Self-titration of inhaled corticosteroid and β2-agonist in response to symptoms in mild asthma: a pre-specified analysis from the PRACTICAL randomised controlled trial

Mild asthma: Conundrums, complexities and the need to customize care

Mild and moderate asthma cover a wide range of asthma presentations, phenotypes and symptom burden, and account for the majority of people with asthma worldwide. Mild asthma has been difficult to define because of its heterogeneity and wide spectrum of impact and outcomes, including being associated with severe exacerbations. Assessment of mild-moderate asthma is best made by combining asthma symptom control and exacerbation risk as the principle means by which to determine treatment needs. Incontrovertible evidence and guidelines support treatment initiation with anti-inflammatory medication, completely avoiding reliever-only treatment of mild asthma. Shared decision making with patients and a treatable traits approach will ensure that a holistic approach is taken to maximize patient outcomes. Most importantly, mild asthma should be regarded as a reversible, potentially curable condition, remaining in long-term remission through minimizing triggers and optimizing care.

Electronic Inhaler Monitoring for Chronic Airway Disease: Development and Application of a Multidimensional Efficacy Framework

Inhaled therapy is the cornerstone of chronic airway disease therapy, but poor adherence to controller inhalers worsens clinical outcomes and increases cost. Monitoring of controller use is needed to improve adherence, and monitoring of reliever use can predict impending exacerbations. Both can be accurately achieved by electronic inhaler monitoring (EIM). However, evidence for EIM use in clinical practice is limited and varied, and knowledge gaps remain across different outcomes and health settings. We aimed to develop a framework to assess EIM systematically across all aspects of efficacy, apply this framework to the current literature, and identify gaps in efficacy to inform future development in the field. We adapted an existing framework for diagnostic tests, consisting of six levels of efficacy with ascending clinical relevance: technical, diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic thinking, therapeutic, patient outcome, and societal efficacy. Tailoring this framework to EIM, we incorporated expert feedback and applied it to the EIM efficacy literature. We found that EIM has good diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic thinking, and therapeutic efficacies, but evidence is lacking for specific aspects of technical, patient outcome, and societal efficacies. Further development of EIM requires improved reliability, usability, and data security for patients, and optimal integration with electronic medical records and overall patient care. Defining appropriate target patient groups and pairing EIM data with effective interventions, in conjunction with reducing costs through technological innovation and economies of scale, will enhance patient and societal outcome efficacies.

Repeated dose budesonide/formoterol compared to salbutamol in adult asthma: A randomised cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the comparative bronchodilator, systemic beta2-agonist, cardiovascular and adverse effects of salbutamol 200 µg and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg when taken repeatedly in stable asthma.

METHODS

This open-label, cross-over, single-centre, controlled trial, randomised adults with asthma to different orders of two treatment regimens: salbutamol 200 µg via MDI at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, then salbutamol 2.5 mg via nebuliser at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min; or budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg one actuation via Turbuhaler at t=0, 30, 60, 90 min, two actuations at t=120, 140, 160 and 420 min. The primary outcome measure was FEV1 after 180 min. Secondary outcomes included repeat measures of FEV1, serum potassium, heart rate, and adverse events RESULTS: Of 39 patients randomised, two withdrew due to adverse events (QTCF prolongation and T wave abnormalities) after the first intervention with salbutamol. The mean (sd) change from baseline FEV1 180 min after randomisation for salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol regimens was 0.71 (0.46) L, N=38, and 0.58 (0.45) L, N=37, respectively; with a mean (sd) paired difference of -0.10 (0.40) L, N=37, and a model-based estimated difference (95% CI) -0.12 (-0.25 to 0.02) L, p=0.088. In the main secondary analysis, salbutamol resulted in significantly greater FEV1 from 30 to 240 min, but lesser FEV1 at 360 and 420 min. Salbutamol resulted in a significantly lower serum potassium, and a higher heart rate and number of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The comparative bronchodilator responses of repeated administration of salbutamol 200 µg dose-1 and budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg differed depending on the time of measurement. Salbutamol caused greater systemic beta2-agonist and cardiovascular effects and more adverse events.

Combination fixed-dose beta agonist and steroid inhaler as required for adults or children with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma affects 350 million people worldwide including 45% to 70% with mild disease. Treatment is mainly with inhalers containing beta₂-agonists, typically taken as required to relieve bronchospasm, and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as regular preventive therapy. Poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. Fixed-dose combination inhalers containing both a steroid and a fast-acting beta₂-agonist (FABA) in the same device simplify inhalers regimens and ensure symptomatic relief is accompanied by preventative therapy. Their use is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined (fast-onset beta₂-agonist plus an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal. We contacted trial authors for further information and requested details regarding the possibility of unpublished trials. The most recent search was conducted on 19 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials with at least one week washout period. We included studies of a single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA. We planned to include cluster-randomised trials if the data had been or could be adjusted for clustering. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD). We reported 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures of meta-analysis. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, hospital admissions/emergency department or urgent care visits for asthma, and measures of asthma control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies of which five contributed results to the meta-analyses. All five used budesonide 200 μg and formoterol 6 μg in a dry powder formulation as the combination inhaler. Comparator fast-acting bronchodilators included terbutaline and formoterol. Two studies included children aged 12+ and adults; two studies were open-label. A total of 9657 participants were included, with a mean age of 36 to 43 years. 2.3% to 11% were current smokers. FABA / ICS as required versus FABA as required Compared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with as-required FABA alone, any changes in asthma control or spirometry, though favouring as-required FABA/ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically-important differences. We did not find evidence of differences in asthma-associated quality of life or mortality. For other secondary outcomes FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reduces the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, 2 RCTs, 3002 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (MD -9.90, 95% CI -19.38 to -0.42, 1 RCT, 443 participants, low-certainty evidence), and with an increase in the daily inhaled steroid dose (MD 77 μg beclomethasone equiv./day, 95% CI 69 to 84, 2 RCTs, 2554 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as required There may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroid with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared to 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 FABA/ICS as required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared with regular ICS, any changes in asthma control, spirometry, peak flow rates (PFR), or asthma-associated quality of life, though favouring regular ICS, were small and less than the minimal clinically important differences (MCID). Adverse events, serious adverse events, total systemic corticosteroid dose and mortality were similar between groups, although deaths were rare, so confidence intervals for this analysis were wide. We found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials involving 7180 participants that FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to inhaled corticosteroids than those on regular ICS (MD -154.51 μg/day, 95% CI -207.94 to -101.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found FABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma. Their use instead of FABA as required alone reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely to be associated with an increase in adverse events. Further research is needed to explore use of FABA/ICS as required in children under 12 years of age, use of other FABA/ICS preparations, and long-term outcomes beyond 52 weeks.