2-agonist use, symptoms, withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies met the entry criteria and randomised 21,248 participants (4625 children and 16,623 adults). Participants were generally symptomatic at baseline with moderate airway obstruction despite their current ICS regimen. Formoterol or salmeterol were most frequently added to low-dose ICS (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent) in 49% of the studies. The addition of a daily LABA to ICS reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids by 23% from 15% to 11% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, 28 studies, 6808 participants). The number needed to treat with the addition of LABA to prevent one use of rescue oral corticosteroids is 41 (29, 72), although the event rates in the ICS groups varied between 0% and 38%. Studies recruiting adults dominated the analysis (6203 adult participants versus 605 children). The subgroup estimate for paediatric studies was not statistically significant (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.39) and includes the possibility of the superiority of ICS alone in children.Higher than usual dose of LABA was associated with significantly less benefit. The difference in the relative risk of serious adverse events with LABA was not statistically significant from that of ICS alone (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30). The addition of LABA led to a significantly greater improvement in FEV(1) (0.11 litres, 95% 0.09 to 0.13) and in the proportion of symptom-free days (11.88%, 95% CI 8.25 to 15.50) compared to ICS monotherapy. It was also associated with a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists (-0.58 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.35), fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61), and fewer withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87). There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.04), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or any of the specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults who are symptomatic on low to high doses of ICS monotherapy, the addition of a LABA at licensed doses reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, improves lung function and symptoms and modestly decreases use of rescue short-acting ss(2)-agonists. In children, the effects of this treatment option are much more uncertain. The absence of group difference in serious adverse health events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of LABAs at usual doses as add-on therapy to ICS in adults, although the width of the confidence interval precludes total reassurance.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids versus higher dose inhaled steroids in adults and children with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled ss2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of the combination of long-acting ss(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the risk of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control, and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs, clinical trial registries and correspondence with manufacturers until May 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 48 studies (15,155 participants including 1155 children and 14,000 adults). Participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS regimen, experiencing ongoing symptoms and with generally moderate (FEV1 60% to 79% of predicted) airway obstruction. The studies tested the combination of salmeterol or formoterol with a median dose of 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq, usually for 24 weeks or less. There was a statistically significantly lower risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids in patients treated with LABA and ICS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98, 27 studies, N = 10,578) from 11.45% to 10%, with a number needed to treat of 73 (median study duration: 12 weeks). The study results were dominated by adult studies; trial data from three paediatric studies showed a trend towards increased risk of rescue oral steroids (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.66) and hospital admission (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64) associated with combination therapy. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk ratios for either hospital admission (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.56) or serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37). The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in significantly greater but modest improvement from baseline in lung function, symptoms and rescue medication use than with higher ICS dose. Despite no significant group difference in the risk of overall adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03), there was an increase in the risk of tremor (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.82) and a lower risk of oral thrush (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.86)) in the LABA and ICS compared to the higher ICS group. There was no significant difference in hoarseness or headache between the treatment groups. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and adults with sub-optimal control on low dose ICS monotherapy, the combination of LABA and ICS is modestly more effective in reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than a higher dose of ICS. Combination therapy also led to modestly greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue ss(2) agonists and to fewer withdrawals due to poor asthma control than with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor and less oral candidiasis with combination therapy, the two options appear relatively safe in adults although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored. In children, combination therapy did not lead to a significant reduction, but rather a trend towards an increased risk, of oral steroid-treated exacerbations and hospital admissions. These trends raised concern about the safety of combination therapy in view of modest improvement in children under the age of 12 years.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults and children

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.

Regular treatment with formoterol versus regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

An increase in serious adverse events with both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol in chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare the risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials which have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Manufacturers' web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was January 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids), and were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review and extracted outcome data. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought from the sponsors and authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies were included in the review (involving 1116 adults and 156 children). All studies were open label and recruited patients who were already taking inhaled corticosteroids for their asthma, and all studies contributed data on serious adverse events. All studies compared formoterol 12 mug versus salmeterol 50 mug twice daily. The adult studies were all comparing Foradil Aerolizer with Serevent Diskus, and the children's study compared Oxis Turbohaler to Serevent Accuhaler. There was only one death in an adult (which was unrelated to asthma), and none in children, and there were no significant differences in non-fatal serious adverse events comparing formoterol to salmeterol in adults (Peto OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.28), or children (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.33). Over a six month period in studies involving adults that contributed to this analysis the percentage with serious adverse events were 5.1% for formoterol and 6.4% for salmeterol; and over a 3 month period the percentage of children with serious adverse events were 1.3% for formoterol, and 1.3% for salmeterol.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Four studies have been identified comparing regular formoterol to regular salmeterol (without randomised inhaled corticosteroids, but all subjects were on regular background inhaled corticosteroids). The events were infrequent and consequently too few patients have been studied to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn about the relative safety of formoterol and salmeterol. Asthma-related serious adverse events were rare, and there were no reported asthma-related deaths.

Relation between inflammation and symptoms in asthma

Asthma symptoms are the main reason for healthcare utilization and are a fundamental parameter for the evaluation of asthma control. Currently, asthma is defined as a chronic inflammatory disease. A French expert group studied the association between inflammation and asthma symptoms by carrying out a critical review of the international literature. Uncontrolled asthmatics have an increased number of polynuclear eosinophils in the induced sputum and an increased production of exhaled NO. Control by anti-inflammatory treatment is accompanied by a reduction in bronchial eosinophilia and exhaled NO. Asthma symptoms are the result of complex mechanisms and many factors modify their perception. Experimental data suggest that there is a relationship between the perception of symptoms and eosinophilic inflammation and that inhaled corticoid therapy improves this perception. Although they are still not applicable in routine practice, follow-up strategies based on the evaluation of inflammation are thought to be more effective in reducing exacerbations than those usually recommended based on symptoms and sequential analysis of respiratory function. Inhaled corticosteroid therapy is the reference disease-modifying therapy for persistent asthma. Recent studies demonstrated that adjustment of anti-inflammatory treatment based on symptoms is an effective strategy to prevent exacerbations and reduce the total number of doses of inhaled corticosteroids.

[The relationship between inflammation and symptoms in asthma]

In asthma, symptoms are the main reason for recourse to healthcare and are a fundamental parameter for the evaluation of asthma control. Currently, asthma is defined as a chronic inflammatory disease. Uncontrolled asthmatics have an increased number of eosinophils in induced sputum and an increased production of exhaled NO. Control by anti-inflammatory treatment is accompanied by a reduction in bronchial eosinophilia and exhaled NO. Asthma symptoms are the result of complex mechanisms and many factors modify their perception. Experimental data suggests that there is a relationship between the perception of symptoms and eosinophilic inflammation, and that inhaled corticoid therapy improves this perception. Although they are still not applicable in routine practice, follow-up strategies based on the evaluation of inflammation are thought to be more effective in reducing exacerbations than those usually recommended based on retrospective evaluation of symptoms and sequential analysis of respiratory function. Inhaled corticosteroid therapy is the reference maintenance therapy for persistent asthma and adjustment of anti-inflammatory treatment based on symptoms is an effective strategy to prevent exacerbations and reduce the total dose of inhaled corticosteroids. A French expert group has undertaken a study of the association between inflammation and asthma symptoms by carrying out a critical review of the international literature.

Regular treatment with formoterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was July 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 22 studies (8,032 participants) comparing regular formoterol to placebo and salbutamol. Non-fatal serious adverse event data could be obtained for all participants from published studies comparing formoterol and placebo but only 80% of those comparing formoterol with salbutamol or terbutaline.Three deaths occurred on regular formoterol and none on placebo; this difference was not statistically significant. It was not possible to assess disease specific mortality in view of the small number of deaths. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular formoterol was compared with placebo (Odds Ratio 1.57 [95% CI: 1.05 to 2.37]). One extra serious adverse event occurred over 16 weeks for every 179 people treated with regular formoterol [95% CI: 75 to 2022]. The increase was larger in children than in adults, but the impact of age was not statistically significant. Data submitted to the FDA indicates that the increase in asthma-related serious adverse events remained significant in patients taking regular formoterol who were also on inhaled corticosteroids.No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular formoterol was compared with regular salbutamol or terbutaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular formoterol, and this does not appear to be abolished in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids. The effect on serious adverse events of regular formoterol in children was greater than the effect in adults, but the difference between age-groups was not significant.Data on all-cause serious adverse events should be more fully reported in journal articles, and not combined with all adverse events or limited to those events that are thought by the investigator to be drug-related.

Regular treatment with salmeterol for chronic asthma: serious adverse events

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta-agonists and increases in asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol versus placebo or regular short-acting beta(2)-agonists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was allowed, as long as this was not part of the randomised treatment regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data was extracted by one author and checked by the second author. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events was sought.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 26 trials comparing salmeterol to placebo and 8 trials comparing with salbutamol. These included 62,630 participants with asthma (including 2,380 children). In 6 trials (2,766 patients), no serious adverse event data could be obtained. All cause mortality was higher with regular salmeterol than placebo but the increase was not significant, Odds Ratio 1.33 [95% CI: 0.85, 2.10]. Non-fatal serious adverse events were significantly increased when regular salmeterol was compared with placebo, Odds Ratio 1.14 [95% CI: 1.01, 1.28]. One extra serious adverse event occurred over 28 weeks for every 188 people treated with regular salmeterol [95% CI: 95 to 2606]. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether the risk in children is higher or lower than in adults. No significant increase in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events was found when regular salmeterol was compared with regular salbutamol. Individual patient data from the SNS study have been combined with the results of the SMART study; in patients who were not taking inhaled corticosteroids, compared to regular salbutamol or placebo, there was a significant increase in risk of asthma-related death with regular salmeterol, Odds Ratio 9.52 [95% CI: 1.24, 73.09]. The confidence interval for patients taking inhaled corticosteroids is too wide to rule out an increase in asthma mortality in this group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, we have found an increased risk of serious adverse events with regular salmeterol. There is also a clear increase in risk of asthma-related mortality in patients not using inhaled corticosteroids in the two large surveillance studies. Although the increase in asthma-related mortality was smaller in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids at baseline, the confidence interval is wide, so it cannot be concluded that the inhaled corticosteroids abolish the risks of regular salmeterol. The adverse effects of regular salmeterol in children remain uncertain due to the small number of children studied.

Perception of airway obstruction and airway inflammation in asthma: a review

Dyspnea has a multifactorial nature and the exact mechanism that causes breathlessness in asthma is not fully understood. There is compelling evidence that factors other than merely mechanical ones take part in the pathophysiology of breathlessness. Some recent reports attribute airway inflammation, which may contribute to the unexplained variability in the perception of dyspnea associated with bronchoconstriction. Eosinophil airway inflammation has been proposed as a determinant of breathlessness via mechanisms affecting either the mechanical pathways that control breathlessness or the afferent nerves involved in perception of dyspnea. In this review, data on the interrelation between inflammation and dyspnea sensation and the impact of treatment on dyspnea sensation are discussed. We conclude that regardless of whether mechanical or chemical inflammatory factors are involved, much variability in dyspnea scores remains unexplained.

Serious adverse events and death associated with treatment using long-acting beta-agonists

Two very large, randomized, double-blind clinical trials performed in the United Kingdom and in the United States have suggested that addition of salmeteräE to usual asthma therapy is associated with a significant increase in the incidence of serious adverse events and asthma-related deaths compared with addition of albuterol or placebo to usual therapy in the same type of patients. These results prompted the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a stern warning regarding these potential adverse effects and to advise that long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) should not used as first-line therapy for the treatment of asthma. Two potential explanations have been proposed for these unexpected adverse effects. It has been suggested that more than a direct pharmacological effect of LABAs, these adverse events result from inadequate concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids in subjects treated with these medicines. However, a detailed analysis of the results of the two large trials did not provide definitive conclusions regarding the potential protective role of inhaled corticosteroids. A second explanation, which the author here considers more plausible, is that a small group of patients with asthma develop idiosyncratic responses to LABAs, and common or rare variants in the genes that encode for proteins associated with the pharmacological response to these medicines are strongly suspected to predispose for these unusual deleterious responses. Until the biological mechanisms involved are better understood, efforts should be made to confine the use of LABAs to those patients who really need them.

The influence of corticosteroids on the perception of dyspnea in asthma

Corticosteroids are effective anti-inflammatory medications that are recommended for the control of persistent asthma. Little, however, is known about their influence on the perception of dyspnea, which, in turn, is important to the successful self-management of asthma. This paper provides a synopsis of available studies examining the impact of corticosteroids on the sensitivity to perceive dyspnea and presents possible mechanisms underlying this relationship. The results of these investigations are conflicting with some studies showing improved perception and other studies showing worsened perception of dyspnea after corticosteroid treatment. Thus, firm conclusions cannot be derived from the currently available data. Implications for future research, which is required to increase our understanding of potential influences of corticosteroids on the perception of dyspnea, are provided.

Dyspnea perception and reversibility of methacholine-induced unlimited airway narrowing in asthmatics

The hypothesis was that asthmatics might experience impaired perception of dyspnea and salbutamol-induced reversibility during unlimited airway narrowing. A total of 38 asthmatics (18 to 59 years of age) were examined. All patients underwent the methacholine challenge test. According to the dose-response curve to methacholine, they were categorized as having either unlimited airway narrowing (UAN group) (n = 20) or response plateau (RP group) (n = 18). Reversibility of methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction was measured 20 minutes after the inhalation of 400 microg of salbutamol to compare postbronchodilator FEV1 with baseline FEV1. Dyspnea perception was evaluated using the Borg Scale to calculate a perception score at a 20% decrease in FEV1 (PS20) and the slope alpha of the regression line between the changes in Borg scores and the reduction in FEV1 as percentage of the baseline value. Subjects in the UAN group exhibited significantly lower PS20 compared with the RP group (1.45+/- 0.23 vs. 2.84 +/- 0.35, p = 0.002); the mean of the slope values was higher in the RP group than it was in the UAN group (0.150 +/- 0.015 vs. 0.095 +/- 0.006, p = 0.003). Salbutamol-induced reversibility was significantly lower in the UAN group (81 +/- 1.4 % of baseline FEV1) compared with patients from the RP group (91 +/- 1.1% of baseline FEV1; p < 0.001). In conclusion, asthmatics during methacholine-induced unlimited airway narrowing exhibit diminished perception of dyspnea and lower bronchial reversibility to the baseline 20 minutes after inhalation of salbutamol. This suggests that more careful monitoring of the lung function for timely recognition of asthma deteriorations and adequate bronchodilatory therapy during severe acute attacks should be recommended for such patients.

Breath-holding test in subjects with near-fatal asthma. A new index for dyspnea perception

RATIONALE

Identification of asthmatic subjects with low perception of dyspnea (POD) that are at higher risk of hospitalization, near-fatal and fatal asthma could improve their management.

OBJECTIVE

Create a simple procedure that facilitate the recognition of low POD.

METHODS

We enrolled near fatal asthma (NFA) subjects and a wide spectrum of non-NFA subjects. Each subject was asked to stop breathing at end-expiration. Dyspnea was assesssed by a modified Borg scale. To design the new index, we combined the Borg score at the end of the voluntary breath-holding maneuver with the airway limitation. The equation was as follows: FEV(1)/FVC%/(breath-holding time in seconds/final Borg score minus basal Borg score).

RESULTS

Eleven NFA subjects (4 females) aged 21-73yr and 55 non-NFA (14 severe, 18 moderate and 23 mild asthmatic subjects) completed the study. The threshold value of the index that could predict POD is <12. The mean (+/-sd) of the new index perception was significantly lower in NFA group (n=11; 5.21+/-3.59; vs. n=55; 13.67+/-11.08; P=0.006). This threshold value had 100% sensitivity and it best discriminated between mild and NFA groups. The negative likelihood ratio (when the index > or = 12) was zero. A result > or = 12 represented an almost null probability of poor POD.

CONCLUSION

The breath-holding test is simple and rapid. Its negative likelihood ratio was zero. Accordingly, a test result of 12 or greater might exclude the probability of poor perception of dyspnea in subjects with stable asthma.

Combination inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists: improved clinical efficacy and dosing options in patients with asthma

Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) is a recognized treatment for adults with moderate to severe asthma. The introduction of inhalers containing both an ICS and a LABA simplifies treatment and improves asthma control. This review discusses clinical evidence that budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone are effective and well tolerated in asthma treatment. Moreover, the rapid onset of effect and long duration of action of budesonide and formoterol make once-daily dosing, adjustable maintenance dosing, and the novel treatment strategy of using budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and as needed for symptom relief, valuable treatment options for patients with asthma.

Long-acting beta2-agonists versus placebo in addition to inhaled corticosteroids in children and adults with chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting inhaled beta2-adrenergic agonists are recommended as 'add-on' medication to inhaled corticosteroids in the maintenance therapy of asthmatic adults and children aged two years and above.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify in asthmatic patients the safety and efficacy of the addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, pulmonary function and other measures of asthma control.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers, until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to corticosteroids with inhaled corticosteroids alone for asthma therapy in children aged two years and above and in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptom scores, adverse events and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 594 identified citations, 49 trials met the inclusion criteria: 27 full-text publications, one unpublished full-text report and 21 abstracts. Twenty-three citations (21 abstracts and two full-text publications) provided data in insufficient detail, 26 trials contributed to this systematic review. All but three trials were of high methodological quality. Most interventions (N = 26) were of four-month duration or less. Eight trials focused on children and 18 on adults, with participants generally symptomatic with moderate airway obstruction despite their current inhaled steroid regimen. If a trial had more than one intervention or control group, additional control to intervention comparisons were considered separately. Formoterol (N = 17) or salmeterol (N = 14) were most frequently added to low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (200 to 400 microg/day of beclomethasone (BDP) or equivalent). The addition of a daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) reduced the risk of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids by 19% (relative risk (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.90). The number needed to treat for one extra patient to be free from exacerbation for one year was 18 (95% CI 13 to 33). The addition of LABA significantly improved FEV1 (weighted mean difference (WMD) 170 mL, 95% CI 110 to 240) using a random-effects model, increased the proportion of symptom-free days (WMD 17%, 95% CI 12 to 22, N = 6 trials) and rescue-free days (WMD 19%, 95% CI 12 to 26, N = 2 trials). The group treated with LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid showed a reduction in the use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists (WMD -0.7 puffs/day, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2), experienced less withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7) and less withdrawals due to any reason (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.98), using a random-effects model. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.05), withdrawals due to adverse health events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75) or specific adverse health events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are symptomatic on low to high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist reduces the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, improves lung function, symptoms and use of rescue short-acting beta2-agonists. The similar number of serious adverse events and withdrawal rates in both groups provides some indirect evidence of the safety of long-acting beta2-agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids.

Combination of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled steroids versus higher dose of inhaled steroids in children and adults with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled beta2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine, in asthmatic patients, the effect of the combination of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, on pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children aged 2 years and older, and in adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of rescue beta2 agonists, adverse events and withdrawal rates. The meta-analysis was done with RevMan Analyses and the meta-regression, with Stata.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 593 citations identified, 30 (three pediatric; 27 adult) trials were analysed recruiting 9509 participants, including one study providing two control-intervention comparisons. Only one trial included corticosteroid-naive patients. Participants were symptomatic, generally (N=20 trials) presenting with moderate (FEV1 60-79% of predicted) rather than mild airway obstruction. Trials tested the combination of salmeterol (N=22) or formoterol (N=8) with a median of 400 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 800 to 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq. Trial duration was 24 weeks or less in all but four trials. There was no significant group difference in the rate of patients with exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [N=15, RR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.02)]. The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 [N=7, WMD=0.10 L (95% CI: 0.07, 0.12)], in symptom-free days [N=8 , WMD=11.90% (95% CI:7.37, 16.44), random effects model], and in the daytime use of rescue beta2 agonists than a higher dose of ICS [N=4, WMD= -0.99 puffs/day (95% CI: -1.41, -0.58), random effects model]. There was no significant group difference in the rate of overall adverse events [N=15, RR=0.93 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.03), random effects model], or specific side effects, with the exception of a three-fold increase rate of tremor in the LABA group [N= 10, RR=2.96 (95%CI: 1.60, 5.45)]. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS [N=20, RR=0.69 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.93)].

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adult asthmatics, there was no significant difference between the combination of LABA and ICS and a higher dose of ICS for the prevention of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Overall, the combination therapy led to greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue beta2 agonists, (although most of the results are from trials of up to 24 weeks duration). There were less withdrawals due to poor asthma control in this group than when using a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor, the two options appear safe although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored.

Addition of inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled steroids as first line therapy for persistent asthma in steroid-naive adults

BACKGROUND

Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled beta2-agonists only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of initiating anti-inflammatory therapy using the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS+LABA) as compared to inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) until April 2004, bibliographies of identified RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing the combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS + LABA) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone in steroid-naive children and adults with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by each reviewer for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of other measures of asthma control, adverse events, and withdrawal rates.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria; nine (totaling 1061 adults) contributed sufficient data to be analysed. Baseline forced expiratory volume in one minute (FEV1) was less than 80% predicted value in four trials and equal to or greater than 80% in five trials. The long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) formoterol (N=2) or salmeterol (N=7) were added to a dose of at least 800 microg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) equivalent of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in three trials and to at least 400 microg/day in the six remaining trials. Treatment with ICS plus LABA was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than ICS alone (relative risk (RR) 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 1.9). FEV1 improved significantly with LABA (weighted mean difference (WMD) 210 ml; 95% CI 120 to 300), as did symptom-free days (WMD 10.74%; 95% CI 1.86 to 19.62), but the change in use of rescue fast-acting beta2-agonists was not significantly different between the groups (WMD -0.4 puff/day, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.1). There was no significant group difference in adverse events (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), withdrawals (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.2), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.5 to 3.4).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the initiation of inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists does not significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations over that achieved with inhaled corticosteroids alone; it does improve lung function and symptom-free days but does not reduce rescue beta2-agonist use as compared to inhaled steroids alone. Both options appear safe. There is insufficient evidence at present to recommend use of combination therapy rather than ICS alone as a first-line treatment.

[From asthma attack to fatal asthma in children]

Mortality by asthma has decreased, but the number of children being hospitalized is stable: 10% of the asthmatic children are hospitalized within the year, or will be at least once before their tenth year. Some factors are associated with occurrence of a severe asthma attack: poor lung function, bronchial hyperreactivity or poor asthma control, a food allergy, a decreased perception of airway obstruction prior hospitalisation, denial of illness, psychological and social difficulties. The prevention of most asthma exacerbations is possible. The treatment must be adapted to severity of asthma: inhaled steroids, even low doses, have been proven efficient. The follow-up must be regular: planned consultations, repeated lung function testing. Educational programs show an increased quality of life, therapeutic adherence or reduction of hospitalization. The patient and care giver must be able to recognize the signs of severity of asthma exacerbation; an exacerbation is considered severe if it begins suddenly, if its progression or symptoms are unusual, and therefore requires a prompt adapted treatment. An action plan and accessible emergency care are essential.

Combination therapy of long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists and corticosteroids for asthma

Twice-daily combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) is now established as a most effective treatment for moderate to severe asthma and is available in a combined single inhaler. The benefits of combination therapy include better day-to-day control and a reduction in exacerbations compared with monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids at a lower dose. Total control of asthma, defined as no daytime or night-time symptoms, no use of rescue beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (beta2-agonists), no exacerbations and a peak flow rate of >80% predicted, may be achieved with the use of combined salmeterol/fluticasone in up to 41% of patients with moderate to severe asthma, compared with only 28% of patients treated with fluticasone alone. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol may provide better control when compared with fixed-dosing combination regimens. Other therapies combining effectively with inhaled corticosteroids include slow-release theophylline and leukotriene inhibitors, montelukast and zafirlukast, but LABA are the most efficacious. Molecular interactions between corticosteroids and beta2-adrenoceptors may underlie the clinical added benefits of combination therapy. Corticosteroids may increase the number of beta2-adrenoceptors and their coupling with Gs proteins, while beta2-agonists may induce glucocorticoid receptor nuclear translocation, activate transcription factor/enhancer binding protein C/EBPalpha together with corticosteroids, or phosphorylate corticosteroid receptors. The combination of corticosteroids and LABA potentiates inhibition of interleukin-8 and eotaxin release from human airway smooth muscle cells and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor release from epithelial cells, and also the inhibition of airway smooth muscle cell proliferation. It is important to determine whether there is a potentiating effect of combination therapy compared with corticosteroid treatment alone on airway inflammation and airway wall remodelling. Improvements in combination therapy include a once-daily preparation and possible combination of inhaled corticosteroids with newer drugs such as phosphodiesterase IV inhibitors.

Relief of dyspnoea by beta2-agonists after methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction

Virtually all asthma patients use brorichodilators. Formoterol and salbutamol have a rapid onset of bronchodilating effect, whereas salmeterol acts slower. We studied the onset of improvement of dyspnoea sensation after inhalation with these bronchodilators and placebo to reverse a methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction as a model for an acute asthma attack. Seventeen patients with asthma completed this randomised, double-blind, crossover, double-dummy study. On 4 test days, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and Borg score were recorded and patients were challenged with methacholine until FEV1 fell with > or = 30% of baseline value. Thereafter, formoterol 12 microg via Turbuhaler, salbutamol 50 microg via Turbuhaler, salmeterol 50 microg via Diskhaler, or placebo was inhaled. FEV1 and Borg scores were assessed during the following 60 min. The first sensed improvement of Borg score was significantly (P<0.05) faster achieved with formoterol (geometric mean (Gmean) (range) 1.5 (1-40) min) and salbutamol 1.8 (1-10) min than with salmeterol 4.5 (1-30) min and placebo 3.4 (1-40) min. The Borg score returned significantly faster to the baseline value with formoterol, salbutamol, and salmeterol (Gmean time 13.8 (1-75), 13.4 (1-60), and 18.0 (1-75) min, respectively) than with placebo (33.6 (1-75 min). Formoterol and salbutamol act significantly faster than salmeterol in relieving dyspnoea induced by methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction, in patients with asthma.

Cigarette smoking and dyspnea perception

Cigarette smoking has been implicated as an important risk factor for the development of respiratory symptoms in adults. The relationship of dyspnea with cigarette smoking has been examined in smokers and ex-smokers and the beneficial effects of smoking cessation have been demonstrated. Recent studies reported that in subjects who smoke cigarettes the risk of developing respiratory symptoms is higher in a dose-dependent way. Environmental tobacco smoke heavily influences the incidence of respiratory symptoms in both adults and in children. Up to the present time, the mechanisms whereby cigarette smoking causes dyspnea perception remain to be defined. Abnormalities in sensory nerves might diminish the perception of bronchoconstriction in smokers. In this regard, it has been postulated that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke may lead to chronic depletion of sensory nerve neurotransmitters. Eosinophil airway inflammation has been proposed as a determinant of breathlessness via mechanisms affecting either the mechanical pathways that control breathlessness or the afferent nerves involved in perception of dyspnea. An increased number of eosinophils in some smokers implies the possibility that smoking may trigger immunological or other reactions associated with eosinophilia. In conclusion, cigarette smoking is by far one of the greatest risk factors for most respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea. Smoking is associated with the development of symptoms in a dose-dependent way and eosinophilia and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) increase the risk of developing dyspnea.

Perception of airway narrowing during reduction of inhaled corticosteroids and asthma exacerbation

BACKGROUND

The perception of airway narrowing is reduced in subjects with severe asthma and may be related to the severity of airway inflammation. A study was undertaken to determine if the perception of airway narrowing changes during the reduction of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose or during an asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

Forty two asthmatic subjects with well controlled asthma had their daily ICS dose halved every 2 months until they were weaned off ICS or they developed an exacerbation. Perception was measured at baseline and at monthly intervals during bronchial challenge with mannitol as the slope and intercept of the regression of the Borg score and percentage fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), and as the Borg score at 20% fall in FEV(1) (PS(20)FEV(1)). Sputum was collected for measurement of inflammatory cell numbers.

RESULTS

In 33 subjects who successfully halved their ICS dose without exacerbation there were significant reductions in slope (p = 0.01), intercept (p = 0.01), and PS(20)FEV(1) (p = 0.003). Sputum eosinophils and airway hyperresponsiveness increased significantly but, in 14 subjects from whom sputum was obtained, changes in eosinophils were not correlated with changes in perception. Change in airway hyperresponsiveness correlated with change in PS(20)FEV(1) (r = -0.40, p = 0.025). In 27 subjects who developed an exacerbation, slope decreased (p = 0.02) and intercept increased (p = 0.01) compared with the visit before the exacerbation. Changes in intercept correlated with changes in resting FEV(1) (r = -0.57, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Perception of airway narrowing decreases during ICS dose reduction and decreases further during a mild asthma exacerbation. These changes are related to concurrent changes in airway hyperresponsiveness and resting lung function. The effect of changes in airway inflammation on perception is unclear.

New asthma targets: recent clinical and preclinical advances

Current asthma therapy is directed at the relief of chronic inflammation or improving lung function through bronchodilation. These approaches treat the overt symptoms of asthma but do not approach underlying causes of the disease. Such therapies have limited efficacy and for a number of patients the disease remains poorly controlled. The short-term future of asthma therapy will probably focus on the treatment of multiple symptoms to provide improved lung function. Long-term approaches to asthma will have to focus on modulation of the mechanisms that are the underlying causes of the various asthmatic pathophysiologies. These targets include a number of TH2-type T-cell-generated cytokines and chemokines, G-protein-coupled receptors, TH2-related transcription factors, neurotrophins and adhesion molecules. Additional new targets and understanding of asthma may also arise from genetic analysis.

Is the increase in bronchial responsiveness or FEV1 shortly after cessation of beta2-agonists reflecting a real deterioration of the disease in allergic asthmatic patients? A comparison between short-acting and long-acting beta2-agonists

Regular use of beta2-agonists might result in increased bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) and decreased forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1). It has been suggested that these possible detrimental effects are not a real deterioration of the disease, but that it might be only a transient (rebound) effect shortly after discontinuing this regular use. Moreover, these effects are thought to occur especially during short-acting and not during long-acting beta2-agonists use. The aim of this study was to invest gate whether a rebound effect (a pharmacological deterioration effect diminishing after several hours) in FEV1 and PC20 (concentration of histamine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 with regard to baseline) occurred after cessation of regular use of beta2-agonists, and whether this occurred both after short-acting and long-acting beta2-agonists. Allergic asthmatic patients (n = 134) were randomly allocated to the use of a short-acting (salbutamol), a long-acting beta2-agonist (formoterol) or placebo for 12 weeks (double-blind, double-dummy). No other asthma medication was allowed, including inhaled corticosteroids. At the start and every 4 weeks later FEV and PC20 were measured, each time at least 12 h after the last doses of study medication, which is in the possible rebound period. To investigate whether a (transient) rebound effect occurred, parameters were additionally measured at least 72 h later after discontinuation of the study medication. After 12 weeks of short-acting beta2-agonist use, a drop was seen in FEV1 from 85.6 (+/- 2.21)% predicted to 78.8 (+/- 2.9)% predicted, measured 15 h (median) after the last doses of medication. This was significantly different compared to placebo. When measured 168 h (median) later FEV1 recovered to 85.5 (+/- 2.4)% predicted, comparable to baseline. PC20 decreased with -1.17 (+/- 0.44) doubling dose after 12 weeks of short-acting beta2-agonist use, measured 15 h after the last doses of medication, which was significantly different compared to placebo. However, 168 h later PC20 recovered slightly with +0.55 (+/- 0.34) doubling dose, but this value was still lower compared to placebo. In contrast, during long-acting beta2-agonist and placebo use no significant changes were seen. In conclusion, the use of short-acting beta2-agonists resulted in a transient (rebound) effect in FEV while the effects on PC20 may point to a real deterioration of the disease. Long-acting beta2-agonist and placebo use showed no changes. We conclude that a mono-therapy of short-acting and not of long-acting beta2-agonists might have deleterious effects in asthma.