Randomised controlled trial of azithromycin in smokers with asthma

The Effect of Long-Term Azithromycin on Objective and Subjective Cough in Chronic Respiratory Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials and Noncomparative Studies

INTRODUCTION

Azithromycin is an effective treatment for various respiratory conditions but its effect on cough is poorly understood. We synthesised data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and noncomparative studies (NCT) examining its effect on objective and subjective cough.

METHODS

After prospective registration on PROSPERO, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for both RCTs and NCT trials examining the effect azithromycin on cough in respiratory disease.

RESULTS

We identified 1240 studies of which 6 (4 RCTs and 2 NCT studies) were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 275 patients. Azithromycin was associated with significant improvement in Leicester Cough Questionnaire scores at follow-up when compared to baseline scores (SMD = 0.62 [95% CI 0.12 to 1.12], p = 0.01). However, when only RCTs were synthesised, no significant effect was observed (SMD = 0.12 [95% CI - 0.36 to 0.60], p = 0.62). There was no significant reduction in cough severity VAS score (SMD = - 0.39 [95% CI - 0.92 to 0.14], p = 0.15). There was no significant reduction in objective cough count (SMD = - 0.41 [95% CI - 1.04 to 0.32], p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Azithromycin therapy improves cough-related quality of life in various chronic respiratory diseases; however, there was no significant effect on cough outcomes when only data from RCTs were synthesised. We believe that to accurately identify which patients whose cough would benefit from azithromycin a large-scale clinical trial of patients with a broad spectrum of respiratory diseases, with sufficiently severe cough, should be undertaken with subgroup analysis of individual disease areas.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in the management of adult patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of macrolides in the management of asthma has been studied but remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of macrolides in the management of adult patients with asthma.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of macrolides used in adult patients with asthma were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases to evaluate the efficacy and safety of macrolides.

RESULTS

Seventeen reports with macrolide treatment durations ranging from 6 to 48 weeks were included. Macrolides did not reduce exacerbations requiring hospitalization, severe exacerbations, or rescue use of short-acting beta-2 agonist inhalers; improve lung function; decrease peripheral blood or sputum neutrophil counts; or decrease fractional exhaled nitric oxide compared to placebo. Macrolides statistically improved asthma control and quality of life but by less than the minimal clinically important difference. Peripheral blood eosinophil counts as well as serum and sputum eosinophilic cationic protein concentrations were significantly decreased with macrolides compared to placebo. The improvement of asthma symptoms and airway hyperresponsiveness varied by study. The safety profile of macrolides was comparable to that of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Although macrolides have some useful clinical aspects, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend their use in the management of adult patients with asthma.

Efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence for macrolide therapy in adult asthma is not properly established and remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE via the PubMed, CENTRAL, and Ichushi Web databases. The primary outcome was asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (including mortality), asthma-related quality of life (symptom scales, Asthma Control Questionnaire, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), rescue medication (puffs/day), respiratory function (morning peak expiratory flow, evening peak flow, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s), bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and minimum oral corticosteroid dose. Of the 805 studies, we selected seven studies for the meta-analysis, which was conducted using a random-effects model.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000050824).

RESULTS

No significant difference between macrolide and placebo for asthma exacerbations was observed (risk ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.09; p = 0.12). Macrolide therapy for adult asthma showed a significant improvement in rescue medication with short-acting beta-agonists (mean difference -0.41, 95 % CI -0.78 to -0.04; p = 0.03). Macrolide therapy did not show more serious adverse events (odd ratio 0.61, 95 % CI 0.34-1.10; p = 0.10) than those with placebo. The other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the macrolide and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Macrolide therapy for adult asthma may be more effective than placebo and could be a treatment option.

Immunomodulatory Effects of Macrolides Considering Evidence from Human and Veterinary Medicine

Macrolide antimicrobial agents have been in clinical use for more than 60 years in both human and veterinary medicine. The discovery of the non-antimicrobial properties of macrolides and the effect of immunomodulation of the inflammatory response has benefited patients with chronic airway diseases and impacted morbidity and mortality. This review examines the evidence of antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial properties of macrolides in human and veterinary medicine with a focus toward veterinary macrolides but including important and relevant evidence from the human literature. The complete story for these complex and important molecules is continuing to be written.

Asthma and Tobacco Smoking

Asthma is a prevalent chronic pulmonary condition with significant morbidity and mortality. Tobacco smoking is implicated in asthma pathophysiology, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Smokers display increased prevalence and incidence of asthma, but a causal association cannot be claimed using existing evidence. Second-hand smoking and passive exposure to tobacco in utero and early life have also been linked with asthma development. Currently, approximately one-fourth of asthma patients are smokers. Regular smokers with asthma might display accelerated lung function decline and non-reversible airflow limitation, making their distinction from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients challenging. Asthma patients who smoke typically have uncontrolled disease, as shown by increased symptoms, more exacerbations and impaired quality of life. On the other hand, smoking cessation improves lung function and asthma severity. Thus, asthma patients and their caregivers should be actively questioned about their smoking status at each medical encounter, and smoking cessation ought to be strongly encouraged both for patients with asthma and their close contacts. Smokers with asthma should be provided with comprehensive smoking cessation interventions on top of other anti-asthma medications.

Cigarette Smoking and Asthma

Globally, around half the adult asthma population are current or former cigarette smokers. Cigarette smoking and asthma interact to induce an "asthma-smoking phenotype(s)," which has important implications for diagnosis, pathogenic mechanisms, and management. The lack of progress in understanding the effects of smoking on adults with asthma is due in part to their exclusion from most investigative studies and large clinical trials. In this review, we summarize the adverse clinical outcomes associated with cigarette smoking in asthma, highlight challenges in diagnosing asthma among cigarette smokers with chronic respiratory symptoms, particularly in older individuals with a long-standing smoking history, and review pathogenic mechanisms involving smoking- and asthma-related airway inflammation, tissue remodeling, corticosteroid insensitivity, and low-grade systemic inflammation. We discuss the key components of management including the importance of smoking cessation strategies, evidence for the effectiveness of the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations on treatment in cigarette smokers, and the role of treatable traits such as type 2 eosinophilic airway inflammation. Lastly, we provide an algorithm to aid clinicians to manage current and former smokers with asthma. In the future, controlled and pragmatic trials in real-world populations should include cigarette smokers with asthma to provide an evidence base for treatment recommendations.

Delivering macrolide antibiotics to heal a broken heart - And other inflammatory conditions

Drug carriers to deliver macrolide antibiotics, such as azithromycin, show promise as antibacterial agents. Macrolide drug carriers have largely focused on improving the drug stability and pharmacokinetics, while reducing adverse reactions and improving antibacterial activity. Recently, macrolides have shown promise in treating inflammatory conditions by promoting a reparative effect and limiting detrimental pro-inflammatory responses, which shifts the immunologic setpoint from suppression to balance. While macrolide drug carriers have only recently been investigated for their ability to modulate immune responses, the previous strategies that deliver macrolides for antibacterial therapy provide a roadmap for repurposing the macrolide drug carriers for therapeutic interventions targeting inflammatory conditions. This review describes the antibacterial and immunomodulatory activity of macrolides, while assessing the past in vivo evaluation of drug carriers used to deliver macrolides with the intention of presenting a case for increased effort to translate macrolide drug carriers into the clinic.

Macrolides versus placebo for chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic disease in which inflammation of the airways causes symptomatic wheezing, coughing and difficult breathing. Macrolides are antibiotics with antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activities that have been explored for the long-term control of asthma symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of macrolides compared with placebo for managing chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register up to March 2021. We also manually searched bibliographies of previously published reviews and conference proceedings and contacted study authors. We included records published in any language in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving both children and adults with asthma treated with macrolides versus placebo for four or more weeks. Primary outcomes were exacerbation requiring hospitalisation, severe exacerbations (exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visits or systemic steroids, or both), symptom scales, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ, score from 0 totally controlled, to 6 severely uncontrolled), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ, with score from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating better QoL), rescue medication puffs per day, morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF; litres per minutes), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1; litres), bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and oral corticosteroid dose. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (including mortality), withdrawal, blood eosinophils, sputum eosinophils, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in serum, and ECP in sputum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined all records identified in the searches then reviewed the full text of all potentially relevant articles before extracting data in duplicate from all included studies. As per protocol, we used a fixed-effect model. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for analyses with high heterogeneity (I2 greater than 30%). GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 1973 participants to receive macrolide or placebo for at least four weeks. Most of the included studies reported data from adults (mean age 21 to 61 years) with persistent or severe asthma, while four studies included children. All participants were recruited in outpatient settings. Inclusion criteria, interventions and outcomes were highly variable. The evidence suggests macrolides probably deliver a moderately sized reduction in exacerbations requiring hospitalisations compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.12; studies = 2, participants = 529; moderate-certainty evidence). Macrolides probably reduce exacerbations requiring ED visits and/or treatment with systemic steroids (rate ratio (RaR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.80; studies = 4, participants = 640; moderate-certainty evidence). Macrolides may reduce symptoms (as measured on symptom scales) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.46, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.11; studies = 4, participants = 136 ; very low-certainty evidence). Macrolides may result in a little improvement in ACQ (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.03; studies = 5, participants = 773; low-certainty evidence). Macrolides may have little to no effect on AQLQ (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35; studies = 6, participants = 802; very low-certainty evidence). For both the ACQ and the AQLQ the suggested effect of macrolides versus placebo did not reach a minimal clinically important difference (MCID, 0.5 for ACQ and AQLQ) (ACQ: low-certainty evidence; AQLQ: very low-certainty evidence). Due to high heterogeneity (I2 > 30%), we conducted sensitivity analyses on the above results, which reduced the size of the suggested effects by reducing the weighting on the large, high quality studies.  Macrolides may result in a small effect compared to placebo in reducing need for rescue medication (MD -0.43 puffs/day, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.04; studies = 4, participants = 314; low-certainty evidence). Macrolides may increase FEV1, but the effect is almost certainly below a level discernible to patients (MD 0.04 L, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; studies = 10, participants = 1046; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to pool outcomes for non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness or lowest tolerated oral corticosteroid dose (in people requiring oral corticosteroids at baseline). There was no evidence of a difference in severe adverse events (including mortality), although less than half of the studies reported the outcome (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; studies = 8, participants = 854; low-certainty evidence). Reporting of specific adverse effects was too inconsistent across studies for a meaningful analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence suggests an effect of macrolides compared with placebo on the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation. Macrolides probably reduce severe exacerbations (requiring ED visit and/or treatment with systemic steroids) and may reduce symptoms. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of other benefits or harms because the evidence is of very low quality due to heterogeneity among patients and interventions, imprecision and reporting biases. The results were mostly driven by a well-designed, well powered RCT, indicating that azithromycin may reduce exacerbation rate and improve symptom scores in severe asthma. The review highlights the need for researchers to report outcomes accurately and according to standard definitions. Macrolides can reduce exacerbation rate in people with severe asthma. Future trials could evaluate if this effect is sustained across all the severe asthma phenotypes, the comparison with newer biological drugs, whether effects persist or wane after treatment cessation and whether effects are associated with infection biomarkers.

Identification and treatment of T2-low asthma in the era of biologics

Currently, and based on the development of relevant biologic therapies, T2-high is the most well-defined endotype of asthma. Although much progress has been made in elucidating T2-high inflammation pathways, no specific clinically applicable biomarkers for T2-low asthma have been identified. The therapeutic approach of T2-low asthma is a problem urgently needing resolution, firstly because these patients have poor response to steroids, and secondly because they are not candidates for the newer targeted biologic agents. Thus, there is an unmet need for the identification of biomarkers that can help the diagnosis and endotyping of T2-low asthma. Ongoing investigation is focusing on neutrophilic airway inflammation mediators as therapeutic targets, including interleukin (IL)-8, IL-17, IL-1, IL-6, IL-23 and tumour necrosis factor-α; molecules that target restoration of corticosteroid sensitivity, mainly mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors; phosphodiesterase (PDE)3 inhibitors that act as bronchodilators and PDE4 inhibitors that have an anti-inflammatory effect; and airway smooth muscle mass attenuation therapies, mainly for patients with paucigranulocytic inflammation. This article aims to review the evidence for noneosinophilic inflammation being a target for therapy in asthma; discuss current and potential future therapeutic approaches, such as novel molecules and biologic agents; and assess clinical trials of licensed drugs in the treatment of T2-low asthma.

Pharmacological basis for the potential role of Azithromycin and Doxycycline in management of COVID-19

A novel corona virus SARS-CoV-2 has led to an outbreak of the highly infectious pandemic COVID-19 complicated viral pneumonia. Patients with risk factors frequently develop secondary infections where the role of appropriate antibiotics is mandatory. However, the efforts of drug repurposing lead to recognizing the role of certain antibiotics beyond the management of infection. The current review provided the detailed antiviral, immunomodulatory effect, unique pharmacokinetic profile of two antibiotics namely azithromycin (AZ) and doxycycline (DOX). It summarizes current clinical trials and concerns regarding safety issues of these drugs. Azithromycin (AZ) has amazing lung tissue access, wide range antibacterial efficacy, conceivable antiviral action against COVID-19. It also showed efficacy when combined with other antiviral drugs in limited clinical trials, but many clinicians raise concerns regarding cardiovascular risk in susceptible patients. DOX has a considerable role in the management of pneumonia, it has some advantages including cardiac safety, very good access to lung tissue, potential antiviral, and immunomodulation impact by several mechanisms. The pharmacological profiles of both drugs are heightening considering these medications for further studies in the management of COVID-19.

Randomised study of the immunomodulatory effects of azithromycin in severely asthmatic horses

Neutrophilic inflammation is believed to contribute to the airway obstruction and remodelling in equine asthma. Azithromycin, an antibiotic with immunomodulatory properties, reduces pulmonary neutrophilia and hyper-responsiveness in human asthmatics and decreases airway remodelling in rodent models of asthma. It was therefore hypothesised that azithromycin would improve lung function, mucus accumulation and central airway remodelling by decreasing luminal neutrophilia in severe equine asthma. The effects of a 10-day treatment with either azithromycin or ceftiofur, an antimicrobial without immune-modulating activity, were assessed using a blind, randomised, crossover design with six severe asthmatic horses in clinical exacerbation. Lung function, tracheal mucus accumulation, tracheal wash bacteriology, bronchial remodelling, airway neutrophilia and mRNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-8, IL-17A, IL-1β, tumour necrosis factor-α) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid were evaluated. Azithromycin decreased the expression of IL-8 (P=0.03, one-tailed) and IL-1β (P=0.047, one-tailed) but failed to improve the other variables evaluated. Ceftiofur had no effect on any parameter. The reduction of neutrophilic chemoattractants (IL-8, IL-1β) justifies further efforts to investigate the effects of a prolonged treatment with macrolides on airway neutrophilia and remodelling. The lack of efficacy of ceftiofur suggests that severe equine asthma should not be treated with antibiotics at first-line therapy.

Azithromycin as an add-on treatment for persistent uncontrolled asthma in adults: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical management of asthma remains a public challenge. Despite standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), asthma remains uncontrolled in a substantial number of chronic asthma patients who risk reduced lung function and severe exacerbations. Azithromycin could have add-on effects for these patients. This study is proposed to systematically evaluate the efficacy of azithromycin as an add-on treatment for adults with persistent uncontrolled symptomatic asthma.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers will perform a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and four Chinese electronic databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), WanFang Data and VIP Database from inception to May 2019. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. There is no restriction on language or publication status. Combined oral azithromycin and an ICS or/and a LABA will be compared with standard treatment alone or with a placebo. The primary outcomes are the number or frequency of asthma exacerbations, changes in asthma symptoms and lung function. Secondary outcomes include the number or frequency of inhalations of beta-agonists with or without corticosteroids for rescue use, eosinophil counts in blood or sputum, adverse events and others. A meta-analysis will be attempted to provide an estimate of the pooled treatment effect. Otherwise, qualitative descriptions of individual studies will be given.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required because no primary data will be collected. Study findings will be presented at scientific conferences or published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019117272.

The efficacy and safety of long-term add-on treatment of azithromycin in asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Effects of azithromycin on asthma reported in clinical trials are less consistent. We aimed to further clarify the efficacy and safety of azithromycin in treatment of asthma.

METHODS

The protocol registration number was CRD42017074318 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and Wanfang databases for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with prolonged treatment of azithromycin for more than 3 weeks. Random-effects or fixed-effects model was applied to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous data respectively.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included for analysis. The pooled result of adjunctive azithromycin therapy in asthma showed a small, but statistically significant increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD = 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.12, P = .02), but no significant differences in exacerbation frequency (MD = -0.42, 95%CI: -1.13 to 0.30, P = .25) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) (MD = 0.20, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.44, P = .12), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (MD = 4.12, 95% CI: -2.06 to 10.30, P = .19), asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) (MD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.17 to 0.28, P = .65), asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) (MD: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.15, P = .75). The subgroup analysis revealed that azithromycin could decrease FeNO among Asian asthma (MD = 15.04, 95% CI: 6.18-23.90, P = .0009).

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on therapy of azithromycin in asthma patients could improve the FEV1, but failed to improve asthma exacerbations, PEF, ACQ, AQLQ, and FeNO. Subgroup analysis indicated that azithromycin could improve FeNO in Asian group asthmatics.

The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in asthma: A systematic review

Azithromycin is a potential therapeutic choice for asthma control, which is a heterogeneous airway inflammatory disease. Because of variable findings, we intend to evaluate the therapeutic effect and safety of azithromycin in asthma. Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CNKI until 31 December 2017, were searched to identify available randomised controlled trials regarding azithromycin treatment for asthma. We identified seven studies involving 1520 cases that met our criteria. The mean difference for lung function (FEV1 , FVC, PEF), symptom assessment (ACQ, AQLQ), airway inflammation, and risk ratios for adverse events were extracted. Chi-square and I2 tests were applied to evaluate the heterogeneity among the studies towards each index with a random effect model or a fixed effect model. Pooled analysis shows that azithromycin administration results in no significant improvement in FEV1 (MD: 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.29, P = 0.36), PEF (MD: 11.76; 95% CI, -2.86 to 26.38, P = 0.11), total airway inflammatory cells (MD: -0.29; 95% CI, -1.38 to 0.80, P =  0.60), ACQ (MD: 0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.19, P = 0.44), and AQLQ (MD: 0.12; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.26, P =  0.10). Moreover, no significant difference was detected in adverse events (Risk ratio 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19, P = 0.90). These findings demonstrate no beneficial clinical outcome of azithromycin in asthma control, and we propose that further prospective cohorts are warranted.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Treatment of asthma in smokers: A questionnaire survey in Japanese clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Cigarette smoking in patients with asthma leads to poor symptom control. As patients who are current smokers have been excluded from enrollment in many clinical trials on asthma, there are few reports on the treatment in current smokers with asthma. In this study, we aimed to assess how respiratory physicians manage asthma in current smokers in Japan.

METHODS

Respiratory physicians in 16 Japanese hospitals answered a questionnaire on treatment for patients with asthma between December 2014 and February 2015. Medical records were reviewed for 1756 patients with asthma.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 61.1 years, and 62.9% of the patients were female. A total of 102 patients (5.8%) were current smokers, and 546 patients (31.1%) were former smokers. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) were prescribed more frequently for current smokers with asthma than for former smokers and never smokers with asthma (10.8% vs 4.6%, p = 0.01, 10.8% vs 3.8%, p < 0.01). In contrast, macrolides were prescribed more frequently for former smokers and never smokers with asthma than for current smokers with asthma (7.7% vs 1.0%, p = 0.01, 6.4% vs 1.0%, p = 0.03). Triple therapy, i.e., inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta agonists, and LAMA concomitantly, was prescribed for current smokers with asthma more frequently than for former smokers and never smokers with asthma (9.8% vs 4.0%, p = 0.01, 9.8% vs 3.3%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this survey, current smokers with asthma received more intensive therapy, including LAMA, than did former smokers with asthma.

Challenges in the management of asthma associated with smoking-induced airway diseases

INTRODUCTION

Smoking-induced airway diseases such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and small airway dysfunction contribute to the chronic respiratory symptoms experienced by adults with asthma, including those with spirometric chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), termed asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). Drug treatment of symptomatic smokers with asthma or ACO is uncertain due to their exclusion from most clinical trials.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes evidence for the efficacy of small molecule drugs used in the clinic to treat current and former smokers with a diagnostic label of asthma or ACO. Other therapeutic interventions are reviewed, including smoking cessation and biologics.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical trials and observational studies suggest that smoking cessation and approved drugs used to treat non-smokers with asthma produce clinical benefits in smokers with asthma or ACO, although the overall quality of evidence is low. The efficacy of some treatments for asthma is altered in current smokers, including reduced responsiveness to short-term inhaled corticosteroids and possibly improved responsiveness to leukotriene receptor antagonists. Preliminary findings suggest that low-dose theophylline, statins, and biologics, such as omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab, may improve clinical outcomes in smokers with asthma or ACO. Improved phenotyping and endotyping of asthma and smoking-induced airway diseases should lead to better targeted therapies.

Towards precision medicine in severe asthma: Treatment algorithms based on treatable traits

Asthma is a common disease, and although its clinical manifestations may be similar among patients, recent research discoveries have shown that it consists of several distinct clinical clusters or phenotypes, each with different underlying molecular pathways yielding different treatment responses. Based on these observations, an alternative approach - known as 'precision medicine' - has been proposed for the management of patients with severe asthma. Precision medicine advocates identification of treatable traits, linking them to therapeutic approaches targeting genetic, immunological, environmental, and/or lifestyle factors in individual patients. The main "goal" of this personalised approach is to enable choosing a treatment which will be more likely to produce a beneficial response in the individual patient rather than a 'one size fits all' approach. The aim of the present review is to discuss different ways of phenotyping asthma and to provide a rationale for treatment algorithms based on principles of precision medicine.

Antibiotics for exacerbations of asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition that affects over 300 million adults and children worldwide. It is characterised by wheeze, cough, chest tightness, and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically are intermittent and may worsen over a short time, leading to an exacerbation. Asthma exacerbations can be serious, leading to hospitalisation or even death in rare cases. Exacerbations may be treated by increasing an individual's usual medication and providing additional medication, such as oral steroids. Although antibiotics are sometimes included in the treatment regimen, bacterial infections are thought to be responsible for only a minority of exacerbations, and current guidance states that antibiotics should be reserved for cases in which clear signs, symptoms, or laboratory test results are suggestive of bacterial infection.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics in the treatment of asthma exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing antibiotic therapy for asthma exacerbations in adults or children versus placebo or usual care not involving an antibiotic. We allowed studies including any type of antibiotic, any dose, and any duration, providing the aim was to treat the exacerbation. We included parallel studies of any duration conducted in any setting and planned to include cluster trials. We excluded cross-over trials. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), all with a fixed-effect model. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit/high dependence unit (ICU/HDU) admission, duration of symptoms/exacerbations, and all adverse events. Seconday outcomes were mortality, length of hospital admission, relapse after index presentation, and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR).

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies met our inclusion criteria and included a total of 681 adults and children with exacerbations of asthma. Mean age in the three studies in adults ranged from 36.2 to 41.2 years. The three studies in children applied varied inclusion criteria, ranging from one to 18 years of age. Five studies explicitly excluded participants with obvious signs and symptoms of bacterial infection (i.e. those clearly meeting current guidance to receive antibiotics). Four studies investigated macrolide antibiotics, and two studies investigated penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin) antibiotics; both studies using penicillin were conducted over 35 years ago. Five studies compared antibiotics versus placebo, and one was open-label. Study follow-up ranged from one to twelve weeks. Trials were of varied methodological quality, and we were able to perform only limited meta-analysis.None of the included trials reported ICU/HDU admission, although one participant in the placebo group of a study including children with status asthmaticus experienced a respiratory arrest and was ventilated. Four studies reported asthma symptoms, but we were able to combine results for only two macrolide studies of 416 participants; the MD in diary card symptom score was -0.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.08), with lower scores (on a 7 point scale) denoting improved symptoms. Two macrolide studies reported symptom-free days. One study of 255 adults authors reported the percentage of symptom-free days at 10 days as 16% in the antibiotic group and 8% in the placebo group. In a further study of 40 children study authors reported significantly more symptom-free days at all time points in the antibiotic group compared with the usual care group. The same study reported the duration in days of the index asthma exacerbation, again favouring the antibiotic group. One study of a penicillin including 69 participants reported asthma symptoms at hospital discharge; the between-group difference for both studies was reported as non-significant.We combined data for serious adverse events from three studies involving 502 participants, but events were rare; the three trials reported only 10 events: five in the antibiotic group and five in the placebo group. We combined data for all adverse events (AEs) from three studies, but the effect estimate is imprecise (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43). No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.Two studies investigating penicillins reported admission duration; neither study reported a between-group difference. In one study (263 participants) of macrolides, two participants in each arm were reported as experiencing a relapse, defined as a further exacerbation, by the six-week time points. We combined PEFR endpoint results at 10 days for two macrolide studies; the result favoured antibiotics over placebo (MD 23.42 L/min, 95% CI 5.23 to 41.60). One study in children reported the maximum peak flow recorded during the follow-up period, favouring the clarithromycin group, but the confidence interval includes no difference (MD 38.80, 95% CI -11.19 to 88.79).Grading of outcomes ranged from moderate to very low quality, with quality of outcomes downgraded for suspicion of publication bias, indirectness, imprecision, and poor methodological quality of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence that antibiotics given at the time of an asthma exacerbation may improve symptoms and PEFR at follow-up compared with standard care or placebo. However, findings were inconsistent across the six heterogeneous studies included, two of the studies were conducted over 30 years ago and most of the participants included in this review were recruited from emergency departments, limiting the applicability of findings to this population. Therefore we have limited confidence in the results. We found insufficient evidence about several patient-important outcomes (e.g. hospital admission) to form conclusions. We were unable to rule out a difference between groups in terms of all adverse events, but serious adverse events were rare.

Glucocortiosteroid subsensitivity and asthma severity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Glucocorticosteroids (GCSs) remain the cornerstone of therapy for treating the inflammatory component of asthma. Clinical response to GCS is heterogeneous, varying both within asthma 'endotypes', as well as the same individual. Different factors and micro-environment can alter the canonical GCS-induced signalling pathways leading to reduced efficacy, collectively termed as GCS subsensitivity, which includes the entire spectrum of steroid insensitivity and steroid resistance.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past, steroid subsensitivity has been associated with dysregulated expression of glucocorticoid-receptor isoforms, neutrophilic inflammation and Th17 cytokines, oxidative stress-inducing factors and their downstream effect on histone deacetylase activities and gene expression. The review highlights recent observations, such as GCS-induced dysregulation of key transcription factors involved in host defence, role of airway infections altering expression of critical regulatory elements like the noncoding microRNAs, and the importance of interleukin (IL)-10 in reinstating steroid response in key immune cells. Further, emerging concepts of autoimmunity triggered because of delayed resolution of eosinophilic inflammation (due to GCS subsensitivity) and observed lymphopenia (plausibly a side-effect of continued GCS use) are discussed.

SUMMARY

This review bridges concepts that have been known, and those under current investigation, providing both molecular and clinical insights to aid therapeutic strategies for optimal management of asthmatics with varying degree of steroid subsensitivity and disease severity, with particular emphasis on the PI3 kinase pathways.

The Immunomodulatory Effects of Macrolides-A Systematic Review of the Underlying Mechanisms

Background

The mechanisms underlying the non-antimicrobial immunomodulatory properties of macrolides are not well understood.

Objectives

To systematically review the evidence for the immunomodulatory properties of macrolides in humans and to describe the underlying mechanism and extent of their influence on the innate and adaptive immune system.

Methods

A systematic literature search was done in MEDLINE using the OVID interface from 1946 to December 2016 according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Original articles investigating the influence of four macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, and roxithromycin) on immunological markers in humans were included.

Results

We identified 22 randomized, controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, and 8 case–control studies investigating 47 different immunological markers (186 measurements) in 1,834 participants. The most frequently reported outcomes were a decrease in the number of neutrophils, and the concentrations of neutrophil elastase, interleukin (IL)-8, IL-6, IL-1beta, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, eosinophilic cationic protein, and matrix metalloproteinase 9. Inhibition of neutrophil function was reported more frequently than eosinophil function. A decrease in T helper (Th) 2 cells cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-6) was reported more frequently than a decrease in Th1 cytokines (IL-2, INF-gamma).

Conclusion

Macrolides influence a broad range of immunological mechanisms resulting in immunomodulatory effects. To optimize the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases by macrolides, further studies are necessary, particularly comparing different macrolides and dose effect relationships.

An algorithmic approach for the treatment of severe uncontrolled asthma

A small subgroup of patients with asthma suffers from severe disease that is either partially controlled or uncontrolled despite intensive, guideline-based treatment. These patients have significantly impaired quality of life and although they constitute <5% of all asthma patients, they are responsible for more than half of asthma-related healthcare costs. Here, we review a definition for severe asthma and present all therapeutic options currently available for these severe asthma patients. Moreover, we suggest a specific algorithmic treatment approach for the management of severe, difficult-to-treat asthma based on specific phenotype characteristics and biomarkers. The diagnosis and management of severe asthma requires specialised experience, time and effort to comprehend the needs and expectations of each individual patient and incorporate those as well as his/her specific phenotype characteristics into the management planning. Although some new treatment options are currently available for these patients, there is still a need for further research into severe asthma and yet more treatment options.

Stepwise approach for the treatment of severe asthmahttp://ow.ly/rLPl30i0TyZ

Targeted Therapy for Older Patients with Uncontrolled Severe Asthma: Current and Future Prospects

Severe asthma in the elderly places a high burden on affected individuals and society. Emerging therapies target specific phenotypes of the asthma disease spectrum, and can be beneficial for older asthmatics, albeit their response might be altered due to age-related characteristics. Paradoxically, these characteristics are often ground for exclusion from clinical trials. The question thus arises how the senior asthmatic population can successfully enter the era of targeted therapy. Therefore, we highlight characteristics of this population relevant to effective treatment, and review the evidence for targeted therapy in elderly patients. For targeted therapy it is important to account for aging, as this affects the distribution of phenotypes (e.g. late-onset asthma, non-eosinophilic asthma) and may alter biomarkers and drug metabolism. Elderly asthmatics suffer from age-related comorbidities and subsequent polypharmacy. A systematic search into targeted asthma therapy yielded no randomized clinical trials dedicated to older asthmatics. Post hoc analyses of the anti-immunoglobulin E agent omalizumab indicate similar efficacy in both younger and older adults. Conference abstracts on anti-interleukin-5 and anti-interleukin-13 therapy suggest even more pronounced effects of targeted treatments in late-onset disease and in asthmatic patients 65 years or older, but full reports are lacking. For non-eosinophilic asthma in the elderly, there is not yet high-level evidence for targeted therapy, but macrolides may offer a viable option. In conclusion, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the effect of older age on the safety and efficacy of targeted asthma therapy. Further investigations in the elderly are needed, with special emphasis on both late-onset asthma and therapeutics for non-eosinophilic asthma.

Management of the Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome (ACOS): a Review of the Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Examine the definition of the asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) and current treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with the ACOS have a lower quality of life and suffer from more complications than those affected by either disease alone. Diagnosis of ACOS is difficult because of the clinical similarities between the two diseases and the various phenotypes that comprise the syndrome. Defining treatment strategies for ACOS has been challenging because many clinical trials for asthma therapy have purposefully excluded patients with features of COPD, and COPD clinical trials have not included patients who might have an asthmatic component to their disease. Therefore, there are few randomized treatment trials which have included patients who have ACOS. Smoking cessation and appropriate vaccinations are cornerstone therapies, and pharmacologic therapy has focused on bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids. The role of biologics, such as omalizumab and IL-5 antagonists, in ACOS treatment is still being defined. As of now, with the paucity of randomized control trials guiding treatment strategies, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend treating ACOS according to the dominant phenotype.

New and developing non-adrenoreceptor small molecule drugs for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or in combination with an inhaled long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) are the preferred long-term treatment for adults and adolescents with symptomatic asthma. Additional drugs include leukotriene-receptor antagonists, slow-release theophylline and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (approved in 2015). There is a need for more effective therapies, as many patients continue to have poorly controlled asthma. Areas covered: New and developing long-acting non-adrenoreceptor synthetic drugs for the treatment of symptomatic chronic asthma despite treatment with an ICS alone or combined with a LABA. Data was reviewed from studies published up until November 2016. Expert opinion: Tiotropium improves lung function and has a modest effect in reducing exacerbations when added to ICS alone or ICS and LABA. The LAMAs umeclidinium and glycopyrronium are under development in fixed dose combination with ICS and LABA. Novel small molecule drugs, such as CRTH2 receptor antagonists, PDE₄ inhibitors, protein kinase inhibitors and nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonists and 'off-label' use of licensed drugs, such as macrolides and statins are under investigation for asthma, although their effectiveness in clinical practice is not established. To better achieve the goal of developing effective novel small molecule drugs for asthma will require greater understanding of mechanisms of disease and the different phenotypes and endotypes of asthma.

Korean Asthma Guideline 2014: Summary of Major Updates to the Korean Asthma Guideline 2014

Asthma is a prevalent and serious health problem in Korea. Recently, the Korean Asthma Guideline has been updated by The Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (KATRD) in an effort to improve the clinical management of asthma. This guideline focuses on adult patients with asthma and aims to deliver up to date scientific evidence and recommendations to general physicians for the management of asthma. For this purpose, this guideline was updated following systematic review and meta-analysis of recent studies and adapting some points of international guidelines (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] report 2014, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program [NAEPP] 2007, British Thoracic Society [BTS/SIGN] asthma guideline 2012, and Canadian asthma guideline 2012). Updated issues include recommendations derived using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) model, which produced 20 clinical questions on the management of asthma. It also covers a new definition of asthma, the importance of confirming various airflow limitations with spirometry, the epidemiology and the diagnostic flow of asthma in Korea, the importance and evidence for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and ICS/formoterol as a single maintenance and acute therapy in the stepwise management of asthma, assessment of severity of asthma and management of exacerbation, and an action plan to cope with exacerbation. This guideline includes clinical assessments, and treatment of asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome, management of asthma in specific conditions including severe asthma, elderly asthma, cough variant asthma, exercise-induced bronchial contraction, etc. The revised Korean Asthma Guideline is expected to be a useful resource in the management of asthma.

Novel approaches to the management of noneosinophilic asthma

Noneosinophilic airway inflammation occurs in approximately 50% of patients with asthma. It is subdivided into neutrophilic or paucigranulocytic inflammation, although the proportion of each subtype is uncertain because of variable cut-off points used to define neutrophilia. This article reviews the evidence for noneosinophilic inflammation being a target for therapy in asthma and assesses clinical trials of licensed drugs, novel small molecules and biologics agents in noneosinophilic inflammation. Current symptoms, rate of exacerbations and decline in lung function are generally less in noneosinophilic asthma than eosinophilic asthma. Noneosinophilic inflammation is associated with corticosteroid insensitivity. Neutrophil activation in the airways and systemic inflammation is reported in neutrophilic asthma. Neutrophilia in asthma may be due to corticosteroids, associated chronic pulmonary infection, altered airway microbiome or delayed neutrophil apoptosis. The cause of poorly controlled noneosinophilic asthma may differ between patients and involve several mechanism including neutrophilic inflammation, T helper 2 (Th2)-low or other subtypes of airway inflammation or corticosteroid insensitivity as well as noninflammatory pathways such as airway hyperreactivity and remodelling. Smoking cessation in asthmatic smokers and removal from exposure to some occupational agents reduces neutrophilic inflammation. Preliminary studies of 'off-label' use of licensed drugs suggest that macrolides show efficacy in nonsmokers with noneosinophilic severe asthma and statins, low-dose theophylline and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) agonists may benefit asthmatic smokers with noneosinophilic inflammation. Novel small molecules targeting neutrophilic inflammation, such as chemokine (CXC) receptor 2 (CXCR2) antagonists reduce neutrophils, but do not improve clinical outcomes in studies to date. Inhaled phosphodiesterase (PDE)4 inhibitors, dual PDE3 and PDE4 inhibitors, p38MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase) inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and PI (phosphoinositide) 3kinase inhibitors are under development and these compounds may be of benefit in noneosinophilic inflammation. The results of clinical trials of biological agents targeting mediators associated with noneosinophilic inflammation, such as interleukin (IL)-17 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α are disappointing. Greater understanding of the mechanisms of noneosinophilic inflammation in asthma should lead to improved therapies.

Addressing corticosteroid insensitivity in adults with asthma

Corticosteroids are the most effective treatment for asthma, but the therapeutic response varies markedly between individuals, with up to one third of patients showing evidence of insensitivity to corticosteroids. This article summarizes information on genetic, environmental and asthma-related factors as well as demographic and pharmacokinetic variables associated with corticosteroid insensitivity in asthma. Molecular mechanisms proposed to explain corticosteroid insensitivity are reviewed including alterations in glucocorticoid receptor subtype, binding and nuclear translocation, increased proinflammatory transcription factors and defective histone acetylation. Current therapies and future interventions that may restore corticosteroid sensitivity in asthma are discussed, including small molecule drugs and biological agents. In the future, biomarkers may be used in the clinic to predict corticosteroid sensitivity in patients with poorly controlled asthma.

The design of novel classes of macrolides for neutrophil-dominated inflammatory diseases

Neutrophil-dominated inflammatory diseases, like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, bronchiectasis, bronchiolitis obliteras syndrome and non-eosinophilic asthma, present a significant medical problem lacking adequate therapy. Macrolide antibiotics have been reported to be effective in the treatment of the aforementioned diseases, for reasons unrelated to their antibacterial action. This has resulted in research activities aimed at gaining a better understanding of the immunomodulatory actions of macrolides and the synthesis of various novel anti-inflammatory macrolides without antimicrobial activity. Despite the difficult chemistry and lack of an extensive knowledge for their mechanism of action, several interesting molecules from this class, including potential clinical candidates, are on the horizon.

Macrolide antibiotics for treatment of asthma in adults: a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled clinical studies

Mounting studies have been showed that long-term macrolides used in patients with asthma could improve the lung function and symptoms. However, a large number of studies have reported inconclusive results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of macrolide antibiotics in patients with asthma. We have performed a search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and Wanfang databases. The weighed mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to evaluate the pooled effect. Statistical analysis was performed by STATA 11.0 software. Totally 1306 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall results indicated that statistically significance of long-term macrolides therapy in patients with asthma on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (WMD: 0.11, P < 0.01), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (SMD: 0.25, P = 0.001), airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR) (SMD: 0.90, P = 0.04), forced vital capacity (FVC) (WMD: 0.18, P = 0.05) and FEV1/FVC (WMD: 1.93, P < 0.001), but no statistically significance on FEV1/predict, FVC/predict, symptom scores, quality of life scores (QOL), reliever inhaler puffs per 24 h, and cell counts in sputum and blood. The subgroup analysis indicated macrolides could increase FEV1 and PEF in Caucasian and Asian, decrease AHR in Caucasian, while cells counts of sputum improvement among Asian. Therefore, the study suggested that long-term marolides therapy in asthma may improved the FEV1, PEF, AHR, FVC, FEV1/FVC and cells counts in sputum, but it can't improve other lung function (FEV1/predict and FVC/predict) and clinical outcomes (such as symptom, quality of life etc.).

The role of macrolides in asthma: current evidence and future directions

Macrolides, such as clarithromycin and azithromycin, possess antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties. They represent a potential therapeutic option for asthma, a chronic inflammatory disorder characterised by airway hyper-responsiveness that leads to recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness, and coughing. Results from clinical trials, however, have been contentious. The findings could be confounded by many factors, including the heterogeneity of asthma, treatment duration, dose, and differing outcome measures. Recent evidence suggests improved effectiveness of macrolides in patients with sub-optimally controlled severe neutrophilic asthma and in asthma exacerbations. We examine the evidence from clinical trials and discuss macrolide properties and their relevance to the pathophysiology of asthma. At present, the use of macrolides in chronic asthma or acute exacerbations is not justified. Further work, including proteomic, genomic, and microbiome studies, will advance our knowledge of asthma phenotypes, and help to identify a macrolide-responsive subgroup. Future clinical trials should target this subgroup and place emphasis on clinically relevant outcomes such as asthma exacerbations.