Step-down from high dose fixed combination therapy in asthma patients: a randomized 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.

Is Inhaler Technique Adequately Assessed and Reported in Clinical Trials of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Therapy? A Systematic Review and Suggested Best Practice Checklist

BACKGROUND

Inhaled medications are central to treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), yet critical inhaler technique errors are made by up to 90% of patients. In the clinical research setting, recruitment of subjects with poor inhaler technique may give a false impression of both the benefits and the necessity of add-on treatments such as biologic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the frequency with which inhaler technique is assessed and reliably optimized before and during patient enrollment into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the efficacy of topical therapy, and the escalation of therapy for asthma and COPD.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted of PubMed and Embase for RCTs published in the past 10 years involving patients with a diagnosis of asthma or COPD undergoing escalation of baseline inhaled therapy (stepping up, changing, adding, switching, increasing, etc) or the introduction of biologic agents.

RESULTS

Searches highlighted 1,014 studies, 118 of which were eligible after the removal of duplicates as well as screening and full text review. Of these, only 14 (11.9%) included accessible information in the methods section or referred to such information in online supplements or protocols concerning assessment of participants' inhaler technique. We therefore developed the proposed Best Practice Inhaler Technique Assessment and Reporting Checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identifies a concerning lack of checking and correcting inhaler technique, or at least reporting that this was undertaken, before enrollment in asthma and COPD RCTs, which may affect the conclusions drawn. Mandating the use of a standardized checklist in RCT protocols and ensuring all published RCTs report checking and correcting inhaler technique before enrollment are important next steps.

Extrafine HFA-beclomethasone-formoterol vs. nonextrafine combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting β2-agonist in patients with persistent asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Airway inflammation in asthma involves not only the central airways but extends to peripheral airways. Lung deposition may be key for an appropriate treatment of asthma. We compared the clinical effects of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone-formoterol (BDP-F) versus equipotent doses of nonextrafine combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long acting β2-agonist (ICS-LABA) in asthma.

Methods

We identified eligible studies by a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Data analysis was performed with the Review Manager 5.3.5 software (Cochrane IMS, 2014).

Results

A total of 2326 patients with asthma from ten published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were enrolled for analysis. Change from baseline in morning pre-dose peak expiratory flow (PEF), evening pre-dose PEF and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) were detected no significant differences between extrafine HFA-BDP-F and nonextrafine ICS-LABAs (p = 0.23, p = 0.99 and p = 0.23, respectively). Extrafine HFA-BDP-F did not show any greater benefit in forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF25-75%), the parameter concerning peripheral airways (MD 0.03L/s, p = 0.65; n = 877). There were no substantial differences between interventions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels or in its alveolar fraction. The overall analysis showed no significant benefit of extrafine HFA-BDP-F over nonextrafine ICS-LABA in improving Asthma Control Test (ACT) score (p = 0.30) or decreasing the number of puffs of rescue medication use (p = 0.16). Extrafine HFA-BDP-F did not lead to less exacerbations than nonextrafine ICS-LABA (RR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.20; I² = 0; p = 0.15).

Conclusion

Enrolled RCTs of extrafine HFA-BDP-F have demonstrated no significant advantages over the equivalent combination of nonextrafine ICS-LABA in improving pulmonary function concerning central airways or peripheral airways, improving asthma symptom control or reducing exacerbation rate.

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.

The Asthma Controller Step-down Yardstick

Asthma guidelines recommend a control-based approach to disease management in which the assessment of impairment and risk is linked to step-based therapy. Using this model, controller treatment is adjusted-upward or downward-according to a patient's level of asthma control over time. Strategies for stepping up controller therapy are well described, and the adult and pediatric Asthma Yardsticks provide operational recommendations based on patient profiles. Strategies for stepping down controller treatment are less clear, although stepping down to the minimum effective therapy is important and should be considered when a patient's asthma has been well controlled for an adequate period as defined by risk and impairment. This Yardstick presents recommendations for when and how to step down asthma controller therapy according to guideline-defined control levels. The objective is to provide clinicians who treat patients with asthma with a practical and clinically relevant framework for implementing a step-down in controller therapy.

A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of Changing to and Stepping Down Fluticasone/Formoterol in Asthma

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend reducing treatment in patients with well-controlled asthma after 3 months of stability. However, there is inadequate real-life data to guide physicians on therapy change in daily practice.

OBJECTIVE

To assess asthma control after change to and step-down of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FP/FOR) in real-life patients.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled, pragmatic, open-label trial, 225 well-controlled patients with asthma were randomized (1:2) to maintain high-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL, 1000/100 μg) or switch to FP/FOR (1000/40 μg) daily for 12 weeks (phase 1). One hundred sixteen patients stable on FP/FOR at week 12 were subsequently randomized (1:1) to maintain this therapy, or stepped down to FP/FOR (500/20 μg) daily for 12 weeks (phase 2). The primary end point was the 7-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ7) score.

RESULTS

In phase 1, FP/FOR (1000/40 μg) (n = 126) was noninferior to FP/SAL (1000/100 μg) (n = 73) for ACQ7 (difference in means, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.09). In phase 2, FP/FOR (500/20 μg) (n = 52) was noninferior to FP/FOR (1000/40 μg) (n = 52) for ACQ7 (difference in means, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.22). There was no significant difference in exacerbation rate between the groups in either phase. However, 1 to 2 exacerbations in 12 months before phase 1 were associated with the occurrence of an exacerbation after step-down (P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with well-controlled asthma, a change from FP/SAL to FP/FOR did not compromise asthma control. Step-down of FP/FOR was well tolerated; however, in contrast to current guidelines, our data suggest caution in stepping down patients uncontrolled in the last 12 months. Larger step-down studies are required to confirm these findings.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroid particle size on asthma efficacy and safety outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the primary treatment for persistent asthma. Currently available ICS have differing particle size due to both formulation and propellant, and it has been postulated that this may impact patient outcomes. This structured literature review and meta-analysis compared the effect of small and standard particle size ICS on lung function, symptoms, rescue use (when available) and safety in patients with asthma as assessed in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE was performed to identify RCTs (1998–2014) evaluating standard size (fluticasone propionate-containing medications) versus small particle size ICS medication in adults and children with asthma. Efficacy outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), symptom scores, % predicted forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF_25–75%)_, and rescue medication use. Safety outcomes were also evaluated when available.

Results

Twenty-three independent trials that met the eligibility criteria were identified. Benefit-risk plots did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful differences across the five efficacy endpoints considered and no appreciable differences were noted for most safety endpoints. Meta-analysis results, using a random-effects model, demonstrated no significant difference between standard and small size particle ICS medications in terms of effects on mean change from baseline FEV₁ (L) (−0.011, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.037, 0.014 [N = 3524]), morning PEF (L/min) (medium/low doses: −3.874, 95% CI: −10.915, 3.166 [N = 1911]; high/high-medium doses: 5.551, 95% CI: −1.948, 13.049 [N = 749]) and FEF_{25–75% predicted} (−2.418, 95% CI: −6.400; 1.564 [N = 115]).

Conclusions

Based on the available literature, no clinically significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed comparing small and standard particle size ICS medications for the treatment of asthma.

Trial registration

GSK Clinical Study Register No: 202012.

High strength extrafine pMDI beclometasone/formoterol (200/6 μg) is effective in asthma patients not adequately controlled on medium-high dose of inhaled corticosteroids

Background

A high strength of beclomethasone/formoterol fumarate (BDP/FF) in a pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI), which contains extrafine BDP (200 μg/actuation) and FF (6 μg/actuation) has been developed to treat those asthmatics who are not adequately controlled on previous treatments.

Methods

A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of pMDI BDP/FF 200/6 (two actuations bid) with BDP 100 μg (four actuation bid) in a population of 376 randomized adult asthmatics not adequately controlled with high dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or medium dose of ICS plus long acting β₂agonists (LABA).

Results

The primary endpoint [change from baseline over the entire treatment period in average pre-dose morning peak expiratory flow (PEF)] demonstrated the superiority of BDP/FF over BDP monotherapy, with an adjusted mean difference of 19 L/min, which is above the minimal important clinical difference reported for this parameter. Overall, BDP/FF and BDP showed a similar improvement of symptom-based parameters and of the use of rescue medication after 3-month treatment. The safety profile of the two drugs was comparable, although BDP monotherapy, but not BDP/FF, slightly reduced the levels of serum cortisol.

Conclusions

The study proved that pMDI BDP/FF 200/6 μg was superior to BDP alone in improving lung function with comparable safety profiles. Therefore it may be considered as an effective treatment for adults with asthma not adequately controlled with high dose of ICS monotherapy or medium dose of ICS/LABA combinations.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01577082, date 06/04/2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0335-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Manifesto on small airway involvement and management in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an Interasma (Global Asthma Association - GAA) and World Allergy Organization (WAO) document endorsed by Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN)

Evidence that enables us to identify, assess, and access the small airways in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has led INTERASMA (Global Asthma Association) and WAO to take a position on the role of the small airways in these diseases.

Starting from an extensive literature review, both organizations developed, discussed, and approved the manifesto, which was subsequently approved and endorsed by the chairs of ARIA and GA²LEN. The manifesto describes the evidence gathered to date and defines and proposes issues on small airway involvement and management in asthma and COPD with the aim of challenging assumptions, fostering commitment, and bringing about change.

The small airways (defined as those with an internal diameter <2 mm) are involved in the pathogenesis of asthma and COPD and are the major determinant of airflow obstruction in these diseases. Various tests are available for the assessment of the small airways, and their results must be integrated to confirm a diagnosis of small airway dysfunction.

In asthma and COPD, the small airways play a key role in attempts to achieve disease control and better outcomes. Small-particle inhaled formulations (defined as those that, owing to their size [usually <2 μm], ensure more extensive deposition in the lung periphery than large molecules) have proved beneficial in patients with asthma and COPD, especially those in whom small airway involvement is predominant.

Functional and biological tools capable of accurately assessing the lung periphery and more intensive use of currently available tools are necessary. In patients with suspected COPD or asthma, small airway involvement must be assessed using currently available tools. In patients with subotpimal disease control and/or functional or biological signs of disease activity, the role of small airway involvement should be assessed and treatment tailored. Therefore, the choice between large- and small-particle inhaled formulations must reflect the physician’s considerations of disease features, phenotype, and response to previous therapy.

This article is being co-published in Asthma Research and Practice and the World Allergy Organization Journal.

Manifesto on small airway involvement and management in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an Interasma (Global Asthma Association - GAA) and World Allergy Organization (WAO) document endorsed by Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN)

Evidence that enables us to identify, assess, and access the small airways in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has led INTERASMA (Global Asthma Association) and WAO to take a position on the role of the small airways in these diseases.

Starting from an extensive literature review, both organizations developed, discussed, and approved the manifesto, which was subsequently approved and endorsed by the chairs of ARIA and GA²LEN. The manifesto describes the evidence gathered to date and defines and proposes issues on small airway involvement and management in asthma and COPD with the aim of challenging assumptions, fostering commitment, and bringing about change.

The small airways (defined as those with an internal diameter <2 mm) are involved in the pathogenesis of asthma and COPD and are the major determinant of airflow obstruction in these diseases. Various tests are available for the assessment of the small airways, and their results must be integrated to confirm a diagnosis of small airway dysfunction.

In asthma and COPD, the small airways play a key role in attempts to achieve disease control and better outcomes. Small-particle inhaled formulations (defined as those that, owing to their size [usually <2 μm], ensure more extensive deposition in the lung periphery than large molecules) have proved beneficial in patients with asthma and COPD, especially those in whom small airway involvement is predominant.

Functional and biological tools capable of accurately assessing the lung periphery and more intensive use of currently available tools are necessary. In patients with suspected COPD or asthma, small airway involvement must be assessed using currently available tools. In patients with subotpimal disease control and/or functional or biological signs of disease activity, the role of small airway involvement should be assessed and treatment tailored. Therefore, the choice between large- and small-particle inhaled formulations must reflect the physician’s considerations of disease features, phenotype, and response to previous therapy. This article is being co-published in Asthma Research and Practice and the World Allergy Organization Journal.

Effect of Flow Rate on In Vitro Aerodynamic Performance of NEXThaler(®) in Comparison with Diskus(®) and Turbohaler(®) Dry Powder Inhalers

Background: European and United States Pharmacopoeia compendial procedures for assessing the in vitro emitted dose and aerodynamic size distribution of a dry powder inhaler require that 4.0 L of air at a pressure drop of 4 kPa be drawn through the inhaler. However, the product performance should be investigated using conditions more representative of what is achievable by the patient population. This work compares the delivered dose and the drug deposition profile at different flow rates (30, 40, 60, and 90 L/min) of Foster NEXThaler^® (beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate), Seretide^® Diskus^® (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate), and Symbicort^® Turbohaler^® (budesonide/formoterol fumarate).

Methods: The delivered dose uniformity was tested using a dose unit sampling apparatus (DUSA) at inhalation volumes either 2.0 or 4.0 L and flow rates 30, 40, 60, or 90 L/min. The aerodynamic assessment was carried out using a Next Generation Impactor by discharging each inhaler at 30, 40, 60, or 90 L/min for a time sufficient to obtain an air volume of 4 L.

Results: Foster^® NEXThaler^® and Seretide^® Diskus^® showed a consistent dose delivery for both the drugs included in the formulation, independently of the applied flow rate. Contrary, Symbicort^® Turbohaler^® showed a high decrease of the emitted dose for both budesonide and formoterol fumarate when the device was operated at airflow rate lower that 60 L/min. The aerosolizing performance of NEXThaler^® and Diskus^® was unaffected by the flow rate applied. Turbohaler^® proved to be the inhaler most sensitive to changes in flow rate in terms of fine particle fraction (FPF) for both components. Among the combinations tested, Foster NEXThaler^® was the only one capable to deliver around 50% of extra-fine particles relative to delivered dose.

Conclusions: NEXThaler^® and Diskus^® were substantially unaffected by flow rate through the inhaler in terms of both delivered dose and fine particle mass.

Small-airway disease in asthma: pharmacological considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pharmacological considerations and rationale for treating small-airway disease in asthma via the inhaled and systemic route, and to also directly address the comparison between small vs. large aerosol particles in the management of asthmatic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Airway inflammation in patients with asthma is predominantly present within the small airways and this region is the main contributor to airflow limitation. Assessing small-airway dysfunction has advanced in the last decade, allowing us to compare this region in disease to health and also in response to treatment. Recent pharmaceutical developments have led to inhaler devices with smaller aerosols and systemic biologic treatments, enabling therapeutic drug delivery to the distal lung regions. The question therefore is does targeting the small airways directly translate into health benefits for asthmatic patients with respect to an improvement in their disease control and quality of life?

SUMMARY

Studies now show that treating the peripheral airways with smaller drug particle aerosols certainly achieve comparable efficacy (and some studies show superiority) compared with large particles, a reduction in the daily inhaled corticosteroid dose, and greater asthma control and quality of life in real-life studies. Hence, the small airways should not be neglected when choosing the optimal asthma therapy.

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.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of switching asthma patients from fluticasone-salmeterol to extra-fine particle beclometasone-formoterol: a retrospective matched observational study of real-world patients

BACKGROUND

Efficacy trials suggest that extra-fine particle beclometasone dipropionate-formoterol (efBDP-FOR) is comparable to fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (FP-SAL) in preventing asthma exacerbations at a clinically equivalent dosage. However, switching from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR has not been evaluated in real-world asthma patients.

AIMS

The REACH (Real-world Effectiveness in Asthma therapy of Combination inHalers) study investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of switching typical asthma patients from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR.

METHODS

A retrospective matched (1:3) observational study of 1,528 asthma patients aged 18-80 years from clinical practice databases was performed. Patients remaining on FP-SAL (n=1,146) were compared with those switched to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosage (n=382). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups for the year before and after the switch. Non-inferiority (at least equivalence) of efBDP-FOR was tested against FP-SAL by comparing exacerbation rates during the outcome year.

RESULTS

efBDP-FOR was non-inferior to FP-SAL (adjusted exacerbation rate ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.37)). Switching to efBDP-FOR resulted in significantly better (p<0.05) odds of achieving overall asthma control (no asthma-related hospitalisations, bronchial infections, or acute oral steroids; salbutamol ≤200μg/day) and lower daily short-acting β2-agonist usage at a lower daily ICS dosage (mean -130μg/day FP equivalents; p<0.001). It also reduced mean asthma-related healthcare costs by £93.63/patient/year (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma patients may be switched from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower ICS dosage with no reduction in clinical effectiveness but a significant reduction in cost.

Treatment of asthma exacerbations with the human-powered nebuliser: a randomised parallel-group clinical trial

Background:

Nebulisers aid the treatment of respiratory diseases, including asthma, but they require electricity and are often cost-prohibitive for low- and middle-income countries.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to compare a low-cost, human-powered nebuliser compressor with an electric nebuliser compressor for the treatment of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations in adults and children.

Methods:

This was a non-blinded, parallel-group, equivalence study, with 110 subjects between 6 and 65 years of age, conducted in the emergency department of a district hospital in Ilopango, El Salvador. Participants were assigned by random allocation to receive a 2.5-mg dose of salbutamol from the experimental human-powered nebuliser or the electric nebuliser control. All assigned participants completed treatment and were included in analysis. The study was not blinded as this was clinically unfeasible; however, data analysis was blinded.

Results:

The mean improvement in peak flow of the experimental and control groups was 37.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.7–48.2) l/min and 38.7 (95% CI, 26.1–51.3) l/min, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.3 (95% CI, −15.1 to 17.7) l/min. The mean improvement in percent-expected peak flow for the experimental and control groups was 12.3% (95% CI, 9.1–15.5%) and 13.8% (95% CI, 9.8–17.9%), respectively, with a mean difference of 1.5% (95% CI, −3.6 to 6.6%).

Conclusions:

The human-powered nebuliser compressor is equivalent to a standard nebuliser compressor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma. (Funded by the Opus Dean’s Fund, Marquette University College of Engineering; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01795742.)

Small airways dysfunction in asthma: evaluation and management to improve asthma control

The small airways have been neglected for many years, but interest in the topic has been rekindled with recent advances in measurement techniques to assess this region and also the ability to deliver therapeutics to the distal airways. Current levels of disease control in asthmatic patients remain poor and there are several contributory factors including; poor treatment compliance, heterogeneity of asthma phenotypes and associated comorbidities. However, the proposition that we may not be targeting all the inflammation that is present throughout the whole respiratory tree may also be an important factor. Indeed decades ago, pathologists and physiologists clearly identified the importance of small airways dysfunction in asthmatic patients. With improved inhaler technology to deliver drug to target the whole respiratory tree and more sensitive measures to assess the distal airways, we should certainly give greater consideration to treating the small airway region when seeing our asthmatic patients in clinic. The aim of this review is to address the relevance of small airways dysfunction in the daily clinical management of patients with asthma. In particular the role of small particle aerosols in the management of patients with asthma will be explored.

Stepping down from high dose fluticasone/salmeterol to extrafine BDP/F in asthma is cost-effective

BACKGROUND

GINA guideline recommends stepping down treatment of asthma patients where control is achieved. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the costs and health outcomes associated with step down of controlled patients on high dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/S 1000/100 μg daily) to either medium dose FP/S (500/100 μg) dry powder or extrafine beclometasone/formoterol (BDP/F 400/24 μg) pMDI in three European countries.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation Markov model was constructed to enable the simulation of three comparative arms (FP/S 1000/100, FP/S 500/100, BDP/F 400/24). Transition probabilities and healthcare resources consumption were derived from a multinational clinical trial comparing BDP/F 400/24 μg vs. FP/S 500/100 μg as step down therapy in asthma. Direct costs and health state utilities were sourced from public source and published literature. The analysis was conducted from a health system perspective, based on six months horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) associated with high dose dry powder FP/S 1000/100 μg vs. extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg was above 70,000 GBP and 200,000 €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). An ICER of 29,000 GBP/QALY and above 30,000 €/QALY was associated with medium dose dry powder FP/S 500/100 μg vs. BDP/F 400/24 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that maintaining controlled patients on high dose FP/S is not cost-effective. Extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg daily can be considered to be a cost-effective option in the countries analyzed to maintain control of asthmatic patients stepped down from high dose FP/S 1000/100 μg daily dry powder or suspension formulations.

Lung penetration and patient adherence considerations in the management of asthma: role of extra-fine formulations

The mainstay of management in asthma is inhalation therapy at the target site, with direct delivery of the aerosolized drug into the airways to treat inflammation and relieve obstruction. Abundant evidence is available to support the concept that inflammatory and functional changes at the level of the most peripheral airways strongly contribute to the complexity and heterogeneous manifestations of asthma. It is now largely accepted that there is a wide range of clinical phenotypes of the disease, characterized primarily by small airways involvement. Thus, an appropriate diagnostic algorithm cannot exclude biological and functional assessment of the peripheral airways. Similarly, achievement of optimal control of the disease and appropriate management of specific phenotypes of asthma should be based on drugs (and delivery options) able to distribute uniformly along the bronchial tree and to reach the most peripheral airways. Products developed with the Modulite^® technology platform have been demonstrated to meet these aims. Recent real-life studies have shown clearly that extra-fine fixed-combination inhaled therapy provides better asthma control than non-extra-fine formulations, thus translating the activity of the drugs into greater effectiveness in clinical practice. We suggest that in patients with incomplete asthma control despite good lung function, involvement of the peripheral airways should always be suspected. When this is the case, treatments targeting both the large and small airways should be used to improve asthma control. Above all, it is emphasized that patient adherence with prescribed medications can contribute to clinical success, and clinicians should always be aware of the role played by patients themselves in determining the success or failure of treatment.

Treating the small airways

The final article in this series evaluates the approaches undertaken to treating the small-airway region of the lungs and the clinical implications of inhaled therapy targeting the periphery in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.